Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > rec.arts.sf.written > #488855 > unrolled thread
| Started by | jdnicoll@panix.com (James Nicoll) |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-03-22 14:30 +0000 |
| Last post | 2018-03-23 16:55 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 84 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to rec.arts.sf.written
[tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? jdnicoll@panix.com (James Nicoll) - 2018-03-22 14:30 +0000
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? D B Davis <g@crcomp.net> - 2018-03-22 16:20 +0000
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? Robert Woodward <robertaw@drizzle.com> - 2018-03-22 10:16 -0700
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? Peter Trei <petertrei@gmail.com> - 2018-03-22 10:45 -0700
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? Robert Woodward <robertaw@drizzle.com> - 2018-03-23 10:33 -0700
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2018-03-23 20:48 -0400
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> - 2018-03-23 21:08 -0700
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2018-03-24 08:53 -0400
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? Robert Woodward <robertaw@drizzle.com> - 2018-03-24 09:48 -0700
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2018-03-24 13:11 -0400
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? Cryptoengineer <treifamily@gmail.com> - 2018-03-25 10:45 -0500
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2018-03-25 12:14 -0400
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2018-03-25 16:49 +0000
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2018-03-25 13:31 -0400
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? Juho Julkunen <giaotanj@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-26 04:28 +0300
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2018-03-25 22:37 -0400
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? Juho Julkunen <giaotanj@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-26 05:56 +0300
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-25 21:40 -0600
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2018-03-26 04:11 +0000
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2018-03-26 03:29 +0000
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2018-03-26 04:03 +0000
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2018-03-25 21:34 -0700
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2018-03-25 13:15 -0600
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? Anthony Frost <Vulch@vulch.org> - 2018-03-26 10:45 +0000
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? Peter Trei <petertrei@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 06:05 -0700
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? Jack Bohn <jack.bohn64@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 09:17 -0700
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? "Michael R N Dolbear" <me@privacy.net> - 2018-03-26 01:16 +0100
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2018-03-25 22:38 -0400
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? Cryptoengineer <treifamily@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 19:35 -0500
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 22:52 -0400
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2018-03-26 19:58 -0700
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 23:20 -0400
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? Peter Trei <petertrei@gmail.com> - 2018-03-27 06:08 -0700
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2018-03-22 21:41 +0000
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? Robert Woodward <robertaw@drizzle.com> - 2018-03-23 10:31 -0700
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2018-03-23 18:28 +0000
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> - 2018-03-25 17:46 +0000
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? Robert Woodward <robertaw@drizzle.com> - 2018-03-24 10:09 -0700
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? jdnicoll@panix.com (James Nicoll) - 2018-03-24 17:34 +0000
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-22 11:24 -0600
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2018-03-22 17:47 +0000
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? Peter Trei <petertrei@gmail.com> - 2018-03-22 11:07 -0700
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? Steve Coltrin <spcoltri@omcl.org> - 2018-03-22 17:57 -0600
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? Ahasuerus <ahasuerus@email.com> - 2018-03-22 12:42 -0700
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2018-03-22 14:10 -0700
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? Ahasuerus <ahasuerus@email.com> - 2018-03-22 17:38 -0700
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2018-03-22 16:57 -0500
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? jdnicoll@panix.com (James Nicoll) - 2018-03-23 13:36 +0000
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? Ahasuerus <ahasuerus@email.com> - 2018-03-23 06:57 -0700
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? Dan ONeill <garudaco@gmail.com> - 2018-03-23 07:50 -0700
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2018-03-23 14:23 +0000
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? jdnicoll@panix.com (James Nicoll) - 2018-03-23 14:57 +0000
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2018-03-23 18:30 +0000
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? Moriarty <blues95@ivillage.com> - 2018-03-25 14:57 -0700
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2018-03-25 22:46 +0000
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? Moriarty <blues95@ivillage.com> - 2018-03-25 16:12 -0700
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2018-03-26 01:22 +0000
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? Moriarty <blues95@ivillage.com> - 2018-03-25 20:47 -0700
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2018-03-26 04:00 +0000
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2018-03-26 04:21 +0000
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? Lawrence Watt-Evans <misenchantedpress@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 04:23 -0400
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2018-03-26 14:18 +0000
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? Peter Trei <petertrei@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 07:49 -0700
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? Lawrence Watt-Evans <misenchantedpress@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 11:23 -0400
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2018-03-26 15:34 +0000
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-26 10:05 -0600
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? Lawrence Watt-Evans <misenchantedpress@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 16:33 -0400
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-26 16:24 -0600
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? Ahasuerus <ahasuerus@email.com> - 2018-03-26 15:40 -0700
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 22:55 -0400
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? Ahasuerus <ahasuerus@email.com> - 2018-03-26 09:39 -0700
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? Moriarty <blues95@ivillage.com> - 2018-03-26 14:16 -0700
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? Lawrence Watt-Evans <misenchantedpress@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 17:24 -0400
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? Ahasuerus <ahasuerus@email.com> - 2018-03-26 14:44 -0700
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? Ahasuerus <ahasuerus@email.com> - 2018-03-26 14:31 -0700
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2018-03-26 14:36 -0700
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2018-03-26 22:00 +0000
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> - 2018-03-26 15:26 -0700
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2018-03-26 15:37 -0700
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> - 2018-03-29 11:33 -0700
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? David DeLaney <daviddelaney@earthlink.net> - 2018-04-02 05:35 -0500
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? Steve Coltrin <spcoltri@omcl.org> - 2018-03-26 11:26 -0600
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? "Michael F. Stemper" <michael.stemper@gmail.com> - 2018-03-23 11:39 -0500
Re: [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? jdnicoll@panix.com (James Nicoll) - 2018-03-23 16:55 +0000
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | jdnicoll@panix.com (James Nicoll) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-22 14:30 +0000 |
| Subject | [tor dot com] Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? |
| Message-ID | <p90elu$ni2$1@reader2.panix.com> |
Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? https://www.tor.com/2018/03/22/why-the-hell-are-these-books-out-of-print/ -- My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/ My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/ My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | D B Davis <g@crcomp.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-22 16:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20180322c@crcomp.net> |
| In reply to | #488855 |
James Nicoll <jdnicoll@panix.com> wrote: > > Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? > > https://www.tor.com/2018/03/22/why-the-hell-are-these-books-out-of-print/ _Psychohistorical Crisis_ (Kingsbury) fixes up "Historical Crisis," which appears in the _Far Futures_ (Benford, 1995) anthology. You know me. "Less is more and the shorter the better." The original Asimov and the original Kingsbury work better for me than their later fix ups. :) Thank you, -- Don
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Woodward <robertaw@drizzle.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-22 10:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <robertaw-6EB2FE.10164722032018@news.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #488855 |
In article <p90elu$ni2$1@reader2.panix.com>, jdnicoll@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote: > Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? > > https://www.tor.com/2018/03/22/why-the-hell-are-these-books-out-of-print/ It is all part of the erasure of the past. You can't publish new books if the old books are still around using press time and shelf space. BTW, that is why my answer to people who ask why I have thousands of books in my collection is "because if I ever want to reread any, I can - they would be impossible to find otherwise." Perhaps I should reread Caroline Stevermere's _The Serpent's Egg_ to see if it is a forgotten treasure. -- "We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement." Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_. ‹----------------------------------------------------- Robert Woodward robertaw@drizzle.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Trei <petertrei@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-22 10:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e9647a1a-4e7e-4873-919f-e0d562d55ff3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #488861 |
On Thursday, March 22, 2018 at 1:16:53 PM UTC-4, Robert Woodward wrote: > In article <p90elu$ni2$1@reader2.panix.com>, > jdnicoll@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote: > > > Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? > > > > https://www.tor.com/2018/03/22/why-the-hell-are-these-books-out-of-print/ > > It is all part of the erasure of the past. You can't publish new books > if the old books are still around using press time and shelf space. A one-time (albeit not quite trivial) digitizing job can fix that. pt
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Woodward <robertaw@drizzle.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-23 10:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <robertaw-993457.10335023032018@news.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #488863 |
In article <e9647a1a-4e7e-4873-919f-e0d562d55ff3@googlegroups.com>, Peter Trei <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thursday, March 22, 2018 at 1:16:53 PM UTC-4, Robert Woodward wrote: > > In article <p90elu$ni2$1@reader2.panix.com>, > > jdnicoll@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote: > > > > > Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? > > > > > > https://www.tor.com/2018/03/22/why-the-hell-are-these-books-out-of-print/ > > > > It is all part of the erasure of the past. You can't publish new books > > if the old books are still around using press time and shelf space. > > A one-time (albeit not quite trivial) digitizing job can fix that. > Scans of sufficient resolution will use up storage space. Correcting OCR will use up time more usefully spent reading more books (probably more than 1 book per book digitized). -- "We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement." Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_. —----------------------------------------------------- Robert Woodward robertaw@drizzle.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-23 20:48 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <su7bbd9qp952hv1i0josg4o3km52aesh91@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #488931 |
On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:50 -0700, Robert Woodward <robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote: >In article <e9647a1a-4e7e-4873-919f-e0d562d55ff3@googlegroups.com>, > Peter Trei <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Thursday, March 22, 2018 at 1:16:53 PM UTC-4, Robert Woodward wrote: >> > In article <p90elu$ni2$1@reader2.panix.com>, >> > jdnicoll@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote: >> > >> > > Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? >> > > >> > > https://www.tor.com/2018/03/22/why-the-hell-are-these-books-out-of-print/ >> > >> > It is all part of the erasure of the past. You can't publish new books >> > if the old books are still around using press time and shelf space. >> >> A one-time (albeit not quite trivial) digitizing job can fix that. >> > >Scans of sufficient resolution will use up storage space. It's 2018. Terabyte drives are dropping out of the bottom of the market. >Correcting OCR >will use up time more usefully spent reading more books (probably more >than 1 book per book digitized).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-23 21:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <547c8e24-d31d-430f-b2fb-37f841ea5083@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #488954 |
On Saturday, 24 March 2018 00:48:57 UTC, J. Clarke wrote: > On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:50 -0700, Robert Woodward > <robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote: > > >In article <e9647a1a-4e7e-4873-919f-e0d562d55ff3@googlegroups.com>, > > Peter Trei <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On Thursday, March 22, 2018 at 1:16:53 PM UTC-4, Robert Woodward wrote: > >> > In article <p90elu$ni2$1@reader2.panix.com>, > >> > jdnicoll@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote: > >> > > >> > > Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? > >> > > > >> > > https://www.tor.com/2018/03/22/why-the-hell-are-these-books-out-of-print/ > >> > > >> > It is all part of the erasure of the past. You can't publish new books > >> > if the old books are still around using press time and shelf space. > >> > >> A one-time (albeit not quite trivial) digitizing job can fix that. > >> > > > >Scans of sufficient resolution will use up storage space. > > It's 2018. Terabyte drives are dropping out of the bottom of the > market. Not for tablet devices - not literally, not quite yet, although a device built to play video, for instance, should accommodate a substantial library of scanned books in its own storage, if that's how it has to be. Devices are sufficiently connected now that a book could be streamed, although I don't know if this happens outside audiobooks. And of course it would be annoying to lose connection and be unable to get the next page. > >Correcting OCR > >will use up time more usefully spent reading more books (probably more > >than 1 book per book digitized).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-24 08:53 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5ficbdlbof01prm32coms84dc4sa5fhdkb@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #488968 |
On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 21:08:00 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote: >On Saturday, 24 March 2018 00:48:57 UTC, J. Clarke wrote: >> On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:50 -0700, Robert Woodward >> <robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote: >> >> >In article <e9647a1a-4e7e-4873-919f-e0d562d55ff3@googlegroups.com>, >> > Peter Trei <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> On Thursday, March 22, 2018 at 1:16:53 PM UTC-4, Robert Woodward wrote: >> >> > In article <p90elu$ni2$1@reader2.panix.com>, >> >> > jdnicoll@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote: >> >> > >> >> > > Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? >> >> > > >> >> > > https://www.tor.com/2018/03/22/why-the-hell-are-these-books-out-of-print/ >> >> > >> >> > It is all part of the erasure of the past. You can't publish new books >> >> > if the old books are still around using press time and shelf space. >> >> >> >> A one-time (albeit not quite trivial) digitizing job can fix that. >> >> >> > >> >Scans of sufficient resolution will use up storage space. >> >> It's 2018. Terabyte drives are dropping out of the bottom of the >> market. > >Not for tablet devices - not literally, not quite yet, >although a device built to play video, for instance, should >accommodate a substantial library of scanned books in its own >storage, if that's how it has to be. Devices are sufficiently >connected now that a book could be streamed, although I don't >know if this happens outside audiobooks. And of course it would >be annoying to lose connection and be unable to get the next page. Why would you be using a tablet device to perform scans for OCR purposes? >> >Correcting OCR >> >will use up time more usefully spent reading more books (probably more >> >than 1 book per book digitized).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Woodward <robertaw@drizzle.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-24 09:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <robertaw-DE06A3.09483724032018@news.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #488982 |
In article <5ficbdlbof01prm32coms84dc4sa5fhdkb@4ax.com>, J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 21:08:00 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie > <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote: > > >On Saturday, 24 March 2018 00:48:57 UTC, J. Clarke wrote: > >> On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:50 -0700, Robert Woodward <SNIP> > >> >Scans of sufficient resolution will use up storage space. > >> > >> It's 2018. Terabyte drives are dropping out of the bottom of the > >> market. > > > >Not for tablet devices - not literally, not quite yet, > >although a device built to play video, for instance, should > >accommodate a substantial library of scanned books in its own > >storage, if that's how it has to be. Devices are sufficiently > >connected now that a book could be streamed, although I don't > >know if this happens outside audiobooks. And of course it would > >be annoying to lose connection and be unable to get the next page. > > Why would you be using a tablet device to perform scans for OCR > purposes? > To READ the scanned images. Which means that either the tablet has enough storage to hold all scanned books or it has to depend on remote storage (which isn't very helpful in areas where there is no relatively cheap broadband access). -- "We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement." Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_. ------------------------------------------------------- Robert Woodward robertaw@drizzle.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-24 13:11 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <2k1dbdhe9fn3g5m6r3lgqra6pa3hl4shnk@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #488983 |
On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 09:48:37 -0700, Robert Woodward <robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote: >In article <5ficbdlbof01prm32coms84dc4sa5fhdkb@4ax.com>, > J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 21:08:00 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie >> <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote: >> >> >On Saturday, 24 March 2018 00:48:57 UTC, J. Clarke wrote: >> >> On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:50 -0700, Robert Woodward ><SNIP> >> >> >Scans of sufficient resolution will use up storage space. >> >> >> >> It's 2018. Terabyte drives are dropping out of the bottom of the >> >> market. >> > >> >Not for tablet devices - not literally, not quite yet, >> >although a device built to play video, for instance, should >> >accommodate a substantial library of scanned books in its own >> >storage, if that's how it has to be. Devices are sufficiently >> >connected now that a book could be streamed, although I don't >> >know if this happens outside audiobooks. And of course it would >> >be annoying to lose connection and be unable to get the next page. >> >> Why would you be using a tablet device to perform scans for OCR >> purposes? >> > >To READ the scanned images. Which means that either the tablet has >enough storage to hold all scanned books or it has to depend on remote >storage (which isn't very helpful in areas where there is no relatively >cheap broadband access). Why would you be reading scanned images?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cryptoengineer <treifamily@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-25 10:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <XnsA8AFE7910386Cmelchizedek@216.166.97.131> |
| In reply to | #488968 |
Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote in news:547c8e24-d31d-430f-b2fb-37f841ea5083@googlegroups.com: > On Saturday, 24 March 2018 00:48:57 UTC, J. Clarke wrote: >> On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:50 -0700, Robert Woodward >> <robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote: >> >> >In article <e9647a1a-4e7e-4873-919f-e0d562d55ff3@googlegroups.com>, >> > Peter Trei <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> On Thursday, March 22, 2018 at 1:16:53 PM UTC-4, Robert Woodward >> >> wrote: >> >> > In article <p90elu$ni2$1@reader2.panix.com>, jdnicoll@panix.com >> >> > (James Nicoll) wrote: >> >> > >> >> > > Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? >> >> > > >> >> > > https://www.tor.com/2018/03/22/why-the-hell-are-these-books-out >> >> > > -of-print/ >> >> > >> >> > It is all part of the erasure of the past. You can't publish new >> >> > books if the old books are still around using press time and >> >> > shelf space. >> >> >> >> A one-time (albeit not quite trivial) digitizing job can fix that. >> >> >> > >> >Scans of sufficient resolution will use up storage space. >> >> It's 2018. Terabyte drives are dropping out of the bottom of the >> market. > > Not for tablet devices - not literally, not quite yet, > although a device built to play video, for instance, should > accommodate a substantial library of scanned books in its own > storage, if that's how it has to be. Devices are sufficiently > connected now that a book could be streamed, although I don't > know if this happens outside audiobooks. And of course it would > be annoying to lose connection and be unable to get the next page. > >> >Correcting OCR >> >will use up time more usefully spent reading more books (probably >> >more than 1 book per book digitized). When I suggested digitization, I was addressing the storage problem that made books go out of print. I was envisaging publishers/authors having the book digitized, OCR'd, and corrected once, and then making digital copies available. I wasn't suggesting individual owners scan and OCR their own copies. pt
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-25 12:14 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <iiifbdtvcaq2flt9dhlpmdikl49vs226iv@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #489021 |
On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 10:45:57 -0500, Cryptoengineer <treifamily@gmail.com> wrote: >Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote in >news:547c8e24-d31d-430f-b2fb-37f841ea5083@googlegroups.com: > >> On Saturday, 24 March 2018 00:48:57 UTC, J. Clarke wrote: >>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:50 -0700, Robert Woodward >>> <robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote: >>> >>> >In article <e9647a1a-4e7e-4873-919f-e0d562d55ff3@googlegroups.com>, >>> > Peter Trei <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > >>> >> On Thursday, March 22, 2018 at 1:16:53 PM UTC-4, Robert Woodward >>> >> wrote: >>> >> > In article <p90elu$ni2$1@reader2.panix.com>, jdnicoll@panix.com >>> >> > (James Nicoll) wrote: >>> >> > >>> >> > > Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? >>> >> > > >>> >> > > https://www.tor.com/2018/03/22/why-the-hell-are-these-books-out >>> >> > > -of-print/ >>> >> > >>> >> > It is all part of the erasure of the past. You can't publish new >>> >> > books if the old books are still around using press time and >>> >> > shelf space. >>> >> >>> >> A one-time (albeit not quite trivial) digitizing job can fix that. >>> >> >>> > >>> >Scans of sufficient resolution will use up storage space. >>> >>> It's 2018. Terabyte drives are dropping out of the bottom of the >>> market. >> >> Not for tablet devices - not literally, not quite yet, >> although a device built to play video, for instance, should >> accommodate a substantial library of scanned books in its own >> storage, if that's how it has to be. Devices are sufficiently >> connected now that a book could be streamed, although I don't >> know if this happens outside audiobooks. And of course it would >> be annoying to lose connection and be unable to get the next page. >> >>> >Correcting OCR >>> >will use up time more usefully spent reading more books (probably >>> >more than 1 book per book digitized). > >When I suggested digitization, I was addressing the storage problem >that made books go out of print. I was envisaging publishers/authors >having the book digitized, OCR'd, and corrected once, and then making >digital copies available. I wasn't suggesting individual owners scan >and OCR their own copies. There hasn't been any real excuse for a long time. Phototypesetters that required that the book be produced in electronic form started coming into use in the '70s. Any book published in the last 40 years or so was in electronic form at some point--from there making an ebook out of it should be fairly easy to automate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-25 16:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <p65o38.1v1y@kithrup.com> |
| In reply to | #489024 |
In article <iiifbdtvcaq2flt9dhlpmdikl49vs226iv@4ax.com>, J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 10:45:57 -0500, Cryptoengineer ><treifamily@gmail.com> wrote: > >>Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote in >>news:547c8e24-d31d-430f-b2fb-37f841ea5083@googlegroups.com: >> >>> On Saturday, 24 March 2018 00:48:57 UTC, J. Clarke wrote: >>>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:50 -0700, Robert Woodward >>>> <robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >In article <e9647a1a-4e7e-4873-919f-e0d562d55ff3@googlegroups.com>, >>>> > Peter Trei <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> > >>>> >> On Thursday, March 22, 2018 at 1:16:53 PM UTC-4, Robert Woodward >>>> >> wrote: >>>> >> > In article <p90elu$ni2$1@reader2.panix.com>, jdnicoll@panix.com >>>> >> > (James Nicoll) wrote: >>>> >> > >>>> >> > > Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? >>>> >> > > >>>> >> > > https://www.tor.com/2018/03/22/why-the-hell-are-these-books-out >>>> >> > > -of-print/ >>>> >> > >>>> >> > It is all part of the erasure of the past. You can't publish new >>>> >> > books if the old books are still around using press time and >>>> >> > shelf space. >>>> >> >>>> >> A one-time (albeit not quite trivial) digitizing job can fix that. >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> >Scans of sufficient resolution will use up storage space. >>>> >>>> It's 2018. Terabyte drives are dropping out of the bottom of the >>>> market. >>> >>> Not for tablet devices - not literally, not quite yet, >>> although a device built to play video, for instance, should >>> accommodate a substantial library of scanned books in its own >>> storage, if that's how it has to be. Devices are sufficiently >>> connected now that a book could be streamed, although I don't >>> know if this happens outside audiobooks. And of course it would >>> be annoying to lose connection and be unable to get the next page. >>> >>>> >Correcting OCR >>>> >will use up time more usefully spent reading more books (probably >>>> >more than 1 book per book digitized). >> >>When I suggested digitization, I was addressing the storage problem >>that made books go out of print. I was envisaging publishers/authors >>having the book digitized, OCR'd, and corrected once, and then making >>digital copies available. I wasn't suggesting individual owners scan >>and OCR their own copies. > >There hasn't been any real excuse for a long time. Phototypesetters >that required that the book be produced in electronic form started >coming into use in the '70s. Any book published in the last 40 years >or so was in electronic form at some point--from there making an ebook >out of it should be fairly easy to automate. Assuming the electronic form hasn't been erased. (Cf. a lot of early episodes of Doctor Who, which were recorded over because tapes cost money.) -- Dorothy J. Heydt Vallejo, California djheydt at gmail dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-25 13:31 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <16nfbdhe5m689lbtnbe2rr59ch5kosh1s1@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #489026 |
On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 16:49:56 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote: >In article <iiifbdtvcaq2flt9dhlpmdikl49vs226iv@4ax.com>, >J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >>On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 10:45:57 -0500, Cryptoengineer >><treifamily@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote in >>>news:547c8e24-d31d-430f-b2fb-37f841ea5083@googlegroups.com: >>> >>>> On Saturday, 24 March 2018 00:48:57 UTC, J. Clarke wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:33:50 -0700, Robert Woodward >>>>> <robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >In article <e9647a1a-4e7e-4873-919f-e0d562d55ff3@googlegroups.com>, >>>>> > Peter Trei <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> >> On Thursday, March 22, 2018 at 1:16:53 PM UTC-4, Robert Woodward >>>>> >> wrote: >>>>> >> > In article <p90elu$ni2$1@reader2.panix.com>, jdnicoll@panix.com >>>>> >> > (James Nicoll) wrote: >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > > Why the Hell Are These Books Out of Print? >>>>> >> > > >>>>> >> > > https://www.tor.com/2018/03/22/why-the-hell-are-these-books-out >>>>> >> > > -of-print/ >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > It is all part of the erasure of the past. You can't publish new >>>>> >> > books if the old books are still around using press time and >>>>> >> > shelf space. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> A one-time (albeit not quite trivial) digitizing job can fix that. >>>>> >> >>>>> > >>>>> >Scans of sufficient resolution will use up storage space. >>>>> >>>>> It's 2018. Terabyte drives are dropping out of the bottom of the >>>>> market. >>>> >>>> Not for tablet devices - not literally, not quite yet, >>>> although a device built to play video, for instance, should >>>> accommodate a substantial library of scanned books in its own >>>> storage, if that's how it has to be. Devices are sufficiently >>>> connected now that a book could be streamed, although I don't >>>> know if this happens outside audiobooks. And of course it would >>>> be annoying to lose connection and be unable to get the next page. >>>> >>>>> >Correcting OCR >>>>> >will use up time more usefully spent reading more books (probably >>>>> >more than 1 book per book digitized). >>> >>>When I suggested digitization, I was addressing the storage problem >>>that made books go out of print. I was envisaging publishers/authors >>>having the book digitized, OCR'd, and corrected once, and then making >>>digital copies available. I wasn't suggesting individual owners scan >>>and OCR their own copies. >> >>There hasn't been any real excuse for a long time. Phototypesetters >>that required that the book be produced in electronic form started >>coming into use in the '70s. Any book published in the last 40 years >>or so was in electronic form at some point--from there making an ebook >>out of it should be fairly easy to automate. > >Assuming the electronic form hasn't been erased. > >(Cf. a lot of early episodes of Doctor Who, which were recorded >over because tapes cost money.) The benefits of socialized television.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Juho Julkunen <giaotanj@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-26 04:28 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.3522791db4652a9b989ad7@news.kolumbus.fi> |
| In reply to | #489030 |
In article <16nfbdhe5m689lbtnbe2rr59ch5kosh1s1@4ax.com>, jclarke.873638 @gmail.com says... > > On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 16:49:56 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J > Heydt) wrote: > > > >(Cf. a lot of early episodes of Doctor Who, which were recorded > >over because tapes cost money.) > > The benefits of socialized television. Tapes cost money for private broadcasters, too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiping CBC apparently archived (almost) everything, though. -- Juho Julkunen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-25 22:37 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <f6ngbdl2nikbe62noj4n4l3pohi167fa8g@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #489051 |
On Mon, 26 Mar 2018 04:28:50 +0300, Juho Julkunen <giaotanj@hotmail.com> wrote: >In article <16nfbdhe5m689lbtnbe2rr59ch5kosh1s1@4ax.com>, jclarke.873638 >@gmail.com says... >> >> On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 16:49:56 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J >> Heydt) wrote: >> > >> >(Cf. a lot of early episodes of Doctor Who, which were recorded >> >over because tapes cost money.) >> >> The benefits of socialized television. > >Tapes cost money for private broadcasters, too. But private broadcasters aren't subject to government austerity programs. >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiping > >CBC apparently archived (almost) everything, though.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Juho Julkunen <giaotanj@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-26 05:56 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.35228df45c41f98e989ad8@news.kolumbus.fi> |
| In reply to | #489053 |
In article <f6ngbdl2nikbe62noj4n4l3pohi167fa8g@4ax.com>, jclarke.873638 @gmail.com says... > > On Mon, 26 Mar 2018 04:28:50 +0300, Juho Julkunen > <giaotanj@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >In article <16nfbdhe5m689lbtnbe2rr59ch5kosh1s1@4ax.com>, jclarke.873638 > >@gmail.com says... > >> > >> On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 16:49:56 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J > >> Heydt) wrote: > >> > > >> >(Cf. a lot of early episodes of Doctor Who, which were recorded > >> >over because tapes cost money.) > >> > >> The benefits of socialized television. > > > >Tapes cost money for private broadcasters, too. > > But private broadcasters aren't subject to government austerity > programs. On the other hand, they are spending their own money. -- Juho Julkunen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-25 21:40 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <p99q3e$1ec$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #489053 |
On 2018-03-25 8:37 PM, J. Clarke wrote: > On Mon, 26 Mar 2018 04:28:50 +0300, Juho Julkunen > <giaotanj@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> In article <16nfbdhe5m689lbtnbe2rr59ch5kosh1s1@4ax.com>, jclarke.873638 >> @gmail.com says... >>> >>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 16:49:56 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J >>> Heydt) wrote: >>>> >>>> (Cf. a lot of early episodes of Doctor Who, which were recorded >>>> over because tapes cost money.) >>> >>> The benefits of socialized television. >> >> Tapes cost money for private broadcasters, too. > > But private broadcasters aren't subject to government austerity > programs. > And of course being private corporations they have no interest in saving money. Almost all of NBC's The Tonight Show with Jack Paar and the first ten years (1962–1972) hosted by Johnny Carson were taped over by the network and no longer exist. The videotape was being used repeatedly, hence the reason that Carson's Tonight Show picture looked muddy during broadcast in the late 1960s. Selected sequences from the 1962–1972 era survive and were often replayed by Carson himself (particularly in the months preceding his retirement in 1992) and have been released to home video. Some Paar episodes also survive and have also been released to home video—in this case, DVD. Similarly, NBC reused the tapes of ventriloquist Shari Lewis's 1960-1963 Saturday morning children's program The Shari Lewis Show, to record coverage of the 1964 Democratic and Republican National Conventions. Lewis said in an interview decades later that to her, this was a shame, since the shows were beautifully done as a showcase of NBC's early color broadcast work. Most US daytime soap opera episodes broadcast before 1978 have been lost. The status of episodes, however, varies widely from show to show: Soaps produced by Procter & Gamble Productions, including Search for Tomorrow, Guiding Light, As the World Turns, The Edge of Night, and Another World began preserving their episodes in 1978. A few scattered episodes, mostly black and white kinescopes, of these series exist from the 1950s, 1960s, and early to mid-1970s. The CBS soaps Love of Life and The Secret Storm, as well as several short-lived shows, suffered the same fate. ABC's One Life to Live and All My Children were originally owned by their creator, Agnes Nixon, who chose to archive all episodes. However, early episodes of AMC were only saved as black-and-white kinescopes despite being produced and telecast in color. ABC purchased the shows in late 1974; different sources report that Nixon's archive was either lost in a fire or erased. A few black-and-white kinescopes of both series' early years exist, as well as a few color episodes. ABC began full archiving of these soaps at Nixon's insistence when they expanded from 30 minutes to an hour—AMC in 1977, and OLTL in 1978. Most 1963–1970 episodes of ABC's longest-running General Hospital survive because the series was then owned by Selmur Productions. Few episodes from 1970 to 1977 were saved. Ryan's Hope premiered in 1975, several years before ABC began saving all of its daytime programming, but exists in its entirety as it was originally owned by Labine-Mayer Productions. Dark Shadows, created by Dan Curtis, which ran from 1966 to 1971, has the distinction of being one of the few soap operas to have nearly all of its original episodes preserved. As a result of kinescope, many earlier episodes of which the master film was lost are still available. However, episode #1219 was lost but reconstructed with an audio recording for home video release. Two long-running soaps have full archives: Days of Our Lives, which premiered in 1965, and The Young and the Restless, which premiered in 1973. Both series were originally distributed by Screen Gems.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-26 04:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fhra6sFnv30U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #489057 |
In article <p99q3e$1ec$1@gioia.aioe.org>, David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote: >On 2018-03-25 8:37 PM, J. Clarke wrote: >> On Mon, 26 Mar 2018 04:28:50 +0300, Juho Julkunen >> <giaotanj@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> In article <16nfbdhe5m689lbtnbe2rr59ch5kosh1s1@4ax.com>, jclarke.873638 >>> @gmail.com says... >>>> >>>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 16:49:56 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J >>>> Heydt) wrote: >>>>> >>>>> (Cf. a lot of early episodes of Doctor Who, which were recorded >>>>> over because tapes cost money.) >>>> >>>> The benefits of socialized television. >>> >>> Tapes cost money for private broadcasters, too. >> >> But private broadcasters aren't subject to government austerity >> programs. >> > >And of course being private corporations they have no interest in saving >money. > > Almost all of NBC's The Tonight Show with Jack Paar and the first ten >years (1962–1972) hosted by Johnny Carson were taped over by the network >and no longer exist. The videotape was being used repeatedly, hence the >reason that Carson's Tonight Show picture looked muddy during broadcast >in the late 1960s. Selected sequences from the 1962–1972 era survive and >were often replayed by Carson himself (particularly in the months >preceding his retirement in 1992) and have been released to home video. >Some Paar episodes also survive and have also been released to home >video—in this case, DVD. > >Similarly, NBC reused the tapes of ventriloquist Shari Lewis's 1960-1963 >Saturday morning children's program The Shari Lewis Show, to record >coverage of the 1964 Democratic and Republican National Conventions. >Lewis said in an interview decades later that to her, this was a shame, >since the shows were beautifully done as a showcase of NBC's early color >broadcast work. >Most US daytime soap opera episodes broadcast before 1978 have been >lost. The status of episodes, however, varies widely from show to show: >Soaps produced by Procter & Gamble Productions, including Search for >Tomorrow, Guiding Light, As the World Turns, The Edge of Night, and >Another World began preserving their episodes in 1978. A few scattered >episodes, mostly black and white kinescopes, of these series exist from >the 1950s, 1960s, and early to mid-1970s. The CBS soaps Love of Life and >The Secret Storm, as well as several short-lived shows, suffered the >same fate. >ABC's One Life to Live and All My Children were originally owned by >their creator, Agnes Nixon, who chose to archive all episodes. However, >early episodes of AMC were only saved as black-and-white kinescopes >despite being produced and telecast in color. ABC purchased the shows in >late 1974; different sources report that Nixon's archive was either lost >in a fire or erased. A few black-and-white kinescopes of both series' >early years exist, as well as a few color episodes. ABC began full >archiving of these soaps at Nixon's insistence when they expanded from >30 minutes to an hour—AMC in 1977, and OLTL in 1978. >Most 1963–1970 episodes of ABC's longest-running General Hospital >survive because the series was then owned by Selmur Productions. Few >episodes from 1970 to 1977 were saved. Ryan's Hope premiered in 1975, >several years before ABC began saving all of its daytime programming, >but exists in its entirety as it was originally owned by Labine-Mayer >Productions. >Dark Shadows, created by Dan Curtis, which ran from 1966 to 1971, has >the distinction of being one of the few soap operas to have nearly all >of its original episodes preserved. As a result of kinescope, many >earlier episodes of which the master film was lost are still available. >However, episode #1219 was lost but reconstructed with an audio >recording for home video release. >Two long-running soaps have full archives: Days of Our Lives, which >premiered in 1965, and The Young and the Restless, which premiered in >1973. Both series were originally distributed by Screen Gems. > Interesting article on how Desi Arnaz invented syndication: http://www.americanheritage.com/content/what-desi-wrought But if the basic creative decisions had been made, the business ones had not. CBS wanted the series done live in New York. The East Coast was where the audience was, and if the show was done in Hollywood, the East Coast would have to see blurry kinescopes. Lucy and Desi wanted to stay in Hollywood, so Desi negotiated. He suggested using their production company, Desilu, to film the show ahead of time. This solved the quality problem but would considerably increase the production costs, originally budgeted at what now seems a minuscule $19,500 an episode. Desi, picking a figure out of thin air, guessed that the increase would amount to $5,000. After much hemming and hawing, Philip Morris and CBS agreed to come up with an additional $2,000 each. But Lucy and Desi, who were to be paid $2,500 each and own half the show, would have to take a thousand-dollar salary cut between them on each of the first thirty-nine episodes to make up the difference. Arnaz made a counteroffer. He and Lucy would take the salary cut, provided CBS gave them sole ownership. Since in 1951 most television shows were done live and preserved only on kinescopes, yesterdays TV shows, CBS thought, were worth about the same as yesterdays newspapers. So CBS readily agreed. The suits figured they weren't giving up much. But Arnaz knew that he and Lucy weren't giving up much either. In our income tax bracket, he explained, we might have ended up with about $5,000 of the $39,000 we were losing [in salary cuts]. So in effect, we were buying the other half of the series for $5,000. That, of course, turned out to be the bargain of the century. Because I Love Lucy was filmed, not performed live, for the first time in television, there was something worth selling after the original broadcast was over, and because I Love Lucy turned into one of the biggest hits in the history of show business, there was no lack of offers to buy. -- ------ columbiaclosings.com What's not in Columbia anymore..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-26 03:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <p66HpA.1JBA@kithrup.com> |
| In reply to | #489053 |
In article <f6ngbdl2nikbe62noj4n4l3pohi167fa8g@4ax.com>, J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >On Mon, 26 Mar 2018 04:28:50 +0300, Juho Julkunen ><giaotanj@hotmail.com> wrote: > >>In article <16nfbdhe5m689lbtnbe2rr59ch5kosh1s1@4ax.com>, jclarke.873638 >>@gmail.com says... >>> >>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 16:49:56 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J >>> Heydt) wrote: >>> > >>> >(Cf. a lot of early episodes of Doctor Who, which were recorded >>> >over because tapes cost money.) >>> >>> The benefits of socialized television. >> >>Tapes cost money for private broadcasters, too. > >But private broadcasters aren't subject to government austerity >programs. No, but they still have budgets. -- Dorothy J. Heydt Vallejo, California djheydt at gmail dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | rec.arts.sf.written
csiph-web