this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2024
812 points (99.0% liked)

Mildly Interesting

17069 readers
70 users here now

This is for strictly mildly interesting material. If it's too interesting, it doesn't belong. If it's not interesting, it doesn't belong.

This is obviously an objective criteria, so the mods are always right. Or maybe mildly right? Ahh.. what do we know?

Just post some stuff and don't spam.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 months ago

Reminds me of the hours I've spent scanning in articles from print journals for interlibrary loan.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 7 months ago

Ah, this takes me back to my college times when I scanned textbooks one page at a time at the library because I couldn't afford to buy one and renting a book was scarce

[–] [email protected] 19 points 7 months ago (1 children)

There should be a law that should any book go out of print, to be digitized and made available online. Publishers shouldn't dictate which books are allowed to be consumed once they allow it out of print when digital versions cost next to nothing to make available for a nominal price.

That goes for authors owning the copyright, as well.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 7 months ago

And limited to 25 years. This 100 years is bull shit.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Firefox: Video can't be played because the file is corrupt.

Chrome: Plays audio only.

Why are we hosting things on such shonky shit?

[–] [email protected] 12 points 7 months ago (1 children)

What OS are you on? The video plays fine for me in Firefox on both Windows and Android.

Also I think the codec is more likely to blame than the hosting provider.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

Windows 10.

When I download it I can play it in VLC, and according to MediaInfo HEVC encoding.

Is HEVC support not included by default? Chrome should support it, and Firefox shouldn't support it at all according to the compatibility charts.

Maybe there's some site bullshittery going on and the site is giving out different versions of the file to different people based on region or something. The file it gives me is 2,661,216 bytes. Is that what you get?

Edit: Works in Edge, although feel like I now have to go wash my hands after firing that up.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

hevc support is not default

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Ok I take it back. It plays in Firefox on Android, but not on Windows. Also on Android, it didn't play at first, I had to refresh. I don't know what's going on lol.

I kinda doubt catbox.moe is doing any kind of smart distribution. It's a pretty simple file hosting site.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago

Found it. My Chrome has "Hardware-accelerated video decode" disabled. Apparently there's no software fall back there, so it just claims no knowledge of them.

Kind of sucks that Firefox can't play them, something to do with licensing.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Shockingly, it plays for me (both a/v) on iOS (in the voyager app)

There is no audio outside of the sound of pages turning and the machine beeping in between so you aren’t missing much in this case

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

🤘🏻 Voyager app!

I checked and it works fine for me too. In voyager, obviously.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 7 months ago

Kids in university watching this: 😯

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

Can't you ask the book company for a pdf?

[–] [email protected] 43 points 7 months ago (3 children)

We so appreciate your efforts, but ya'll need more funding so you can start working smart and not hard. From the looks of things, I see no reason why page flips can't be automated there.

I just made a donation. Please use it to save this poor woman from the tedious task you've shown us today.

[–] [email protected] 41 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I think this is one of those things that seems like it should be easy to automate, but actually has lots of hidden complexity.

They probably don't use this to scan commonly available books, because for those you can just cut the spine off the book and scan the pages in a regular scanner.

This is likely used for books that need to be preserved and can't be damaged during the scanning process.

How do you make a machine that will always turn exactly one page and never tear a page, while adapting for different page sizes and thicknesses, and avoiding the static charge that can make pages stick together? All for less money than it costs to pay people to operate this machine.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 7 months ago

Iirc they did experience with automation before and did get it to copy well...

But like you said, it would damage books pretty frequently. That's not what you'd want for old and fragile materials which are rather irreplaceable.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago
[–] [email protected] 13 points 7 months ago (1 children)

We should start doing charity style TV ads.

"You, too, can help us build page turners and save the lives of dozens of archivists. Just £2 a month will allow Margaret to finally rest."

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

Man I got some friends who are archivists, and they'd love that shit lol.

They love their field, but it's a lot of mind-numbing work

[–] [email protected] 9 points 7 months ago (3 children)

I'd just use a bandsaw to cut off the spine and stick it in a document feeder.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 7 months ago

If the book is not that easily available (old, rare), it's much better to keep it intact.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

This must be how you get "binders full of women"

[–] [email protected] 38 points 7 months ago

Leave that poor woman alone you psycho!

[–] [email protected] 8 points 7 months ago

I don't often donate since it's mostly in USD, but internet archive was one of the few that I did.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 7 months ago

Automatic page turners are unreliable?

load more comments
view more: next ›