Topics

Classic Trains on CD


np328
 

     I am trying to continually downsize as I and my wife age, (I am only 63 and the wife just hit 50) I am even looking at the Classic Trains issues sitting on a shelf.  Now I see that the first 15 years of that rag are available on CD.   https://kalmbachhobbystore.com/product/dvd/15112   The price is not too bad considering all in all if the photo quality is good.. Has any one the list ordered this?    Are you happy with your purchase regarding *** the photo reproduction quality?***  I would rather have to deal with space restraints regarding the models of the railroad cars we talk about here.
And upon my demise, I would rather have my wife dealing with a box of CD's rather than hundreds of pounds of paper.    Jim Dick  - St. Paul 
  


Tim O'Connor
 

Jim

My issue with Kalmbach is their proprietary images - If the images were good quality in
a PDF format, I would get the entire MR/Trains/Classic/etc and load them onto my hard drive.
CD-ROM itself is absolutely becoming a defunct technology. Kalmbach fears people sharing
the stuff but the truth is that if the price is reasonable and the files are HUGE then most
people would just pay to download the files. I would, anyway. I COULD scan them all but that
would take forever! And you're right, SHELF SPACE in a home is far too valuable (expensive)
for paper magazine storage - I have way over a hundred linear feet of train books and magazines
on shelves - they could ALL fit on a single hard disk drive. :-\

Tim O'Connor

On 12/27/2019 12:15 AM, np328 wrote:
     I am trying to continually downsize as I and my wife age, (I am only 63 and the wife just hit 50) I am even looking at the Classic Trains issues sitting on a shelf.  Now I see that the first 15 years of that rag are available on CD. https://kalmbachhobbystore.com/product/dvd/15112  The price is not too bad considering all in all if the photo quality is good.. Has any one the list ordered this?    Are you happy with your purchase regarding *** the photo reproduction quality?***  I would rather have to deal with space restraints regarding the models of the railroad cars we talk about here.
And upon my demise, I would rather have my wife dealing with a box of CD's rather than hundreds of pounds of paper. Jim Dick  - St. Paul
--
*Tim O'Connor*
*Sterling, Massachusetts*


Bob Webber
 

This is an issue with digital images - people *WILL* copy, share and post on the internet.  They have since the inception (which is one reason Microsoft's process is so convoluted and pricey now).  They will also copy & share things that were specifically and explicitly forbidden by the license they signed (same).

You may disagree with the concept, then you shouldn't sign the license (which is a whole issue unto itself with EULAs being printed in -5 pt script and running on for chapters).  

What is going to happen is that institutions selling photos, drawings and other things digitally will have to increasingly turn to software that blocks attempts to download, copy, and other wise use something.  Which will drive up costs and cut down on  usability, flexibility,  and customer satisfaction.  When some knowingly disregard promises they made, it hurts every body.

You may wish for better copies in PDF form (which isn't the best vehicle) and be able to ...well...make it portable (as the name implies) for your own purposes.  That is and likely will be fine.  It's the people who post such images on the internet (and or pass copies along to friends and manufacturers as their own) that kill offerings and drive up prices.  

I'd love to hear "solutions" (off-line or at Cocoa) as we have had to stop supplying some materials until some of this is resolved.  It *WILL* make images harder to view, it *WILL* make images harder to come by, it *WILL* result in "policing" - people insist that anything on the Internet must be free, and any material feeding it must be too. They also insist that anything they "own" is theirs to do with as they please.   That will kill more than you know.

People have said $6 is too much to pay for an 8x10 print.  I'd dearly love to see how they propose to store stock and to visit shows on less.  It can not happen.  Smithsonian charges $50 - or more.  Others do as well, mainly due to "pirates", but also to sensibly defray costs.  Feeling that it is the sellers problem (to pay for acquisition, maintenance, repair, and logistics) is simply uninformed or deliberately and willfully ignorant - and the reason many things available in the past & today will not be leaving archives - you'll have to visit them in order to look, and cameras and phones will not be allowed. 

At 10:44 AM 12/27/2019, Tim O'Connor wrote:
My issue with Kalmbach is their proprietary images - If the images were good quality in
a PDF format, I would get the entire MR/Trains/Classic/etc and load them onto my hard drive.

Bob Webber


Tony Thompson
 

Bob Webber wrote:

What is going to happen is that institutions selling photos, drawings and other things digitally will have to increasingly turn to software that blocks attempts to download, copy, and other wise use something.  Which will drive up costs and cut down on  usability, flexibility,  and customer satisfaction.  When some knowingly disregard promises they made, it hurts every body.

   Comments about abuse of licensing and permission are quite correct. But I think Bob is wrong about what institutions "are going to do." In fact, my impression is that many institutions have given up on this issue, and are increasingly posting uncontrolled images on the web. Selling digital images is a VERY low-income idea, and I suspect many are simply deciding to make images available. Otherwise they languish in darkness.

People have said $6 is too much to pay for an 8x10 print.  I'd dearly love to see how they propose to store stock and to visit shows on less.  It can not happen.  Smithsonian charges $50 - or more.  

        Of course this is entirely right. But those who charge huge prices, such as the Smithsonian, either believe they can get it because they have great material, or are trying to make images into a "profit center," as business schools faithfully teach you to do. I'd bet the profit is microscopic and shrinking.

Tony Thompson




Bob Webber
 

Tony, both are happening, often in step.  For instance, they (we) might have given up on some, but they are not processing others.  There is the main issue - one has to rationalize the costs vs. the benefits (note I did not say revenue or profit). 

And...it depends on who owns what.  Were we to own the 2.5 million objects in the collection, and not be held by agreements - we'd likely put some images (lower-res, smaller size, less optimal formats) on the web.  We can not do that, by agreement. 

I know of several archives that have, as you say, "given up" in terms of simply conserving, making they items available locally only, and hoping for a better day.  Others are giving up by putting all or most on-line (in poorer qualities).  Others straddle.  There are many  options, but those options may be rather restricted by something not in your power to change. 

Selling images may well be low income - depending on the scheme of things and your interpretations.  We have ONLY that revenue stream, and that pays for everything we purchase (large format and other scanners, computers, storage, storage containers, etc. etc.).  We are still ahead by doing so.  We could *NEVER* pay a salary, or pay for the new building going up - but everything else is and must be covered.

At 12:18 PM 12/27/2019, Tony Thompson wrote:
Bob Webber wrote:

What is going to happen is that institutions selling photos, drawings and other things digitally will have to increasingly turn to software that blocks attempts to download, copy, and other wise use something.  Which will drive up costs and cut down on  usability, flexibility,  and customer satisfaction.  When some knowingly disregard promises they made, it hurts every body.

   Comments about abuse of licensing and permission are quite correct. But I think Bob is wrong about what institutions "are going to do." In fact, my impression is that many institutions have given up on this issue, and are increasingly posting uncontrolled images on the web. Selling digital images is a VERY low-income idea, and I suspect many are simply deciding to make images available. Otherwise they languish in darkness.

Bob Webber


Tim O'Connor
 


Magazines are not photos. I have issues of MRH (a FREE online publication with photos)
that are 300 Megabytes each in size, and they are PDF files.

Kalmbach could EASILY insert new advertising material into old issues of magazines if
they were really worried about copying and sharing PDF files. Advertisers pay for eyeballs,
so they'd be more than happy if people cheated, and probably spend enough to more than
cover the scanning and distribution costs - Just as they do for MRH and others.

ALL methods of digital copy protection can ALL be defeated. After all, software engineers
understand how it works, and them who create these methods will know how to get around them.
The days of selling paper copies of the same image over and over and over are drawing to a
close. Besides which, inks and paper are bad for the environment. :-)

Tim O'Connor





On 12/27/2019 1:01 PM, Bob Webber wrote:
This is an issue with digital images - people *WILL* copy, share and post on the internet.  They have since the inception (which is one reason Microsoft's process is so convoluted and pricey now).  They will also copy & share things that were specifically and explicitly forbidden by the license they signed (same).

You may disagree with the concept, then you shouldn't sign the license (which is a whole issue unto itself with EULAs being printed in -5 pt script and running on for chapters).  

What is going to happen is that institutions selling photos, drawings and other things digitally will have to increasingly turn to software that blocks attempts to download, copy, and other wise use something.  Which will drive up costs and cut down on  usability, flexibility,  and customer satisfaction.  When some knowingly disregard promises they made, it hurts every body.

You may wish for better copies in PDF form (which isn't the best vehicle) and be able to ...well...make it portable (as the name implies) for your own purposes.  That is and likely will be fine.  It's the people who post such images on the internet (and or pass copies along to friends and manufacturers as their own) that kill offerings and drive up prices.  

I'd love to hear "solutions" (off-line or at Cocoa) as we have had to stop supplying some materials until some of this is resolved.  It *WILL* make images harder to view, it *WILL* make images harder to come by, it *WILL* result in "policing" - people insist that anything on the Internet must be free, and any material feeding it must be too. They also insist that anything they "own" is theirs to do with as they please.   That will kill more than you know.

People have said $6 is too much to pay for an 8x10 print.  I'd dearly love to see how they propose to store stock and to visit shows on less.  It can not happen.  Smithsonian charges $50 - or more.  Others do as well, mainly due to "pirates", but also to sensibly defray costs.  Feeling that it is the sellers problem (to pay for acquisition, maintenance, repair, and logistics) is simply uninformed or deliberately and willfully ignorant - and the reason many things available in the past & today will not be leaving archives - you'll have to visit them in order to look, and cameras and phones will not be allowed. 

At 10:44 AM 12/27/2019, Tim O'Connor wrote:
My issue with Kalmbach is their proprietary images - If the images were good quality in
a PDF format, I would get the entire MR/Trains/Classic/etc and load them onto my hard drive.

Bob Webber



--
Tim O'Connor
Sterling, Massachusetts


Tim O'Connor
 


Tony makes an excellent point! - but it reminds me of the Guy Dunscomb collection of
fabulous Southern Pacific photographs that was bequeathed to the Huntington Collection,
and may therefore never be seen again by humans. Perhaps millions of years from now
intelligent life forms will rediscover them buried in a deep underground vault and
wonder "What the heck were they thinking?".

Some museums (like the Huntington) are like the computer joke about "write only memory".



On 12/27/2019 1:18 PM, Tony Thompson wrote:
Bob Webber wrote:

What is going to happen is that institutions selling photos, drawings and other things digitally will have to increasingly turn to software that blocks attempts to download, copy, and other wise use something.  Which will drive up costs and cut down on  usability, flexibility,  and customer satisfaction.  When some knowingly disregard promises they made, it hurts every body.

   Comments about abuse of licensing and permission are quite correct. But I think Bob is wrong about what institutions "are going to do." In fact, my impression is that many institutions have given up on this issue, and are increasingly posting uncontrolled images on the web. Selling digital images is a VERY low-income idea, and I suspect many are simply deciding to make images available. Otherwise they languish in darkness.

People have said $6 is too much to pay for an 8x10 print.  I'd dearly love to see how they propose to store stock and to visit shows on less.  It can not happen.  Smithsonian charges $50 - or more.  

        Of course this is entirely right. But those who charge huge prices, such as the Smithsonian, either believe they can get it because they have great material, or are trying to make images into a "profit center," as business schools faithfully teach you to do. I'd bet the profit is microscopic and shrinking.

Tony Thompson


--
Tim O'Connor
Sterling, Massachusetts


mofwcaboose
 

As a photo dealer myself ($5 each for an 8 x 10, postpaid), I can agree that prints are getting harder to sell. Until sometime in the 1990s, I had a chronic backlog because I had so many orders, but then it melted away and I have never had a backlog since. Occasionally someone contacts me to ask if I still sell prints, but that is the end of it. No order follows.

Only at Cocoa Beach do I ever sell many prints, but again i regret that I will not be able to make it this year. I just had a corneal transplant which will keep me out of action for the next month.

John C. La Rue, Jr.
Bonita Springs, FL


-----Original Message-----
From: Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@...>
To: main <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io>
Sent: Sat, Dec 28, 2019 12:22 pm
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Classic Trains on CD


Magazines are not photos. I have issues of MRH (a FREE online publication with photos)
that are 300 Megabytes each in size, and they are PDF files.

Kalmbach could EASILY insert new advertising material into old issues of magazines if
they were really worried about copying and sharing PDF files. Advertisers pay for eyeballs,
so they'd be more than happy if people cheated, and probably spend enough to more than
cover the scanning and distribution costs - Just as they do for MRH and others.

ALL methods of digital copy protection can ALL be defeated. After all, software engineers
understand how it works, and them who create these methods will know how to get around them.
The days of selling paper copies of the same image over and over and over are drawing to a
close. Besides which, inks and paper are bad for the environment. :-)

Tim O'Connor





On 12/27/2019 1:01 PM, Bob Webber wrote:

This is an issue with digital images - people *WILL* copy, share and post on the internet.  They have since the inception (which is one reason Microsoft's process is so convoluted and pricey now).  They will also copy & share things that were specifically and explicitly forbidden by the license they signed (same).

You may disagree with the concept, then you shouldn't sign the license (which is a whole issue unto itself with EULAs being printed in -5 pt script and running on for chapters).  

What is going to happen is that institutions selling photos, drawings and other things digitally will have to increasingly turn to software that blocks attempts to download, copy, and other wise use something.  Which will drive up costs and cut down on  usability, flexibility,  and customer satisfaction.  When some knowingly disregard promises they made, it hurts every body.

You may wish for better copies in PDF form (which isn't the best vehicle) and be able to ...well...make it portable (as the name implies) for your own purposes.  That is and likely will be fine.  It's the people who post such images on the internet (and or pass copies along to friends and manufacturers as their own) that kill offerings and drive up prices.  

I'd love to hear "solutions" (off-line or at Cocoa) as we have had to stop supplying some materials until some of this is resolved.  It *WILL* make images harder to view, it *WILL* make images harder to come by, it *WILL* result in "policing" - people insist that anything on the Internet must be free, and any material feeding it must be too. They also insist that anything they "own" is theirs to do with as they please.   That will kill more than you know.

People have said $6 is too much to pay for an 8x10 print.  I'd dearly love to see how they propose to store stock and to visit shows on less.  It can not happen.  Smithsonian charges $50 - or more.  Others do as well, mainly due to "pirates", but also to sensibly defray costs.  Feeling that it is the sellers problem (to pay for acquisition, maintenance, repair, and logistics) is simply uninformed or deliberately and willfully ignorant - and the reason many things available in the past & today will not be leaving archives - you'll have to visit them in order to look, and cameras and phones will not be allowed. 

At 10:44 AM 12/27/2019, Tim O'Connor wrote:
My issue with Kalmbach is their proprietary images - If the images were good quality in
a PDF format, I would get the entire MR/Trains/Classic/etc and load them onto my hard drive.
Bob Webber


--
Tim O'Connor
Sterling, Massachusetts


G.J. Irwin
 

Going back to the original question for a moment, if the Classic Trains digital version is anything like the Model Railroader digital archive on DVD, I would probably advise against purchasing it.

The key reason: Resolution.  (I'll skip the "proprietary format" discussion...)

I moved up from a 21 inch to a 32 inch monitor in the past couple of months.  I <thought> that I would have an easier time reading the back issues of MR.  Silly me.  The scan resolution is simply not that good.  Making the image larger does not make it "better."  I'm no expert on this, but I feel like the scan images were made to emulate the actual size of the magazine and no larger.   I am enjoying the look back (I'm up to January 1955, moving chronologically) but I would have liked it more if I could read and view the images more clearly.

I would check to see if someone local had a copy of the Classic Trains DVD and ask for a look-see before buying.  

Cheers,

George Irwin


spsalso
 

Kalmbach could have kept the pages "actual size" by upping the dpi (dots per inch).  They didn't.

When the MR one came out, I asked them to post a sample page for inspection.  They didn't.

I think the digitization of MR and etc. was done with the intent to make money:  charge the most and spend the least.  I could be wrong, of course.


Ed

Edward Sutorik


np328
 

    Gentlemen, 
  thank you for all the input.  I had someone else who's opinion I highly value contact me off line and relate how they ordered a CD of XYZ publication, and then returned it for a refund - based on quality of copying resolution.  Stated that early issues were scanned, poorly, the switched to a better pdf format.  In the end though, it was returned. 

       I did ask locally about the CD, and found no one. ( I do, do my homework,) That is why I posted the question here. 

 However, a third point of axis in this discussion. I have and will continue to scan (for my personal use) modeling articles. I look at these and the quality of the scan - done by myself - even at a 240 dpi - leaves me wanting.
        Why not crank up the dpi ?, you ask. In my opinion, it does not make a better scan, just starts creating huge files which I know will eventually bog down my computer. Try it yourself and you will find what I have.  

      If, if these materials were first formatted in a pdf format, I would accept that as OK. I have written articles for my HS and they sent out a pdf for the authors to check their work as it is to be printed, these I have always found the format - satisfactory.  

     BTW, I pushed as an officer of my HS to get digital copies of our societies magazine as an option. Printing costs, mailing costs are nil. And an internal audit that my HS had done, showed back copies for some issues based on sales - would last 200 years (yup - two hundred years!) and the membership was (and I would believe STILL IS) paying to warehouse these into infinity.  Drip, drip, drip, go the dollars.  It is my belief that an HS could halve the cost of digital subscriptions to the society rag, and see an increase in total revenue.  
      Even if someone passes a digital copy of a magazine on, it is likely to be a very small percentage and hey, at least in the Twin Cities here, for decades now, …. decades..... I have seen magazines re-sellers at model railroad events. And the world has not stopped turning.
     I also find most curiously that people who seem most concerned about digital copies being passed on, are the ones I could see doing such things. I guess I don't think that way.  

     Back on to the original subject. Photos are what I, and after decades of giving presentations, what most of us value.  I suppose I will just take a harder look at content of the magazines I have. I currently look at the modeling magazines table of content and ask myself - what interests me? Technique articles, a how to - might get scanned. Ted's essential and many of RH's old articles, yes!        If nothing does - recycle! 
                                                                                                                             again, thanks for the input, H NY,     see some of you at the beach.      Jim Dick 


al.kresse <water.kresse@...>
 

Sir,

A big part of doing magazine articles for Rr HSs is getting high res images.  Many are offered conditional on being paper published only.  If digital copies are offered then they must have a watermark and lower resolution image.  Rr historical societies are typically 503-3-c not for profits.  They can't afford to pay higher photo fees from established collections.  They want users to go directly to them for a hi-res scan or print  . . . . supporting archivist salaries and scanning equipment costs.

Rr HSs tend to "share" images used in articles for just a photo credit line agreement.

Al 

On December 31, 2019 at 10:26 PM np328 <jcdworkingonthenp@...> wrote:

    Gentlemen, 
  thank you for  all the input.  I had someone else who's opinion I highly value contact me off line and relate how they ordered a CD of XYZ publication, and then returned it for a refund - based on quality of copying resolution.  Stated that early issues were scanned, poorly, the switched to a better pdf format.  In the end though, it was returned. 

       I did ask locally about the CD, and found no one. ( I do, do my homework,) That is why I posted the question here. 

 However, a third point of axis in this discussion. I have and will continue to scan (for my personal use) modeling articles. I look at these and the quality of the scan - done by myself - even at a 240 dpi - leaves me wanting.
        Why not crank up the dpi ?, you ask. In my opinion, it does not make a better scan, just starts creating huge files which I know will eventually bog down my computer. Try it yourself and you will find what I have.  

      If, if these materials were first formatted in a pdf format, I would accept that as OK. I have written articles for my HS and they sent out a pdf for the authors to check their work as it is to be printed, these I have always found the format - satisfactory.  

     BTW, I pushed as an officer of my HS to get digital copies of our societies magazine as an option. Printing costs, mailing costs are nil. And an internal audit that my HS had done, showed back copies for some issues based on sales - would last 200 years ( yup - two hundred years!) and the membership was (and I would believe STILL IS) paying to warehouse these into infinity.  Drip, drip, drip, go the dollars.  It is my belief that an HS could halve the cost of digital subscriptions to the society rag, and see an increase in total revenue.  
      Even if someone passes a digital copy of a magazine on, it is likely to be a very small percentage and hey, at least in the Twin Cities here, for decades now, …. decades..... I have seen magazines re-sellers at model railroad events. And the world has not stopped turning.
     I also find most curiously that people who seem most concerned about digital copies being passed on, are the ones I could see doing such things. I guess I don't think that way.  

     Back on to the original subject. Photos are what I, and after decades of giving presentations, what most of us value.  I suppose I will just take a harder look at content of the magazines I have. I currently look at the modeling magazines table of content and ask myself - what interests me? Technique articles, a how to - might get scanned. Ted's essential and many of RH's old articles, yes!        If nothing does - recycle! 
                                                                                                                             again, thanks for the input, H NY,     see some of you at the beach.      Jim Dick