Register Guidelines E-Books Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   MobileRead Forums > E-Book Readers > Sony Reader

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-14-2007, 10:37 AM   #76
ereszet
Zealot
ereszet has a complete set of Star Wars action figures.ereszet has a complete set of Star Wars action figures.ereszet has a complete set of Star Wars action figures.ereszet has a complete set of Star Wars action figures.
 
ereszet's Avatar
 
Posts: 118
Karma: 306
Join Date: Sep 2007
Device: Sony PRS-500 Archos 704 wifi
Distortions

Quote:
Originally Posted by user View Post
mm what about barrel distortion, white balance, color distortions that are common in cameras?

scanners have minimum artifacts (mainly from dust) and inexisting distortion

I dont have an opinion about camera scanning at the moment, I just collect facts and most photographers say it wont work or it will be too much job for such a bad quality

I hope G9 will be enough and I will come back with positive feedback

the atiz supported cameras are +1k USD
1. I see no barrel distortion when shooting A5-A4 formats. I see sometimes darker edges, which can be avoided by changing the camera zoom. White balance is the problem of lighting and your perception. All the digital cameras I have, provide white balance settings for several different light conditions (daylight, fluorescent, tungsten, automatic) and a possibilty to set the parameters based on your shooting of what you believe is a white page (or a Kodak gray sheet). If your light is uniform you can easily correct white balance in RAW photos or even in jpg (see Picasa). Color depends on the mode settings in the camera. I recommend neutral (no processing inside the camera) mode. You can match the colors to your taste in a number of photo processing programs (Picasa included). Scanners need as much color attention and postprocessing as digital cameras. And yes, the scanners (especially the ones in the range of $100) distort images, because of non uniform speed of their CCD or other sensor bar. As for white balance, most of the time the white from a scanner looks white but not always, and you have no means to adjust it in the scanning process (I do not refer to high end costly scanners)

2. Most photographers dismissed digital cameras a few years ago. Times change.

3. Your Powershot G9 should be more than enough for the job. My first digital scanning camera was G5 (5 Mpixels) and was quite good for A4 format sheets and OCR. Unfortunately, Canon makes some strange marketing moves. They removed raw mode from G7 (fortunately it is back in G9), but they also removed a flexible, rotating LCD screen (which is still available on a cheaper A640). That, and also the lack of a pop-up flash in G-series, is the reason why I stay since 2004 with my Powershot Pro 1 and wonder why Canon doesn't want my money for Pro 2.

4. As for Atiz DIY BookDrive, they provide support only for selected cameras, because they are not in the camera business. Canon cameras come with the software to shoot from the computer, and some come with infrared remote. An independent developer of Breeze Systems sells the PSremote program that works with practically all Canon cameras, and is much more convenient than the Canon software.
ereszet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2007, 05:06 PM   #77
ereszet
Zealot
ereszet has a complete set of Star Wars action figures.ereszet has a complete set of Star Wars action figures.ereszet has a complete set of Star Wars action figures.ereszet has a complete set of Star Wars action figures.
 
ereszet's Avatar
 
Posts: 118
Karma: 306
Join Date: Sep 2007
Device: Sony PRS-500 Archos 704 wifi
The proof is in the pudding

It is time to present some comparison results scanner vs. camera.
The scanner is hp scanjet 2300c at 300 dpi color.
The camera setup is Canon Powershot Pro 1 on a tripod, v-cradle put on a box to bring it closer to the lens, a home 50 watt lamp with halogen mini bulb - about 1.5 meters over the cradle, a diffusor for dissipation of light - about 40 centimeters below the bulb (see my first posts in this thread).

Neither the scanner nor the photo setup are top quality devices/arrangements. It is just what I have at hand in my temporary residence away from home.

The scanning took a lot of time (between 30 and 60 seconds if not more - I didn't look at my watch).
The photo took a split second plus a dozen or so seconds to download the image to my computer. All camera parameters apart from zoom and white balance were automatic. White balance was set to "tungsten". No attempt was made to set the custom white balance, based on a Kodak gray card (or a white sheet of paper).

The object to scan and photo was a DVD plastic reflective case with a sleeve cover underneath and miniscule text in 10 languages. See the attached picture "original scan and photo.jpg" (lefthand image is scan, righthand image is photo).

The black margins from both the scan and the photo were removed manually. See the attached picture "images with black margines removed.jpg" (lefthand image is scan, righthand image is photo). The colors are not true neither in scan (too blueish) nor in photo (too greyish). The white is more white in the scan (possibly can be made better in the photo with custom white balance settings or with postprocessing). The photo shows a small barrel distortion due to the object being close to the lens. My camera would not allow me to zoom from a further distance (automatic focus would not work; I have not tried to use the manual focus since it is awkard and cumbersome to use in Powershot Pro 1 - despite a nice ultrasonic ring that can be rotated manually, one needs to push some buttons at the same time, which requires three hands).

The quality of images can be seen in detail in the attache picture "scanner and photo detail.jpg" (top image is scan, bottom image is photo). Amazingly, the photo renders the fonts much better than the scan.

The OCR results with Finereader 8 are (out of 10 languages, two were not installed in my recognition engine):
scan - uncertain characters 82, total characters 2130; error rate 4%
photo - uncertain characters 44; total characters 2093; error rate 2%

To make the OCR results visible, I saved the results as text and image. See the attached "text and image picture" (lefthand image is scan, righthand image is photo - both after OCR). Usually, I save text under image, which preserves picture true copy of the original.

What arrangement wins? In my opinion, both for speed and quality the camera is better. But you can draw your own conclusions.

As a bonus, I include an example of OCRed photo of text on a Scan Reader screen (original at the top, OCRed "text over image" at the bottom of the picture). That the result is perfect is just accidental. You can expect some OCR errors with other texts.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	original scan and photo.jpg
Views:	437
Size:	933.1 KB
ID:	6314   Click image for larger version

Name:	images with black margines removed.jpg
Views:	429
Size:	925.3 KB
ID:	6315   Click image for larger version

Name:	scanner and photo detail.jpg
Views:	370
Size:	43.4 KB
ID:	6316   Click image for larger version

Name:	text and image.jpg
Views:	419
Size:	872.9 KB
ID:	6317   Click image for larger version

Name:	sony reader.jpg
Views:	417
Size:	781.0 KB
ID:	6318  
ereszet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2007, 08:35 PM   #78
user
Connoisseur
user began at the beginning.
 
Posts: 78
Karma: 10
Join Date: Oct 2007
Device: Benq P51
thank you very much for this!

the results are astonishing to me, camera way wins hands down, far superior to scanner way

however, I think Canon Powershot Pro 1, as a professional SLR camera, even if the megapixels seem low for todays standards (8MP), it is better than some of todays compact/ultracompact 12MP cameras, do you get the same results with your compact casio?

here you can see why SLR cameras are superior to compact cameras and why 8MP is not the same for all cameras

so, it would be interesting to estimate the optimum camera that would do the job and that anything more would be an overkill

in "original scan and photo.jpg" the scanned image is at the left? why its so small?

Last edited by user; 10-14-2007 at 09:29 PM.
user is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2007, 04:26 AM   #79
ereszet
Zealot
ereszet has a complete set of Star Wars action figures.ereszet has a complete set of Star Wars action figures.ereszet has a complete set of Star Wars action figures.ereszet has a complete set of Star Wars action figures.
 
ereszet's Avatar
 
Posts: 118
Karma: 306
Join Date: Sep 2007
Device: Sony PRS-500 Archos 704 wifi
Quote:
Originally Posted by user View Post
in "original scan and photo.jpg" the scanned image is at the left? why its so small?
The object in the original scan is placed in an A4 scanner so it looks small. The object in the original photo is taken with the maximum zoom allowed by the camera (while retaining focus) to get as large the picture in the frame as possible.

The scanner set at 300 dpi will make 300 dpi scans no matter what is the size of the object, be it an A4 document or a 1" stamp. The camera can zoom to get the object in the frame with little or no background, so the dpi equivalent is greater for smaller object (same Mpixels for smaller size). It is a kind of self-adjusting dpi.

One can say that it is unfair to compare a set dpi in a scanner with a self-adjusting dpi equivalent in a camera, which can much exceed the scanner setting. But my comparison is not about fairness but about practicalities. I will not even try to waste my time waiting for the scanner to take a color scan at 600 dpi or higher resolution. It would take ages.

As for my camera, Powershot Pro 1, despite the name, is not a professional SLR. It is an old "prosumer" camera belonging to the same class as Canon G-series cameras (the sensor is much smaller than the one in SLRs). Later today, I will conduct some tests with the same object and my compact cameras.
ereszet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2007, 09:12 AM   #80
user
Connoisseur
user began at the beginning.
 
Posts: 78
Karma: 10
Join Date: Oct 2007
Device: Benq P51
Quote:
Originally Posted by ereszet View Post
Later today, I will conduct some tests with the same object and my compact cameras.
this will be very interesting

Quote:
Originally Posted by ereszet View Post
the sensor is much smaller than the one in SLRs
the sensor size of Canon PowerShot Pro1 is 2/3", which is significantly bigger than most compact cameras' sensor size (1/7", etc)

and given the fact that, "digital compact cameras have substantially smaller sensors offering a similar number of pixels. As a consequence, the pixels are much smaller, which is a key reason for the image quality difference", the results may be disappointing

pixel count does not accurately determines image quality, pixel quality (among other factors) defines image quality
image quality may be better in low megapixels, if the pixel quality is better

also, did you save in RAW or JPG?

Last edited by user; 10-15-2007 at 09:48 AM.
user is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2007, 10:34 AM   #81
ereszet
Zealot
ereszet has a complete set of Star Wars action figures.ereszet has a complete set of Star Wars action figures.ereszet has a complete set of Star Wars action figures.ereszet has a complete set of Star Wars action figures.
 
ereszet's Avatar
 
Posts: 118
Karma: 306
Join Date: Sep 2007
Device: Sony PRS-500 Archos 704 wifi
Scanner vs compact cameras

Following my earlier post, below are further test results including two models of compact Casio cameras.

Setup: since I do not touch my tripod and Canon Powershot Pro 1 anymore to avoid lengthy angles adjustment afterwords, for testing Casio I used a superclamp with a headball, attached to the back of a chair and my v-cradle put on the seat of the chair over a cardboard box. I took the photos outdoors (picture attached).

The settings:
1. HP scanjet 2300c 300 dpi color
2. Canon Powershot Pro 1, 8 Mpixels, resolution 3264 x 2448, sensor ccd 2/3" (8.80 x 6.60 mm), indoors with halogen 50 watt lamp, white balance set to tungsten, other settings automatic
3. Casio Ex-Z1000, 10.1 Mpixels, resolution 3648x2736, sensor ccd 1/1.8 " (7.18 x 5.32 mm), outdoors in shadow, white balance set to custom based on white sheet of paper, other settings automatic
4. Casio Ex-Z850, 8.1 Mpixels, resolution 3264 x 2448, sensor the same as Ex-Z1000, outdoors in sunlight, automatic white balance, other settings automatic.

The picture attached (margins trimmed.jpg) shows in the top row images from the scanner and the Canon, and in the bottom row images from Ex-Z1000 and Ex-Z850. Apparently my custom white balance setting for Ex-Z1000 was wrong (I used a white sheet of paper instead of Kodak gray card. However a white sheet works for me indoors) .

The details in the attached picture "detail.jpg" show that rendering of fonts with camera photos was in all cases better than in the scan (download and see the picture full screen). The images are in sequence 1 to 4 from top to bottom.

OCR results with Finereader 8 (no preprocessing of pictures)

1. scan - uncertain characters 82, total characters 2130; error rate 4%
2. Canon - uncertain characters 44; total characters 2093; error rate 2%
3. Ex-Z1000 - uncertain characters 52; total characters 2100; error rate 2%
4. Ex-Z850 - uncertain characters 80; total characters 2133; error rate 4%

The pdfs saved as text and images are attached in the last picture.

Conclusions:
- The results from a compact Ex-Z850 camera are comparable to those from the 300 dpi scan.
- Canon (8 Mpixels) gives better results than Ex-1000 (10.1 Mpixels) because of a larger sensor.
- The higher resolution (10.1 Mpixels) Casio gave better results than 8.1 Mpixels Casio, despite the same sensor size (however, it is not as good as 8.1 Mpixels Casio when focusing under dim condtions).

BTW. I have no time to deal with RAW, so I save pictures as the biggest size jpgs (compressed in the camera). Typical sizes are 2 to 4 MB.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	setup.JPG
Views:	549
Size:	462.1 KB
ID:	6341   Click image for larger version

Name:	margins trimmed.JPG
Views:	417
Size:	760.2 KB
ID:	6342   Click image for larger version

Name:	detail.JPG
Views:	314
Size:	81.7 KB
ID:	6343   Click image for larger version

Name:	pdf saved as text and picture.JPG
Views:	348
Size:	500.5 KB
ID:	6344  

Last edited by ereszet; 10-15-2007 at 03:02 PM.
ereszet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2007, 04:32 PM   #82
user
Connoisseur
user began at the beginning.
 
Posts: 78
Karma: 10
Join Date: Oct 2007
Device: Benq P51
Very interesting results, imo they prove that high MP but cheap cameras wont work well. The 8MP Canon outperforms the 10MP Casio, so megapixels is not the only factor we must take into consideration: we need an optimum of both amount and quality of megapixels.

although 98% OCR success is superb, what if you postprocess the images with a software? do you reach a 100%? does postprocessing increase the OCR success in both scans and photos?

I am sure your work will be referenced from all those who try to digitize using a camera, and maybe in the futures scanners will extinct for home/small-office digitization
user is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2007, 10:29 AM   #83
ereszet
Zealot
ereszet has a complete set of Star Wars action figures.ereszet has a complete set of Star Wars action figures.ereszet has a complete set of Star Wars action figures.ereszet has a complete set of Star Wars action figures.
 
ereszet's Avatar
 
Posts: 118
Karma: 306
Join Date: Sep 2007
Device: Sony PRS-500 Archos 704 wifi
OCR error rate and the future

Quote:
Originally Posted by user View Post

although 98% OCR success is superb, what if you postprocess the images with a software? do you reach a 100%? does postprocessing increase the OCR success in both scans and photos?

I am sure your work will be referenced from all those who try to digitize using a camera, and maybe in the futures scanners will extinct for home/small-office digitization
1. Please note, that my test was a kind of a "destructive test" (like crushing your car against the wall to see damages). The title sleeve was under a reflective plastic cover, the text was miniscule and in ten languages of which two were not installed in my OCR engine, the pictures (flags) were so small that could easily be taken as a text in color, the background was in color, etc. It is difficult to imagine similar case in practice. That the error rate with my camera setup was just 2% was amazing. One should examine the text after OCR (ten languages) by reading it to get the real taste of what Finereader is capable of doing with moderately good photos (no white balance) of extremely difficult layouts.

On average you can expect a 1% error rate (even with picture perfect photos/scans of text), unless you have hundreds of similar pages and you train the program (dictionary, patterns) with the first dozen or so pages to make sure that the rest is recognized error free.

In my experience, there is always an error here and there. Even if you scan the same document twice under identical conditions, the errors will appear in different places. Apart from sophisticated algorithms, some kind of a huge contextual database and artificial intelligence is the future. With handwritten text there are different recognition algorithms based on the movement of your pen rather then patterns.

2. Preprocessing is not required if you take the photos in proper lighting condtions and make sure that they are rectangular (removing of black borders may be required when the book size proportions are different from the photo frame). Batch contrast improvement may be useful for photos taken in dim lighting (in a hotel on your business trip). Deskewing and despeckling may be useful for faxes that you receive (a lot of people do not clean their fax machines). Correcting perspective and straightening text lines may be required for photos taken by hand or photos of double pages of thick books. Binarization will help you reduce the size of resultant pdfs. All this can be done before using Finereader and some preprocessing can be done by Finereader (but Finereader uses default parameters that may not be ideal with your specific documents/books). Finally, sometimes you may need to remove black blobs that are due to non uniform lighting conditions. When you binarize color or grey pictures with some areas where text and background are barely discernible, you will get the text surrounded by black lines, smudges and blobs. By changing the binarization parameters you can get less of that but the danger is that the text will disappear as well. The best method I found is to recognize blocks of text and pictures in Finereader and save all the images with blocks of text and picture only. Then, you load the images back to the Finerader and check the thumbnails. You will easily see those images that still have black spots and you can remove them with the eraser. After that you save again your images as blocks, load them back, recognize the text, save the final result in whatever format you want, and add white margins afterwords if you need them.

Please do not be put off by the procedures I described above. If you use my setup with adjustable v-cradle you will shoot 10 perfect photos a minute (a book in one hour - with automatic camera shooting, 6 seconds lapse time) and you can directly OCR it. If some pages go wrong (e.g. you turned two pages together instead of one, you moved the book a little and the binding shows in some pictures) you just take again the photos of those pages only.

Last edited by ereszet; 10-16-2007 at 04:23 PM.
ereszet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2007, 12:10 PM   #84
user
Connoisseur
user began at the beginning.
 
Posts: 78
Karma: 10
Join Date: Oct 2007
Device: Benq P51
this is a sample from the Casio EX-Z1000 (10MP)
http://69.93.231.164/PRODS/Z1K/FULLR...MULTI3648F.JPG

this is a sample from the Fujifilm Finepix F50fd (12MP)
http://69.93.231.164/PRODS/F50FD/FUL...MULTI4000F.jpg

in my opinion, the Casio Z1000 is slightly better (even though its 10MP and Fuji 12MP), the letters are more sharp and clear, with less noise (I dont examine color accuracy)

I cant imagine how can Casio (that is not a big brand in digital cameras) produce so fine quality and how can Casio produce so poor performance in your test (its lower than the 8MP Canon, while Casio is 10MP)

I afraid we will never reach with a compact camera, the OCR results we get from a SLR

also, is there any chance to acchieve more than 98% OCR success? 100% maybe? what is needed? more decent camera? more megapixels? more pixel quality? (98% can be alot of if we are talking about many books)

in this nice site I couldnt find any 10-12MP compact camera that produces better image quality than Casio EX-Z1000 and Fujifilm F50fd (I didnt look for SLR)

I was thinking to buy one between Casio EX-1080 (10MP), Casio EX-Z1200 (12MP), Fujifilm Finepix F50fd (12MP)

but I cant find the "golden mean", the optimum combination of megapixels and image quality

it is known that cameras with more megapixels produce lower image quality photos, the more megapixels the less image quality (the main is noise and sharpness)

so would a 10MP camera perform better than a 12MP camera in OCR?

Last edited by user; 10-18-2007 at 12:44 PM.
user is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2007, 02:05 PM   #85
user
Connoisseur
user began at the beginning.
 
Posts: 78
Karma: 10
Join Date: Oct 2007
Device: Benq P51
oh, this one is very sharp too (I think the sharpest):

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-N2
http://69.93.231.164/PRODS/N2/FULLRES/N2hMULTI3648F.JPG

(unfortunately I cant find Powershot Pro1 images to compare)

Last edited by user; 10-18-2007 at 07:21 PM.
user is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2007, 05:55 AM   #86
ereszet
Zealot
ereszet has a complete set of Star Wars action figures.ereszet has a complete set of Star Wars action figures.ereszet has a complete set of Star Wars action figures.ereszet has a complete set of Star Wars action figures.
 
ereszet's Avatar
 
Posts: 118
Karma: 306
Join Date: Sep 2007
Device: Sony PRS-500 Archos 704 wifi
Useful features

Do not take my ad hoc tests as a scientific proof. The results may vary from shot to shot. My tests only show that a digital camera can be as good (and much faster) for scanning as a cheap scanner.

For professional comparison of practical resolutions see http://www.robgalbraith.com. The author provides tests for all the cameras reviewed. (The link didn't work for me today because of Gateway Timeout. Probably a temporary problem).

When deciding on which camera to buy remember about a remote capture feature, which is available for most Canon and very few other cameras. Check http://www.breezesys.com/ to see what cameras the author's Psremote program supports. Also, make sure that the camera can be powered by an external AC power supply.

From http://www.steves-digicams.com, I quote:

"RemoteCapture allows you to operate the camera while tethered to a computer via the USB port and includes a live viewfinder option. The Field angle/flash screen gives you access to settings for: Focusing Point, Flash, Macro Focus, AF-assist lamp and AF operation.

The Image Size and Quality is selected at the top. The shutter can be tripped by either a mouse click or a hot-key on the keyboard.

Captured images can be saved directly to the computer or they can be stored on the camera's CF card and then transferred to the hard drive

The Remote Capture program is also capable of interval and timer recording as well as instantaneous. Shooting interval: approx. 1 – 60 min. (1-min. increments) Number of shots: 2 – 100 shots (Maximum number of shots varies according to memory card capacity"

Avoid compact cameras that need a cradle to download images or to recharge batteries (unfortunately that is the feature of my Casios - two different cradles for two similar cameras). Camera+cradle+power supply is no longer compact.

If I were to buy a compact camera today, I would choose Canon Powershot A640 or a successor.
ereszet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2007, 10:53 AM   #87
user
Connoisseur
user began at the beginning.
 
Posts: 78
Karma: 10
Join Date: Oct 2007
Device: Benq P51
mmm, I dont think Canon Powershot A640 is the best for OCR

here is a comparison of Canon Powershot A640 with Sony N2 (canon at right, sony at left):


in my opinion, canon looks blury and less sharp than Sony's, but with good color reproduction (black is greyish, but it doesnt have purple in it as Sony's and white seems better that Sony's), however I dont know which is better for OCRing and which is more easily corrected with postprocessing, accurate colors or sharpness
user is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2007, 11:31 AM   #88
user
Connoisseur
user began at the beginning.
 
Posts: 78
Karma: 10
Join Date: Oct 2007
Device: Benq P51
also, there is something else that must be taken into consideration:

when we are saying that Finereader needs at least a 300dpi scan, or at least a 8MP photo, I think we mean that the fonts must have a minimun size so that the OCR program will recognize them and it will be able to see the differences between the letters

so, a small font text will need more dpi/MP than a large font text

also, we must calculate as image dinemsions, not the dimensions of the paper (A4 or more), but the actual dimensions of the text column (and maybe a little bit bigger just to avoid the blurry corners than most cameras have)

so since 10MP to 12MP is a 10% increase in the font size, and at the same time a significant loss of detail and more noise, I wonder which is the golden section of MP-size sensor-font size

Last edited by user; 10-19-2007 at 11:35 AM.
user is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2007, 03:32 PM   #89
ereszet
Zealot
ereszet has a complete set of Star Wars action figures.ereszet has a complete set of Star Wars action figures.ereszet has a complete set of Star Wars action figures.ereszet has a complete set of Star Wars action figures.
 
ereszet's Avatar
 
Posts: 118
Karma: 306
Join Date: Sep 2007
Device: Sony PRS-500 Archos 704 wifi
Quote:
Originally Posted by user View Post
in my opinion, canon looks blury and less sharp than Sony's
Good research. But I am afraid that with Sony you will miss this - photos attached.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	laptop screen.JPG
Views:	436
Size:	536.4 KB
ID:	6486   Click image for larger version

Name:	photo captured.JPG
Views:	422
Size:	549.2 KB
ID:	6487  
ereszet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2007, 04:36 PM   #90
user
Connoisseur
user began at the beginning.
 
Posts: 78
Karma: 10
Join Date: Oct 2007
Device: Benq P51
mm, RemoteCapture would be so important reason to buy a camera?
1) to be able to adjust settings from the pc and view the files to the pc?
2) to save images directly to the pc?
(or there is any other advantage I missed)

arent any alternative programs/firmware that can do this for other cameras? or it need hardware support?

cant one just use a 4GB card and transfer the files? (I suppose it will store the whole book)
cant one change the settings from the tripod and view the images in the lcd?

I recognize that all these would be handy ofcourse, but would it justify a compromise in image quality?
user is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What to do with your old paper books badgoodDeb General Discussions 20 04-03-2011 05:51 PM
will e-books kill paper books? Suzy Kindlefan General Discussions 83 06-19-2010 04:25 AM
paper books in calibre? rat_2665 Calibre 11 07-18-2009 03:38 PM
E-books released after paper books - thoughts? BooksOnBoard News 68 08-04-2008 02:22 PM
Giving away paper books to sell e-books Bob Russell News 3 04-22-2007 10:35 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:33 PM.


MobileRead.com is a privately owned, operated and funded community.