Timeline for Could Google scan books without opening them?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 11, 2016 at 0:20 | history | edited | Peter Diehr | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Updated references
|
| Jul 24, 2016 at 21:27 | comment | added | KalleMP | The wavelength will limit the resolution. To get 200 dpi (fax quality) scanning you need 8 ppmm, a spacing of 127 um. Hoping to do this with wavelengths longer than 100um seems likely to not work. The size of the test characters seems to validate this. It may be a useful technique for some applications but not book scanning. X-Rays might work if there is sufficient ink contrast but it will be a nightmarish de-convolution exercise to resolve the text from the mass of data. You will need to image at the desired pixel resolution with a 45 degree beam cone onto a 2D sensor. | |
| Jul 23, 2016 at 18:22 | comment | added | Peter Diehr | @sammygerbil: some of my colleagues work in this area - there will be improvements overtime. Better resolution is achieved with shorter wavelengths, but this requires more energy for greater penetration, and introduces more scatter. | |
| Jul 23, 2016 at 17:43 | comment | added | sammy gerbil | Report of research in [69] is promising but misleading. Although printed onto thin sheets of paper (post-it notes) the letters were each about 1cm square and they were on the 2nd, 25th and 50th sheets of a pad, ie about 3mm apart. They were not placed in vertical alignment but shifted so that they did not overlap at all vertically. Figs 8 & 9 show parts of each letter imaged with the others, despite Wiener Filtering. So this is far from equivalent to selectively imaging separate pages in a book. | |
| Jul 23, 2016 at 17:15 | history | edited | sammy gerbil | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 1371 characters in body
|
| Jul 23, 2016 at 16:13 | history | answered | Peter Diehr | CC BY-SA 3.0 |