[bksvol-discuss] Re: Puzzlement
- From: "Evan Reese" <mentat1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 12:41:02 -0500
I don't always scan in grayscale. It is true that it can usually give you
decent results, especially when the print is more difficult to read, but from
those who have proofread my scans, and from my own experience with scanning,
the results using grayscale are not always as good as what you can get from
optimizing, or even fiddling around with the settings yourself if you have some
experience. What I do is use grayscale as a default for book preliminaries
because they can often be harder to scan than the rest of the book; then once I
get to the body of the text, I optimize. I usually, but not always, use what it
optimizes to, which is usually not grayscale, although it does sometimes
optimize to that. But even optimizing isn't perfect. I started scanning a book
just a few days ago that optimized to grayscale, but I was still getting
confidence numbers below the 99.2% that I have it set to. This was a 740 page
hardcover, so I knew the scan should be very good quality, and I certainly
wanted the absolute best scan I could get because even a few extra errors here
and there add up to a lot more things to fix in a book of that size. So I set
it to static, and adjusted the brightness a couple of times and stopped getting
those confidence alerts. So even optimizing isn't perfect, and sometimes other
settings can give better results than grayscale. Don't be averse to
experimenting a little. It can make a substantial difference when it comes to
cleaning up scannoes when the book is being proofread.
Evan
----- Original Message -----
From: ohio1803@xxxxx
To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2011 1:17 AM
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: Puzzlement
Hey you guys are awesome alright.
thanks very much.
Really great to read these specific recommended K-1000 settings.
I will plan on making the changes in my settings next book scan I do.
One question...
Grayscale, huh?
I did use it one time on a big CD Boxed set that had this terrible contrast
problem. Like a shiny silver font on a dark background. And grayscale was the
only thing that I could get to work.
But boy I did find however that the 60 page document was just powerfully
huge. And it caused my machine to slow down. Though it was a machine that did
not have too much memory. I had to break it down into smaller chunks, and just
do sections and then put them together later in Rich Text.
This was not for Bookshare submission. But it is something I am always trying
to do, to read the text with new commercial music materials which often are not
otherwise available.
So, I am a little shy of the grayscale unless I know I have this contrast
problem.
Do many of you actually scan in Grayscale, then?
Thanks again.
Rik
From: Mayrie ReNae
Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2011 7:55 AM
To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: Puzzlement
HI Scott,
The section containing tips for scanning using Kurzweil 1000 still contains
the improper document. The document in this section is instructions for
proofreading using Kurzweil 1000. The scanning tips are different, and in case
anyone went looking for those instructions, I'm pasting them below.
Mayrie
Scanning a Book Using Kurzweil 1000 Version 11
The settings that I use in Kurzweil 1000 version 11.03 for preparing a book
for submission to bookshare are those that I have found to be the most
accurate. Though there are many options for differing settings, especially
scanning settings, these are the ones that give the best results in my
experience having worked on well over 500 books.
The processes that I describe for preparing the book for submission are those
that are most helpful for a proofreader, again in my experience with well over
500 books proofread.
Scanner settings are as follows:
Scan and recognize, automatic page orientation, gray-scale data, resolution
at 300 DPI.
Recognition settings:
Collumn identification disabled, two pages recognized per scan, speckle
removal disabled, Text quality is normal, partial collumns kept, suspicious
regions kept, blank pages kept, recognition engine is FineReader 8.0, English
will be recognized.
Reading settings:
Line endings will be ignored by the editor and tables will not be identified.
I do not identify tables in straight fiction because junk sometimes scans as
a table and is more of a pain to remove that way, more time consuming. I have
to know when I'll need table recognition so I can enable it. If you have a book
containing tables, you're best advised to know that before beginning to scan.
Conversion settings:
This set of settings is not available in versions earlier than version 11. In
this dialogue the only deviation from the defaults is to disable "split long
pages" wherever this option is available.
General settings: Raise the confidence level to 98.5. The default of 95.0
leaves too many errors to correct.
Save the file as a kes file under the name of the book. Convert to rtf as
bookshare requires its submissions to be in rtf format only once you have done
all clean-up.
Clean up preliminary pages and confirm accurate page count:
Label: [From The Back Cover] [From The Front Flap] [From The Back Flap][This
Page is blank.] if any blank pages exist. Read through all preliminary pages
and correct all scannos.
Determine where the publisher thought page one should go and set an opperator
defined page number there as page 1.
Check that the last page in the book is numbered properly, telling you that
you do not have any missing or duplicated pages. If the numbers don’t match,
either rescan and insert pages that you missed, or delete duplicated pages. It
is helpful to proofreaders if you insert missing page numbers if they have not
scanned at all or are unclear.
Once you have done these things, you're ready to convert your book to an rtf
file and submit it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Scott Rains
Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2011 6:22 AM
To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: Puzzlement
Volunteers,
Of course there is always a value judgement in the decision to reject but let
me publicly encourage those who are very experienced proofers and scanners to
exercise that role.
For those who are less experienced, establish a formal or informal
relationship with more experienced volunteers. Ask them to advise you on making
the call to reject or to fix. As you see from this thread much time is consumed
by not legitimately rejecting a book – including the time of the scanner who
may continue to repeat the same mistakes until given feedback.
This list is a rich source of advice on the subtleties of scanning software,
hardware, and AT. On this point, if anyone feels there is something missing in
the scanning section of the Online Manual let me know or open it for discussion
here on the list under a new Subject line. Here is a relevant section of the
manual:
https://wiki.benetech.org/display/BSO/3.+Scan+a+book#3.Scanabook-3usingassistivetechnologysoftwaretoscan
scott
From: Martha Rafter <mlhr@xxxxxxx>
Reply-To: "bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2011 06:09:10 -0800
To: "bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: Puzzlement
Hi Lori,
Sometimes when I check out a book that gives me problems right off the
bat, I simply just release it, thinking that someone else may be smarter than I
am and knows how to fix the book. It’s probably not fair for the next person,
but that is why I sometimes release a book instead of rejecting it. I think
that you did the right thing; good for you!
Marty
From: Lori Castner
Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2011 8:46 PM
To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Puzzlement
Today I checked out a book that had been on the checkout list for a number of
months. Three or so people had checked out this book and released it.
When I looked at the book I saw it had a number of styles. Per an email from
Misha (excuse spelling) that I had kept I removed styles. Then I changed
section breaks to page breaks.
Then I found that the book had very few page numbers and that those numbers
did not line up at all with the number of pages between the numbered pages.
There was no way to determine where page breaks really should occur and where
to make the appropriate number of page numbers to align the material on the
appropriate pages.
Finally, I rejected the book.
Now, I really would prefer not to reject a book, but sometimes it is really
necessary to do so and part of our volunteer responsibility to do so.
I can't really understand why I am the first person who checked out the book
who was willing to reject it. I'm not hard-hearted, but there was no way to
get the book in the necessary shape to add it to the collection.
Feeling like an ogre,
Lori C.
Other related posts:
