Re: [bolger] Re: Book(s) Format
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Joseph Stromski<j.stromski@...>wrote:Wow- that's some serious time at the scanner!Suzanne should just purchase the key chain from you and sell copies.Best,JoeFortunately my day job gives me access to a really nice scanner which makes the task relatively quick and easy. My digitized collection is a 'work in progress' but I recall giving an early copy a copy to Susanne the time I saw her at the PCB memorial. (Or at least offering to give, I cannot remember if she accepted, and for Susanne the offer still stands.)I just used a commercial quality scanner by hand, but the process of digitizing physical books is a craft and is well documented by the popular DIY book digitizing hobby community.For instance:Book scanning can be pretty low budget...
I agree that for any book that I want to go back to, refer to or otherwise work with, I would always prefer hard copy. I don't mind reading a novel in electronic format and I have had a lot of fun reading on the Internet previews of books available from google and amazon and other legitimate sources electronically. However, it frustrates me that I cannot refer back to these documents. For the most part, I can't even remember the name of the book or author.
I still have boxes of VHS videos and audio cassette tapes which degraded over time and for which I cannot get a player any more. My copy of Chapelles Boatbuilding was bought second hand for around $10 a year or so ago, was printed about 40 years ago and requires no power or effort to operate.
With a couple of documents I have only managed to source electronically (such as LFH's anchor design from the us patent office, I have run the relevant pages off on the printer so I can refer to them.
I should also say that I prefer the paperback over hardback format for books which are intended to be seriously used. I feel guilty getting a hardback dirty or "breaking the spine" as the crime was termed when I was little. I do not have this feeling about letter size manuals which are designed to be used and worked with. Also, when the price is right, a second copy makes a lot of sense.
I would say that a significant detail in book printing is that plans should be printed at a meaningful scale. In different boats you can work off the plans if you are prepared to work at 3/16s"=1'. This is not the case in many books where plans have been scaled to fit the page (in many cases to different scales).
I cannot use my scale rule on electronic documents. It's well worth buying the original paper copy when you can...
Just my thoughts from the hockey pitch as my daughter plays her 8:30 game.
David
From Santiago
---
Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, richard laux <rkldude@...> wrote:
I still have boxes of VHS videos and audio cassette tapes which degraded over time and for which I cannot get a player any more. My copy of Chapelles Boatbuilding was bought second hand for around $10 a year or so ago, was printed about 40 years ago and requires no power or effort to operate.
With a couple of documents I have only managed to source electronically (such as LFH's anchor design from the us patent office, I have run the relevant pages off on the printer so I can refer to them.
I should also say that I prefer the paperback over hardback format for books which are intended to be seriously used. I feel guilty getting a hardback dirty or "breaking the spine" as the crime was termed when I was little. I do not have this feeling about letter size manuals which are designed to be used and worked with. Also, when the price is right, a second copy makes a lot of sense.
I would say that a significant detail in book printing is that plans should be printed at a meaningful scale. In different boats you can work off the plans if you are prepared to work at 3/16s"=1'. This is not the case in many books where plans have been scaled to fit the page (in many cases to different scales).
I cannot use my scale rule on electronic documents. It's well worth buying the original paper copy when you can...
Just my thoughts from the hockey pitch as my daughter plays her 8:30 game.
David
From Santiago
---
Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, richard laux <rkldude@...> wrote:
>
> There are those of us who will always prefer a hard copy in our hands. I personally do not and will never read a book from any of the aforementioned platforms.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: BruceHallman <hallman@...>
> To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, June 7, 2013 11:47 AM
> Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: Book(s) Format
>
> Â
> 8 1/2" x 11" would be fine. Â More importantly, paper books are becoming obsolete, (buggy whips).
>
> Deep a vision of the trend in the publishing industry towards the eBook platforms, Kindle(azw), pdf, mobi, epub
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_e-book_formats
>
AMEN!
On Jun 7, 2013, at 3:44 PM, Joseph Stromski wrote:Wow- that's some serious time at the scanner!Suzanne should just purchase the key chain from you and sell copies.Best,Joe
From:BruceHallman <hallman@...>
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent:Fri, June 7, 2013 2:38:20 PM
Subject:Re: [bolger] Re: Book(s) Format
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 10:30 AM, richard laux<rkldude@...>wrote:There are those of us who will always prefer a hard copy in our hands. I personally do not and will never read a book from any of the aforementioned platforms.Personally, I have a hard copy of all of Phil Bolger's books, plus (nearly) all of his 430+ magazine articles. (That paper stays in three boxes in my shop, weighing 150+ lbs.)I also have scanned high resolution digital copies of these same books and magazines, which fit on a tiny thumb drive I keep on my key chain in my pocket. Also, on this key chain are 100+ 3D models of PB&F boat hulls visible in 3D, plus a searchable indexed database for quick access, plus some other goodies.I prefer both of these formats, paper and digital.But the digital copy, small as a sugar cube, is in my pocket (right now!), and gets used 10x times more often than the bulky paper on the shelf in my shop.
Wow- that's some serious time at the scanner!
Suzanne should just purchase the key chain from you and sell
copies.
Best,
Joe
From:BruceHallman <hallman@...>
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent:Fri, June 7, 2013 2:38:20 PM
Subject:Re: [bolger] Re: Book(s) Format
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 10:30 AM, richard laux<rkldude@...>wrote:
There are those of us who will always prefer a hard copy in our hands. I personally do not and will never read a book from any of the aforementioned platforms.Personally, I have a hard copy of all of Phil Bolger's books, plus (nearly) all of his 430+ magazine articles. (That paper stays in three boxes in my shop, weighing 150+ lbs.)I also have scanned high resolution digital copies of these same books and magazines, which fit on a tiny thumb drive I keep on my key chain in my pocket. Also, on this key chain are 100+ 3D models of PB&F boat hulls visible in 3D, plus a searchable indexed database for quick access, plus some other goodies.I prefer both of these formats, paper and digital.But the digital copy, small as a sugar cube, is in my pocket (right now!), and gets used 10x times more often than the bulky paper on the shelf in my shop.
____________________________________________________________
BlackBerry® 10
Get the latest details on the new BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
BlackBerry.com
Wow- that's some serious time at the scanner!
Suzanne should just purchase the key chain from you and sell copies.
Best,
Joe
From:BruceHallman <hallman@...>
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent:Fri, June 7, 2013 2:38:20 PM
Subject:Re: [bolger] Re: Book(s) Format
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 10:30 AM, richard laux<rkldude@...>wrote:
There are those of us who will always prefer a hard copy in our hands. I personally do not and will never read a book from any of the aforementioned platforms.
Personally, I have a hard copy of all of Phil Bolger's books, plus (nearly) all of his 430+ magazine articles. (That paper stays in three boxes in my shop, weighing 150+ lbs.)
I also have scanned high resolution digital copies of these same books and magazines, which fit on a tiny thumb drive I keep on my key chain in my pocket. Also, on this key chain are 100+ 3D models of PB&F boat hulls visible in 3D, plus a searchable indexed database for quick access, plus some other goodies.
I prefer both of these formats, paper and digital.
But the digital copy, small as a sugar cube, is in my pocket (right now!), and gets used 10x times more often than the bulky paper on the shelf in my shop.
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 10:30 AM, richard laux<rkldude@...>wrote:There are those of us who will always prefer a hard copy in our hands. I personally do not and will never read a book from any of the aforementioned platforms.Personally, I have a hard copy of all of Phil Bolger's books, plus (nearly) all of his 430+ magazine articles. (That paper stays in three boxes in my shop, weighing 150+ lbs.)I also have scanned high resolution digital copies of these same books and magazines, which fit on a tiny thumb drive I keep on my key chain in my pocket. Also, on this key chain are 100+ 3D models of PB&F boat hulls visible in 3D, plus a searchable indexed database for quick access, plus some other goodies.I prefer both of these formats, paper and digital.But the digital copy, small as a sugar cube, is in my pocket (right now!), and gets used 10x times more often than the bulky paper on the shelf in my shop.
I think the biggest objection would be the loss of accuracy taking the measurements off of the plans.
As I have ordered plans that are available in the various books, I can say it's much more accurate taking measurements off of the larger scale plans. The smaller the sample, the less accuracy you have.Scot McPherson, PMP CISSP MCSA
Old Lyme, CT, USA
Scot McPherson | Linkedin <https://www.linkedin.com/in/scotmcpherson>
Old Lyme, CT, USA
Scot McPherson | Linkedin <https://www.linkedin.com/in/scotmcpherson>
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 9:12 PM,<philbolger@...>wrote:‘Informal non-binding’ question:
Since we are talking about boat-designs and thus inherently a fair bit of ‘sprawling’ content, what would be the reasons to not go with a 8.5” x 11” layout ?
Objection #1: This would produce a ‘thinner’ book per same amount of content versus a smaller ‘thicker’ format.
Objection #2: ?
Susanne Altenburger, PB&F
There are those of us who will always prefer a hard copy in our hands. I personally do not and will never read a book from any of the aforementioned platforms.
From:BruceHallman <hallman@...>
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent:Friday, June 7, 2013 11:47 AM
Subject:Re: [bolger] Re: Book(s) Format
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent:Friday, June 7, 2013 11:47 AM
Subject:Re: [bolger] Re: Book(s) Format
8 1/2" x 11" would be fine. More importantly, paper books are becoming obsolete, (buggy whips).
Deep a vision of the trend in the publishing industry towards the eBook platforms, Kindle(azw), pdf, mobi, epub
Well, perhaps yes or perhaps no...
Check out‘Digital Rights Management’as it has developed this far athttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-book
Pulp seems way more durable, straight-forward, and is readable without gadgets and energy-connection.
Nothing ‘Luddite’ about this well-proven ‘model’ – which is expected to stick around for ‘durable’ books of lasting value.
And perhaps it may still be of ‘lower-carbon’ first and last than the whole infrastructure from initial ‘reader’-production (incl. waste-stream) to ‘life-time’ server-support and thus de facto permanent fuel-consumption necessary to just read one favorite chapter again and again across 20 years...
Which reader would be used for 20 years ?! And which will be the ‘favored’ electronic format 5 years from now. Meanwhile I can lay my hands on Phil’s earliest book-acquisition of many decades ago - and it ‘boots up’ immediately...
I’ve sought serious book-business counsel on this issue from proponents of both ends of the spectrum.
As so many times in life, one could say about the future of pulp- versus e-books that ‘it all depends...’
‘Ah, the smell and feel of fresh archive-quality/acid-free pulp in the morning...’
Susanne Altenburger, PB&F
Check out‘Digital Rights Management’as it has developed this far athttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-book
Pulp seems way more durable, straight-forward, and is readable without gadgets and energy-connection.
Nothing ‘Luddite’ about this well-proven ‘model’ – which is expected to stick around for ‘durable’ books of lasting value.
And perhaps it may still be of ‘lower-carbon’ first and last than the whole infrastructure from initial ‘reader’-production (incl. waste-stream) to ‘life-time’ server-support and thus de facto permanent fuel-consumption necessary to just read one favorite chapter again and again across 20 years...
Which reader would be used for 20 years ?! And which will be the ‘favored’ electronic format 5 years from now. Meanwhile I can lay my hands on Phil’s earliest book-acquisition of many decades ago - and it ‘boots up’ immediately...
I’ve sought serious book-business counsel on this issue from proponents of both ends of the spectrum.
As so many times in life, one could say about the future of pulp- versus e-books that ‘it all depends...’
‘Ah, the smell and feel of fresh archive-quality/acid-free pulp in the morning...’
Susanne Altenburger, PB&F
8 1/2" x 11" would be fine. More importantly, paper books are becoming obsolete, (buggy whips).
Deep a vision of the trend in the publishing industry towards the eBook
platforms, Kindle(azw), pdf, mobi, epub
8 1/2" x 11" would be fine. More importantly, paper books are becoming obsolete, (buggy whips).
Deep a vision of the trend in the publishing industry towards the eBook platforms, Kindle(azw), pdf, mobi, epub
I'd be more worried about the archival quality of the paper. A design book is one to hold for years, and hopefully, the paper won't be turning yellow like newsprint.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Bill Howard <billh39@...> wrote:
>
> Hello Susanne:
>
> Large format sounds good to me.
>
> I have a number of over-sized books, including
>
> Jim Michalak's '"Boatbuilding for Beginners (and Beyond)" which measures 9 x 12
> Dynamite Payson's "Build the New Instant Boats" which measures 8 1/2 x 11, and
> Phillib C. Bolger's "The Folding Schooner and Other Adventures in Boat Design" which measures 7 1/4 x 10 1/4.
>
> The drawings in all the above are easier to read than those in Howard I. Chapelle's "Boatbuilding."
>
> The only disadvantage is that the soft cover large format books should be stored flat.
>
> Regards from an avid reader,
>
> Bill Howard
> Nellysford VA
>
>
>
> On Jun 6, 2013, at 9:12 PM, <philbolger@...> <philbolger@...> wrote:
>
> >
> > `Informal non-binding' question:
> > Since we are talking about boat-designs and thus inherently a fair bit of `sprawling' content, what would be the reasons to not go with a 8.5" x 11" layout ?
> >
> > Objection #1: This would produce a `thinner' book per same amount of content versus a smaller `thicker' format.
> > Objection #2: ?
> >
> > Susanne Altenburger, PB&F
> >
> >
> >
>
Hello Susanne:
Large format sounds good to me.
I have a number of over-sized books, including
Jim Michalak's '"Boatbuilding for Beginners (and Beyond)" which measures 9 x 12
Dynamite Payson's"Build the New Instant Boats" which measures 8 1/2 x 11, and
Phillib C. Bolger's "The Folding Schooner and Other Adventures in Boat Design" which measures 7 1/4 x 10 1/4.
The drawings in all the above are easier to read than those in Howard I. Chapelle's "Boatbuilding."
The only disadvantage is that the soft cover large format books should be stored flat.
Regards from an avid reader,
Bill Howard
Nellysford VA
On Jun 6, 2013, at 9:12 PM, <philbolger@...> <philbolger@...> wrote:‘Informal non-binding’ question:
Since we are talking about boat-designs and thus inherently a fair bit of ‘sprawling’ content, what would be the reasons to not go with a 8.5” x 11” layout ?
Objection #1: This would produce a ‘thinner’ book per same amount of content versus a smaller ‘thicker’ format.
Objection #2: ?
Susanne Altenburger, PB&F
Suzanne,
Sometime around 1970, I purchased a portfolio of plans from Phil and they arrived in an 8.5 by 11 format. This portfolio later became the core ofSmall Boats.The Portfolio was certainly easier to read. With computer printing, you have a lot of options for format. However, if you get to far away from “standard” measurements, there may be problems. The original year of Small Boat Journal was in an 11 by11 format and it didn’t fit in on news stands or the back of toilets!
In my old age, I keep a magnifying glass handy and from my perspective, bigger is better!
JohnT
From:bolger@yahoogroups.com [mailto:
bolger@yahoogroups.com ]On Behalf Ofphilbolger@...
Sent:Thursday, June 06, 2013 9:12
PM
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Subject:[bolger] Book(s) Format
‘Informal
non-binding’ question:
Since we are talking about boat-designs and thus inherently a fair bit of
‘sprawling’ content, what would be the reasons to not go with a
8.5” x 11” layout ?
Objection #1: This would produce a ‘thinner’ book per same
amount of content versus a smaller ‘thicker’ format.
Objection #2: ?
Susanne Altenburger, PB&F
Susanne
I think letter size books (as LFH'S sensible cruising designs, Dynamites new instant boats, Jim Michalak and others) has a lot to recommend it for any type of technical book where the intention is to work from them. It also makes the plans/sketches much easier to read.
I used to think that the traditional book format was easier to resd on planes and such. I have found however that the bigger (thinner) format is more convenient to include with the laptop in the bag...
The two columns per page with illustrations as required can be easily configured and looks great in my opinion for the type of book we are discussing.
I don't think BWAOM would be a good candidate. Neither probably would LFH's Compleat Cruiser. Both these are more of a novel than a technical manual so I find the conventional book format best in their case.
David (in Chile)
I think letter size books (as LFH'S sensible cruising designs, Dynamites new instant boats, Jim Michalak and others) has a lot to recommend it for any type of technical book where the intention is to work from them. It also makes the plans/sketches much easier to read.
I used to think that the traditional book format was easier to resd on planes and such. I have found however that the bigger (thinner) format is more convenient to include with the laptop in the bag...
The two columns per page with illustrations as required can be easily configured and looks great in my opinion for the type of book we are discussing.
I don't think BWAOM would be a good candidate. Neither probably would LFH's Compleat Cruiser. Both these are more of a novel than a technical manual so I find the conventional book format best in their case.
David (in Chile)
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, <philbolger@...> wrote:
>
> âInformal non-bindingâ question:
> Since we are talking about boat-designs and thus inherently a fair bit of âsprawlingâ content, what would be the reasons to not go with a 8.5â x 11â layout ?
>
> Objection #1: This would produce a âthinnerâ book per same amount of content versus a smaller âthickerâ format.
> Objection #2: ?
>
> Susanne Altenburger, PB&F
>
On 6/6/2013 8:12 PM,philbolger@...wrote:
‘Informal non-binding’ question:
Since we are talking about boat-designs and thus inherently a fair bit of ‘sprawling’ content, what would be the reasons to not go with a 8.5” x 11” layout ?
Objection #1: This would produce a ‘thinner’ book per same amount of content versus a smaller ‘thicker’ format.
Objection #2: ?
Susanne Altenburger, PB&F
I can not think of any objection.
In a 8.5" x 11 format some of the important pictures could be made much more readable in the larger format.Mike Allison (North of Kansas City Mo, USA)
E-Mail:mysloop@...
‘Informal non-binding’ question:
Since we are talking about boat-designs and thus inherently a fair bit of ‘sprawling’ content, what would be the reasons to not go with a 8.5” x 11” layout ?
Objection #1: This would produce a ‘thinner’ book per same amount of content versus a smaller ‘thicker’ format.
Objection #2: ?
Susanne Altenburger, PB&F
Since we are talking about boat-designs and thus inherently a fair bit of ‘sprawling’ content, what would be the reasons to not go with a 8.5” x 11” layout ?
Objection #1: This would produce a ‘thinner’ book per same amount of content versus a smaller ‘thicker’ format.
Objection #2: ?
Susanne Altenburger, PB&F