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.
And limited to 25 years. This 100 years is bull shit.
Kids in university watching this: 😯
Firefox: Video can’t be played because the file is corrupt.
Chrome: Plays audio only.
Why are we hosting things on such shonky shit?
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
🤘🏻 Voyager app!
I checked and it works fine for me too. In voyager, obviously.
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.
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?
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.
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.
That is really cool!
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.
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
I’m with you but it’s not about being lazy, just like shit audio being on most videos these days this is yet another symptom of tiktok bullshit.
Videos with shit sounds get more traction and tiktok wants every video to be scrollable without havin to turn your phone and shit so the result is trash like this getting pumped out which ruins the actual video content
By now, I’ve just got a second screen in portrait orientation.
Okay, I got it for documents, but it works nicely for those vids.
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
Explains its existence at least.
The video contains all necessary information and you don’t need to turn your phone. I don’t see a problem here.
Ok. Good luck with that.
You could say the same thing about a video recording of a pc monitor. Yeah all the necessary stuff is there but you also lose a lot may it be quality or just more pixels which give greater context to the video by showing more of the actual recording
With the full size recording you can see more of the machine which is part of the main subject so it’s not just meaningless data/context either
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.
Why care? In a second I’ll leave this video and never think of it again. The key point is conveyed, and we are all done.
Because someone went out of their way to mutilate a video for no reason, so I’m gonna go out of my way to make it right. Just because you can’t be bothered to care doesn’t mean everyone else is just like you.
Wouldn’t it be great to have it dynamic based on device?
Anyway, everyone’ll have to get off our lawn.
For the average world netizen…
…OP’s is the desirable format.
Here I am on my phone. I do not desire this format. And nothing you have posted suggests that anyone wants this format.
All it shows is device, not preference.
Anytime something is recorded wide screen my wish is that it remains in that format, regardless of platform I am on.
If I’m on my phone it takes less than half a second to rotate my screen and view as intended, on my desktop I can’t do that.
Also in this case quite a bit of the original was lost, seeing the YouTube version is much better.
Diagonal video is obviously the superior format:
Why stop at video!
You don’t understand the data. That data has nothing to do with what video format people prefer.
This isn’t a “significant” video. By any standard. Digest the information and move on. Doing otherwise is fist fighting the waves on the beach.
Most importantly, the purpose and message of the video is conveyed.
Thankfully, you don’t get to decide what other people consider “significant”. I’ll spend my time how I want, thanks.
Literally name any metric or qualifier of objective nature.
Lol, no. You don’t get to debate me into not valuing something. Deal with it.
You deal. You’re the one having a this about a fully informative short clip.
You clearly only have subjective value positions to argue from, and can’t meaningfully refute my points.
There’s no problem enjoying content the way you do. There’s a problem getting angry about a video that literally does it’s job
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.
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.
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.
Vacuum!
I’d just use a bandsaw to cut off the spine and stick it in a document feeder.
If the book is not that easily available (old, rare), it’s much better to keep it intact.
This must be how you get “binders full of women”
Leave that poor woman alone you psycho!
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.”
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
Can’t you ask the book company for a pdf?
Please remember to make a donation to the Internet Archive for the invaluable work they do!
Do you really work there?
If so… We love you.
Could of cleaned the glass before filming.
Could have checked your grammar before commenting…
Could’ve but didn’t.
Reminds me of the hours I’ve spent scanning in articles from print journals for interlibrary loan.
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
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.
Google have digitised a lot of books using some more advanced tech, though they started out with something a little like this.
What happened to that in the end? I heard they wanted to digitize the worlds books and then it just petered out at some point and heard nothing about it. Did they continue or was it spun to Internet Archive to do?
My understanding is the project led into Google Books. Google fought many legal cases and ultimately won but their enthusiasm to scan more books seems to have waned. Google basically convinced judges that by only letting people see a few pages, it fell under fair use, but then that meant you didn’t get a giant library because you couldn’t read the whole book.
There’s an article about it here: https://www.edsurge.com/news/2017-08-10-what-happened-to-google-s-effort-to-scan-millions-of-university-library-books
Also see https://www.hathitrust.org/about/ which is mentioned in the article.
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.
I think this is what I saw. Not quite 20 pages/s hahah and also a different method.
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.
Why not run the spine through a table saw and just use a regular document feeder?
I think they actually want to keep the book.
Sometimes books are valuable so cutting them into bits so they can go on the Internets faster isn’t feasible.
In 10 years you can just reprint the book by molecule so why bother
