Allow GameFan entries to show whether the actual issue is acquired/scanned

[Cbeckner]

This may be a dead horse topic, but i don't see a way to search the forums.  

I have the issue for Gamefan, oct 2000. I understand the reason why it's not allowed, however, perhaps there should be a designation that shows whether retromags has the actual issue, and/or if it was scanned. Example, "acquired/scanned/not allowed". What if Gamefan changes their mind, or enough time passes that it doesn't matter? (i know that you all have considered this). So if you really don't have the issue, and people get rid of theirs, and Gamefan eventually allows it, then that will make things harder. (i mean this for any magazine really). Maybe you already have this designated in another way, and i missed something, but i didn't notice anything. 

Edit: Ok, so i found the forum search a second after posting this (duh), but after reading some posts, it still seems unclear to me. -- Lets say that all issues that say "not allowed" are indeed acquired. Ok, but then  some issue of Gamefan don't even have a cover, so it leaves me unsure.

[kitsunebi]

I see what you're saying, but the bottom line is that Gamefan is not allowed, and you should proceed under the assumption that it never will be.  If people get rid of their copies hoping that one day in the future a scan will be made available, they're foolish.  And that applies to all mags, whether allowed or not.

"Acquired" does not mean that a mag will be scanned.  It means it might be scanned, but to be honest, I don't give it much credence.  All it takes for a mag to be marked "acquired" is for a member of this site who has the issue to mark it so.  Now, it's true that said person usually at least has hopes of scanning the issue at some point, but it certainly is no guarantee that they will.  Many people own more magazines than they could ever scan in a lifetime.  And most people who decide to contribute scan an issue or two before deciding it's more trouble than they bargained for and give it up.  Some people have a steady output of scans and then just one day disappear completely.  The bottom line is that there are probably tons of mags that were marked "acquired" by people who are no longer active members on the site, just as there are tons of mags owned by site members that have not been marked "acquired."  So while I wouldn't call the designation "meaningless," it certainly isn't proof of either an issue's ownership or it's likelihood to be scanned.

So if you have a mag that hasn't been scanned and aren't willing/able to scan it yourself, your best bet is to hold on to it if it has any meaning to you, or find someone else willing to do it for you.  You've got to remember that there is no "Retromags Central" made up of people who own and scan all the mags.  All content on this site is provided by our regular members, people just like you.  With over 10,000 members, I wouldn't be surprised if most of our missing mags were already "acquired."  Now if only more than 3 or 4 of those people were planning to contribute...

[Cbeckner]

Very good info, and i have a better understanding of how things work now. (and if i had read a little more before posting, i would've wrote my post differently, especially when understanding "acquired" versus "preserved"). But if we take out the fact that Gamefan won't ever allow it, it would still be good to know if a particular issue was on someones hard drive or not, but that is just my opinion. Honestly, if i knew, for example, that Gamefan oct 2000 was preserved here, i would sell it or whatever, because that particular issue doesn't mean much to me, but i'd still like to help out with scanning it, if needed. I'm kind of assuming that all of the Gamefan mag's that have submitted covers, are somewhere, behind the scenes. And if you guys ever make an announcement that you'll allow Gamefan, even if it's in 10 years, i'm sure there will be enough people to get all the issues up eventually (and i only say this because i remember Gamefan subscribers being totally obsessed), so my oct 2000 issue (used only for example) will be useless, hence the reason why i want to get rid of it now. (like you said, that is foolish thinking, but it's only 1 issue, and probably not rare). I won't worry about it anymore though.

What i need to worry about more, is the fact that i take EGM more seriously, and i do want to scan issues 69, 71, 72, 118, 119. (and maybe the EGM 1999 Buyers Guide, which i don't see listed here). I got these issues out when i didn't see them in the torrents, but today i do see that these issues are acquired at least. (which like you said, doesn't always mean much). I might be one of the people who scans one issue only, but i have to at least try it out. I have a low end feeder scanner, and i need to read more about the preferred methods. I want to contribute something, even if i only get a "preserved R" status on a few issues. But i'll do more research and do the best i can.

Edit: Ok, i'm reading the pre-scan guide. If my feeder isn't good enough, that could be an issue. This is a big undertaking. I'm also starting to realize that mag's that aren't allowed, are better to avoid all around.

[kitsunebi]

9 hours ago, Cbeckner said:

Very good info, and i have a better understanding of how things work now. (and if i had read a little more before posting, i would've wrote my post differently, especially when understanding "acquired" versus "preserved"). But if we take out the fact that GameFan won't ever allow it, it would still be good to know if a particular issue was on someones hard drive or not, but that is just my opinion. Honestly, if i knew, for example, that GameFan oct 2000 was preserved here, i would sell it or whatever, because that particular issue doesn't mean much to me, but i'd still like to help out with scanning it, if needed. I'm kind of assuming that all of the GameFan mag's that have submitted covers, are somewhere, behind the scenes. And if you guys ever make an announcement that you'll allow GameFan, even if it's in 10 years, i'm sure there will be enough people to get all the issues up eventually (and i only say this because i remember GameFan subscribers being totally obsessed), so my oct 2000 issue (used only for example) will be useless, hence the reason why i want to get rid of it now. (like you said, that is foolish thinking, but it's only 1 issue, and probably not rare). I won't worry about it anymore though.

I don't believe the issue you own has been scanned.  Here's all the Gamefan scans, as far as I know:

https://archive.org/search.php?query=gamefan

(Archive.org has more money and lower standards than we do, and they also have no qualms about posting things they shouldn't, so it's always wise to check there for things you can't find here.  Maybe you can ask someone about the time they took our entire collection of Nintendo Powers and uploaded them as if they were their own, only to attract the ire of Nintendo's lawyers who forced them to remove them again.  Luckily, out lower profile means we usually get overlooked by the Guys In Suits.  So if you want to scan that GameFan and upload it to archive.org, no one's stopping you, we just can't host it here.)

Also, just because a cover is in our gallery, it doesn't necessarily mean that someone owns the mag.  Unlike our magazine downloads, which are all scanned and edited by our members, covers can pretty much come from anywhere.  A large, quality scan is best, but if nothing else is available, a decent pic found floating around the interwebs will do in a pinch.  I've personally uploaded some GameFan covers in the past, and I've never owned a single issue of that mag in my life.

 

[Cbeckner]

I figured i was being too presumptuous about the covers, and about a lot of other things as well. In fact, i'm thinking about saving the magazines that i have, that currently have a scanning status. Maybe some of them have been in limbo for a while, from site leaders that have left, and it might be useful for me to keep them around. ("glass" scanning and editing may not be a strong thing for me, which i realize is most needed, but we'll see what happens). You might advise me to just keep ALL of my magazines, not just the ones with a scanning status, but i have a huge stack that are preserved here, and my wife has been getting on me about it.......But i have to part with them, and they're either going on ebay as a lot, or maybe individually. It's possible that i could give them away to people here if people want them. (i'll probably make a list). I'll think about it what i should do.

I don't think i've ever been to archive.org ever, but i've heard of it. I will give it a look!

[kitsunebi]

No need to keep mags that have been preserved unless you prefer holding them in your hands when you read them.

Not sure what you mean by "glass" scanning and editing.  Are you talking about using a flatbed scanner?  Editing is editing no matter what scanner is used- you either use Photoshop or some alternative.

Archive.org is just a mass depository of stuff.  Some of it might be exclusive to them, most of it is taken from elsewhere (I've seen several of my own scans show up there).  Their site has no organizational structure, really, so you're sort of at the mercy of what you can find with the search function or things with similar tags, but it can be worthwhile sifting through to see what you might find.

[Cbeckner]

I'm definitely getting rid of the mags that have been preserved, but the ones that have a scanning status on this site, are the ones i might hang on to, just in case they don't get done. I will check the status's of those mags's from time to time. (only like 10 issues).

The scanning guide on this site recommends flatbed, versus feeder, unless you have a good feeder, which i probably don't have. And flatbed scanning is very time consuming obviously, so i just meant that i don't know how useful i will be. And i doubt that i will have the tools and knowledge to correct the color, etc, hence the reason to use flatbed scanning instead, because it usually requires less editing. (again, i'm just going by what the scanning guide says) -- If i do more research, perhaps eventually i can contribute more. I'm sure you'd say not to worry about it, and to just do the best i can, as long as it meets the standards.

[kitsunebi]

Oh dear.  Our scanning guide is discouraging people again.

It's been a long time since I looked at the scanning guide, but what I can tell you is this: it was written by a single person based on their experience with the equipment they owned at whatever time it was written.  Once I started scanning, I quickly realized that in order to make my scans the best they could be (to my eyes), I would have to discard everything written in both our scanning and editing guides and do it my own way.  Since I use different equipment and have a different opinion on what looks best, almost nothing in the guides applied to me.

For example, I can tell you that in my experience, a flatbed scan is not only 50 times slower, but also results in a much worse-looking image, with less vibrant colors and crazy moire effects on photos that have to be compensated for by deliberately blurring the image with filters like descreening effects.  Less editing?  Really?  Not in my experience.  Using my document scanner, I don't have to distort the image with filters at all - just a clean scan that's automatically cropped and (usually) straightened.  Color correction is minor (just some black/white adjustment), and is all done during editing with a single action in Photoshop.  But again, that's just my experience.  I have a pretty good document scanner, and perhaps my flatbed scanner was particularly terrible.  Perhaps the author of the guide had a particularly good flatbed scanner.  Results will vary greatly based on the technology used.

That's part of the reason I haven't written a scanning/editing guide of my own - it would be about how I do it, but it wouldn't necessarily be useful to other people.  It sounds like you have a flatbed and a document scanner.  In that case, your choice is simple.  Scan a few pages on both and see where the best results are, and proceed from there.

[KiwiArcader]

Yep. Scanning guides are totally subjective and are only meant to be applicable to the type of scanner someone uses.

I had two guides on my website, one on using my A3 flatbed (Brother MFC-J6510DW I think it is...) and after I obtained a Fujitsu FI-4530c document scanner I wrote another one on using that particular model. Then I upgraded to a FI-5650c and that was different again so I gave up on creating yet another guide.

All I really tell people scanning for my site now is:

• Scan it the best that you can with the scanner you have. Hold the pages as flat as possible on a flatbed to prevent blurred sections of print
• If you are not going to edit the pages yourself (raw scans) leave plenty of space around the images so that who ever is doing the editing can straighten the pages before cropping without losing any content
• Scan at 300dpi in full 24bit colour. Sounds obvious but if you don't spell it out someone will submit a black and white scan. (I'm not kidding!!)
• Don't shrink/resize the images. Better to have full size images at the cost of a few extra megs in size than have a horrid pixellated version that looks crap on high res viewing devices like iPad Pro's etc.

If you have both a document scanner and a flatbed you are in a perfect world. Some pages slip going through document scanner (thin glossy pages) so chuck them through the document scanner and see how they turn out. They are way, way faster than flatbed scanning so if you don't want to grow a beard in the time it takes to process a mag on the flatbed that's the way to go. You can always scan problematic pages using the flatbed.

Welcome to the world of scanning but don't be surprised and put off if things seem to take an age to get the result you want. Trial and error as they say. Feel free to ask questions. You will always get a reply......