[sdiy] Remember the Internet Archive (Re: EKO Stradivarius)

[Jimmy Moore]

For anyone not familiar with curiousmarc, this looks promising

https://youtu.be/__D_icYubDY

Happy to learn about any shortcomings though

On Sun, Apr 3, 2022, 1:03 AM jslee via Synth-diy <synth-diy at synth-diy.org>
wrote:

> In addition to Brian’s comments, if also doing OCR:
>
> * scan in greyscale, not 1-bit; in my experience (several million pages,
> using Kadmos OCR library) that helps OCR accuracy significantly
>
> * find some PDF software that lets you place the OCR text as an invisible
> layer under the image, so you can search but see the original text (and
> thus not get confused by OCR errors)
>
> Choice of scanner also makes a huge difference to workflow, and I don’t
> mean just autofeed. Stuff like Kodak’s PerfectPage tech can dramatically
> reduce post-scan cleanup work.
>
> I’ve been out of that game for a decade but it was an interesting stream
> of work and I miss it
>
> John
>
>
> On Sun, 3 Apr 2022, at 03:30, Brian Willoughby wrote:
> > Since archival is being suggested, I would like to recommend that the
> > scan be done carefully and a proper file format be chosen.
> >
> > First of all, JPEG (.jpg) is a bad format for text and line drawings
> > like schematics. The format was designed for full color photographs of
> > natural scenes, but JPEG will distort the edges of high-contrast images
> > like black ink on white paper. Choose TIFF or PNG or even fax
> > compression which are lossless.
> >
> > Second of all, sometimes it's necessary to pay attention to the color
> > of the material behind the pages when scanning, to avoid bleedthrough
> > of the image on the back side. When working on troublesome sources,
> > using 8-bit monochrome scans and then applying a little bit of contrast
> > adjustment after the scan can really help with the clarity of the image.
> >
> > I'm always appreciative of any scan, but there's always more demand
> > when no archive exists. Unfortunately, a poor scan might make it less
> > likely that someone will re-scan to make the schematics more readable.
> > I mention this because I've attempted repairs of vintage synths where
> > the specific information that I needed was obscured due to bleed
> > through and/or JPEG edge artifacts. These are reasonably easy to avoid,
> > but it's just that the automatic settings on scanners don't always do
> > the best job. It takes some careful parameter settings.
> >
> > Brian Willoughby
> >
> >
> > On Apr 2, 2022, at 08:42, Anthony Carrico <acarrico at memebeam.org> wrote:
> >> On 4/2/22 04:14, Rutger Vlek wrote:
> >>> I'm not sure what exactly you are suggesting
> >>> ...
> >>> This is a rare 70s machine, so the service manual may have never
> existed in digital form. So luttele chance of finding it in the archive. OR
> are you suggesting to put it there?
> >>
> >> Sorry--I'm suggesting putting it there!
> >>
> >> You have one of the few copies, and you have taken the first step by
> digitizing it, so you might as well take the next step and archive it. That
> way you will make the schematic available for posterity, and you will be
> able to easily refer to the archived copy in your posts to Synth-diy and
> GearSpace.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Anthony Carrico
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Synth-diy mailing list
> > Synth-diy at synth-diy.org
> > http://synth-diy.org/mailman/listinfo/synth-diy
> > Selling or trading? Use marketplace at synth-diy.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Synth-diy mailing list
> Synth-diy at synth-diy.org
> http://synth-diy.org/mailman/listinfo/synth-diy
> Selling or trading? Use marketplace at synth-diy.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://synth-diy.org/pipermail/synth-diy/attachments/20220403/97905bbf/attachment.htm>