Re: feedback to umichigan on "books and culture", part 1
- From: Jon Noring <jon@[redacted]>
- Subject: Re: feedback to umichigan on "books and culture", part 1
- Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 19:15:12 -0600
Bowerbird wrote:
> jon said:
>> The "scan-sequence" is simply the number
>> of the scanned image as the book is being
>> scanned from cover to cover. A book is scanned
>> from cover to cover, including all blank pages.
> well, the "sequence" in which the pages are _scanned_
> is even less important than their sequence as bound.
Yes, thank you for clarifying. In my prior messages, the term
"scan-sequence" is definitely misleading. I intended it to mean the
"bound-sequence", as you noted. The day I wrote that message I was
finishing up several long documents and my brain was fried.
Obviously, there are times when the "scan-sequence" is not the
"bound-sequence". Such as when a book is chopped and the pages run
through a one-sided sheet feed scanner. The stack has to be sent
through twice, once to do the recto and again to do the verso (or
vice-versa.)
> i'll repeat it, just in case anyone else is still confused:
> if you've named your files correctly, their sequence is
> determinable from the names; it really _is_ that simple.
Agreed, and the system I've come up with will do that. And if there's
a need to transform the filenames, a simple script will do that.
Jon