Czur book scanner Pain Points

[aryakeyvan]

Hi Everyone,

I was wondering what pain points people have about the Czur scanners and if there was any technology you wish it could have in order to improve your scanning experience. Thanks!

[KarenB]

They work, the software compensates for the curvature of the pages but then turning the images into something like epub is not simple.

Luv Karen

[Karellen]

Originally Posted by KarenB

They work, the software compensates for the curvature of the pages but then turning the images into something like epub is not simple.
Luv Karen

Neither is it too difficult. I've done a handful, and it is more time consuming than difficult. Quickly converting images to text via OCR, then exporting to epub is quite simple. Even fixing a lot of the formatting can be done in bulk. It's then reading the book and fixing up all those unnoticeable and one-off errors that is time consuming.

Might be of some help... https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sh...3&postcount=23

[Quoth]

OTOH writing a new book from scratch is a lot more proof editing than fixing OCR.

[patrik]

I found it mostly works well, even good enough. The one thing that seems to always happen, is that for say 200 pages 2-5 of them will be warped (enough to be needed to be rescanned). Not sure why it happens, I try to be consistant with how I hold down the pages.

That's probably my only "issue".

And the lighting, if I want to use the page-images (as if creating a pdf) using the internal light will often create glares. Not a problem when using the images for ocr (and later epub).

I use czure -> finereader -> sigil.

[jackm8]

Originally Posted by aryakeyvan

Hi Everyone,

I was wondering what pain points people have about the Czur scanners and if there was any technology you wish it could have in order to improve your scanning experience. Thanks!

Judging from the samples on their page, cameras they use appears to be severely lacking in quality department, even in their pro lineup. Poor sensor, poor lens, no raw image capture. I guess that their products have a use, if you're really lazy, and really cueless regarding tech. Otherwise, you'll get better results with a higher end phone camera and a good lighting setup. Phones have raw, but that may be a stretch for them, since that eats up storage and battery life. On other hand you get f1.8 lenses, and modern sensors.

Practically any ten to twenty year old dslr or mirrorless with a half decent lens will give up far better results. Modern cameras will take quality difference further up a notch.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by jackm8

Phones have raw, but that may be a stretch for them, since that eats up storage and battery life. On other hand you get f1.8 lenses, and modern sensors.

Practically any ten to twenty year old dslr or mirrorless with a half decent lens will give up far better results. Modern cameras will take quality difference further up a notch.

No, phones are terrible for documents. Lens speed is irrelevant. You make a copy stand with good even lighting and "shutter speed" is irrelevant too, within limits with a decent copy stand (for phone or camera).

I agree if you have a copy stand and proper lighting and any DSLR better than 16 M pix, you can get as good as the basic Czur.

BUT:

They can be used "raw".
The high end ones have laser and associated page flattening SW (may not work on Linux, basic capture does work on Linux) and thus are better than a DSLR.

Compared to a flatbed like an old SCSI scanner 20+ years old, or a custom copy stand with lights (for phone or camera) the basic ones are poor. A flatbed that does more than A4/Letter/Foolscap/Legal is very very expensive and unless you have a big ADF and crop spiine off, the overhead photo (Czur, phone, camera) is better. Some non-DSLRs and most so-called "mirror-less" cameras are OK.

Lighting is very important.