Movies

[John C]

However, I also see that the cylinders themselves run about two dollars apiece, and now I wonder (back to the "with modern technology" idea) if it'd be easier to build something to play non-destructively.  After all, the track is physical, and a small camera/microscope rig should get enough information to reproduce the sound.

I think those are called CDs.

Very close, but not quite.  A CD player uses a laser to check refraction patterns to read a digital signal from...I'm simplifying, but it's sort of a sequence of mirrors and holes, on and off.  I'm suggesting "scanning" the grooves like we do comics, then using some analysis to reconstruct the sound as if a needle was vibrating in it.  Similar mechanism, different principle, basically.

Plus, you can't shove a cylinder or an old LP into a CD player.  If you want to listen to the music, I mean.

Not only would it be a non-destructive read, but the playback could simulate different kinds of needles and possibly even try to "heal" damage that's been done previously.  I mean, the best use for such a thing would obviously be preservation.

[Roygbiv666]

However, I also see that the cylinders themselves run about two dollars apiece, and now I wonder (back to the "with modern technology" idea) if it'd be easier to build something to play non-destructively.  After all, the track is physical, and a small camera/microscope rig should get enough information to reproduce the sound.

I think those are called CDs.

Very close, but not quite.  A CD player uses a laser to check refraction patterns to read a digital signal from...I'm simplifying, but it's sort of a sequence of mirrors and holes, on and off.  I'm suggesting "scanning" the grooves like we do comics, then using some analysis to reconstruct the sound as if a needle was vibrating in it.  Similar mechanism, different principle, basically.

Plus, you can't shove a cylinder or an old LP into a CD player.  If you want to listen to the music, I mean.

Not only would it be a non-destructive read, but the playback could simulate different kinds of needles and possibly even try to "heal" damage that's been done previously.  I mean, the best use for such a thing would obviously be preservation.

OK, I thought you meant bringing back cylinders for some reason. Yeah, preservation is important and each handling further damages the source, just like magnetic tape degrades with each playback across the magnetic heads, or even physical handling of books.

[JVJ (RIP)]

I'm simplifying, but it's sort of a sequence of mirrors and holes, on and off.  I'm suggesting "scanning" the grooves like we do comics, then using some analysis to reconstruct the sound as if a needle was vibrating in it.  Similar mechanism, different principle, basically.

Plus, you can't shove a cylinder or an old LP into a CD player.  If you want to listen to the music, I mean.

Not only would it be a non-destructive read, but the playback could simulate different kinds of needles and possibly even try to "heal" damage that's been done previously.  I mean, the best use for such a thing would obviously be preservation.

Just what I meant, John, and the concept of making new ones could be "tweaked" using new materials that would outlast all of the originals. In fact, a duplication process that used only physical molds and copies might also preserve the fragile originals. I've been trying to figure out something with my Doré wood-engraving that would allow me to make a mold and print from that rather than risking damage or wear to original wood. When I get more time... ha ha ha. But, really, wouldn't YOU want to have a print from such an original block?

Peace, Jim (|:{>

[John C]

I've been trying to figure out something with my Doré wood-engraving that would allow me to make a mold and print from that rather than risking damage or wear to original wood. When I get more time... ha ha ha.

Just tossing around ideas so I don't forget about this, a high-resolution scan would probably be a good place to start.  Hand it off to someone with the skill and patience to vectorize it (or build it in a CAD program), and you can push that to a CNC router or laser engraver.

[narfstar]

While you would get the closest picture, it would not be from the original wood. To me that would be no different from an analog to digital recording. To be an original wood print, without damaging the wood, would require coating the wood with something that would protect it without removing any detail. Then you could say you had original prints.

[John C]

That's true, but I can't think of any substance that'd adhere with any fidelity without destroying the wood.  At some point, there has to be a detail left to a subsequent artist or damage to the artifact.  In my case, it'd be tweaking the digital copy.  In yours, it's fiddling with the "cover" to express the right details.  It (or the alternative, loss of fidelity) seems to be an inherent part of the problem in that anything you do can only serve to cause damage or introduce noise.

Something I forgot about, though, that may only need the right magic substance (something that won't adhere to wood, specifically), what they call "fluid scanning."  It's an approach used to get three-dimensional scans by filming video of an object being slowly and smoothly immersed in a contrasting liquid.  Each frame then goes through kind of an inverted chromakey process, leaving you with a series of stackable outlines.

It's pretty clever, except for the part where you need to find something pourable that contrasts strongly to the wood but wouldn't cling to it or get absorbed to cause more damage.

Personally, I'd find a first-generation reconstruction close enough to "original print."

[Yoc]

Why not just use a laser to scan the surface?  Zero physical contact and exact measurements.
Who know what it'd cost but I think that would solve the damage problem.

[JVJ (RIP)]

While you would get the closest picture, it would not be from the original wood. To me that would be no different from an analog to digital recording. To be an original wood print, without damaging the wood, would require coating the wood with something that would protect it without removing any detail. Then you could say you had original prints.

EXACTLY, narf! You have to keep it ANALOG all the way. In reality, back in 1873, they coated the wood with some very fine waxy substance from which they made a mold from which they made a copper plate that they used in printing the book. Go to the bottom of this page: http://www.bpib.com/paris/2009-09/10-09.html and you'll see an example.

I've made a high-rez scan and it's okay as far as it goes:

http://www.bpib.com/paris/2010-Spring/Dore-wood-block.gif

, but you're absolutely right that it wouldn't be a real "print" if there were any digital intermediary steps. Someday I'll figure it out, or I'll just bite the bullet and ink up the damn block.

Wait for it...

Peace, Jim (|:{>

[narfstar]

So Jim what is the history/story behind the print?

[JVJ (RIP)]

So Jim what is the history/story behind the print?

The print is what I WANT to make, narf. What I have is the ACTUAL wood-engraved block that some artisan carved from a Gustave Doré drawing back in 1873. My friend Francisco in Paris put me in touch with some hoity-toity bookseller over there who traded me this block for a set of my ImageS magazines. People ARE crazy.

Peace, Jim (|:{>