|
In
addition to being interested in seeing responses to Winston’s posting, I
would greatly appreciate hearing from any conservators, preservation librarians
or scanning technicians who have made condition evaluations of bound printed collection
material in a large scale digitization project using either a dual camera robotic
page-turning scanner or a dual camera manual page-turning scanner designed for a
high-volume workflow. Specifically: 1.
Were decisions to withdraw items from the scanning queue made subjectively or
were specific criteria applied? Were condition evaluations made in
advance of project start-up or as the project progressed? 2.
If a robotic scanning device was used: (a) were only items considered to be in good enough
condition for scanning on the robotic device digitized? (b) were some items scanned on the device with the robotic device disabled
– if so approximately what percent were selected for manual page turning?
What criteria were used to decide this? (c) were two dual-camera machines used (one for robotic, one for
manual page turning with the robotic device disabled)? 3.
What options were considered for items perceived to be at risk of damage whether
the robotic device was used or pages were turned manually? (a)
do not scan? (b)
scan on an alternate device with book cradle? 4.
What options were considered for fold-outs? (a)
do not scan? (b)
scan on an alternate device? 5.
If one or more separate workflows were developed for any reason (foldouts; risk
of damage on dual camera device; entire volume too large or small for scanning
with the dual camera device, etc.), was the scanning done on-site or shipped to
an alternate site? Also
would be interested in hearing (off-list would be fine) from anyone willing to
discuss how any of these variations impacted cost. Many
thanks. Walter
Cybulski Preservation
and Collection Mgmt. Section National
Library of Medicine Bldg.
38 Room B1E-21 8600
Rockville Pike Bethesda,
MD 20894 301-496-2690 |