A few people have contacted me about the recent release of Mechanick Exercises in a digital format. The experience of reading it as it was printed, warts and all, gave the hands-on feeling I was looking for. But... the question is: why is there scan-through and is that a mistake?
I scratched my head for a minute. An easy task now as my hair thins. After loosening a few more hairs, I realized why people thought this was a case of scan-through. First, what is scan-through? When you scan a piece of paper, or page from a book, the light of the scanner bulb may shine through the page, reflect from the white backing of the top platten and produce a ghost image of what is on the reverse of the page. The typical resolution for this problem is to place a piece of black paper or other material on top of the paper to be scanned. No reflection, no scan-through.
So take a look at this image to the left. This is a low resolution copy of one of the TIFF images I used to create the PDF. The text block is all akilter and there are what looks like scan-through images from the next page. But no, this page looks exactly like the original.
Look closely at the enlargement (go ahead, click on the image). You can see the impressions of the type, the fault of the printer using too much pressure. You can see ghost-like images of the letters. This is bleed through from the original ink. Was there too much ink on the type or perhaps over the centuries there was some bleed-through or chemical change to produce the ghost image? On pages facing ink heavy graphics, you can often see an image of the graphics from the facing page. Decades or centuries of pressure and chemical actions have transferred the image from one page to another.
All this is part of reading the original text. Many modern facsimiles are actually 'literal' facsimiles that have been re-typeset with a matching font along with photographic or digital copies of the graphic elements. With the advent of new digital imaging technologies (Google Books, for one), high resolution digital cameras take a shot of the page and some very advanced imaging software removes the 'offending' background clutter. What you get is a black or gray type against a stark white background. Fine details, such as the lines in old wood, copper or steel engravings are lost or mushed together (that's a technical word used by Yiddish pressmen). Some attempt is made to isolate and image the engraved portions as separate items. The result is usually less than satisfactory when processed by your average scan operator. You end up with those annoying moire lines, funny color artifacts or just plain burry images.
That is why I like true facsimile reproductions. Ok, so 'true facsimile' is a repetitive statement. I should worry? You should have better things to do with your day than get all ver klempt about repetitive statements.
And that is why (Sorry Mr. Schwarz, it's a poorly formed sentence, but I am still too ver klempt what with all this mishagos to remember my high school grammar) I like to read facsimiles and to publish them. When possible, I like to have the experience of reading the real thing. If I can't afford to buy a copy of the real thing, a good facsimile is the next best thing to the real thing. That's enough about Things for today. If you want to learn more about Things, go rent a copy of The Adams Family.
Till next, Gary
