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

Mildly Interesting

17334 readers
4 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
[–] ech@lemm.ee 146 points 9 months ago (19 children)

WHY do people think everything needs to be cropped to hell just to fit on their phone. The screen rotates. Just twist it around ya lazy bastards.

Anyhow, here's a link to the full size video that isn't pointlessly cut down by 75%: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QThaHpkFVzw

[–] AnActOfCreation@programming.dev 13 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (4 children)

This video comes from the official Internet Archive TikTok page. I'm not sure if that makes it better or worse lol!

https://www.tiktok.com/@weareinternetarchive/video/7329355972428696874

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 7 points 9 months ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

https://www.piped.video/watch?v=QThaHpkFVzw

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] Grumpydaddy@lemmy.world 86 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Looks like two pages at a time to me.

[–] xor@infosec.pub 24 points 9 months ago (3 children)

each piece of paper is a page, since they do the front of one and the back of another at the same time, it's one page total...

[–] Grumpydaddy@lemmy.world 42 points 9 months ago (1 children)

One Sheet, Two Pages A sheet of paper has two sides. Each side is considered one page. So a single sheet of unfolded paper is two pages.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] A7thStone@lemmy.world 18 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Is that why each sheet of paper has the same page number on both sides in books? Oh wait they don't.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] vynlwombat@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] guyrocket@kbin.social 58 points 9 months ago

Thank you, Internet Archive.

[–] Thorned_Rose@kbin.social 52 points 9 months ago

Please remember to make a donation to the Internet Archive for the invaluable work they do!

[–] Ohi@lemmy.world 43 points 9 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.

[–] IndefiniteBen@leminal.space 41 points 9 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.

[–] droans@lemmy.world 10 points 9 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] activ8r@sh.itjust.works 13 points 9 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."

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online 9 points 9 months ago (3 children)

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

[–] Gloomy@mander.xyz 38 points 9 months ago

Leave that poor woman alone you psycho!

[–] antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 9 months ago

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Wistful@discuss.tchncs.de 30 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Wow that seems painfully slow/tedious. Why isn't it automatized? I think I saw a robot do like 20 pages a second on a yt some years ago.

[–] aeronmelon@lemmy.world 47 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Do you remember the results of those speed scans? Crooked pages, parts of the document cut off, blurry scans, etc.

It was a lazy method that resulted in a lot of junk data.

[–] Wistful@discuss.tchncs.de 21 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I think this is what I saw. Not quite 20 pages/s hahah and also a different method.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Dave@lemmy.nz 15 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Google have digitised a lot of books using some more advanced tech, though they started out with something a little like this.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] prenatal_confusion@lemmy.one 8 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

That would be interesting to see!

This is probably the method that gives you the best quality (deskewing, lighting) without cutting the back of the book and feeding it into a scanner. (AFAIK)

I saw a book scanner similar to this one that used a vacuum to turn pages but otherwise same principle.

[–] AlmightySnoo@lemmy.world 24 points 9 months ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Bravebellows@lemmy.world 19 points 9 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.

[–] echindod@programming.dev 10 points 9 months ago

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

[–] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 19 points 9 months ago

Do you really work there?

If so… We love you.

[–] _sideffect@lemmy.world 15 points 9 months ago

Kids in university watching this: 😯

[–] indomara@lemmy.world 15 points 9 months ago (5 children)

Today I learned that firefox doesn't like to play certain types of mp4 files. I also learned that you can copy a video link and paste it into VLC media player and it will play!

Watching these books being archived is amazing, I would love to do this!

[–] papalonian@lemmy.world 11 points 9 months ago (5 children)

I also learned that you can copy a video link and paste it into VLC media player and it will play!

You can also use this trick to download YouTube videos without the need of a 3rd party website!

  1. Copy the URL of the YouTube video you wanna download

  2. VLC / Media / Open network stream... And paste your URL

  3. Once the video has opened, Tools / Media Information

  4. Copy the URL in the "Location" field and paste it into your web browser, you should have the option to save the video

It's a couple of steps but once you memorize what you need to do it's a million times faster (and I'd wager equally times as private) than finding one of those websites to give you a link.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] eerongal@ttrpg.network 6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

MP4 is just a container, the specific audio/video streams can be one of several different codecs, and if you don't have the codec used it won't work. If you can identify the encoding you could probably just download a codec and be good to go.

Edit: for this video the video codec is

Codec: MPEG-H Part2/HEVC (H.265) (hvc1)

and audio codec is

Codec: MPEG AAC Audio (mp4a)

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] MonkderZweite@feddit.ch 13 points 9 months ago

Automatic page turners are unreliable?

[–] blazeknave@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago

May I bring my son to visit? I know it's typically only for events. He will crack up at the statues and be underwhelmed by the two racks containing the entire Internet.

[–] emptyother@programming.dev 8 points 9 months ago (2 children)

How do you reliably turn pages that fast without accidentally grabbing two pages and skipping? Im impressed!

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 7 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Meditation practice helps with this kind of thing.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] yamanii@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago

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

[–] Blackmist 7 points 9 months ago (3 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?

[–] AnActOfCreation@programming.dev 12 points 9 months ago (4 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.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Sensitivezombie@lemmy.zip 7 points 9 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

[–] BeMoreCareful@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Why not run the spine through a table saw and just use a regular document feeder?

[–] aeronmelon@lemmy.world 39 points 9 months ago

I think they actually want to keep the book.

[–] SinningStromgald@lemmy.world 26 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Sometimes books are valuable so cutting them into bits so they can go on the Internets faster isn't feasible.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›