Okay, so let's say that you have some Apollo Program documents in your possession, or even—wonder of wonders!—an AGC program listing.  You've read the Virtual Apollo website and seen the plea that you donate digital images to the project.  You're that rarest of people, who actually look ahead to future generations and think this would be a valuable thing to do.

But ... how do you do it?

Well, if the document you're working with is small—say, 150 U.S. letter-sized pages—most of you won't really need much advice from me.  Even the cheapest scanner or digital camera will do the trick.  (It may be slow and painful, but that will just help to give you a sense of accomplishment!)  The advice I'd give in that case is simply this:
On the other hand, let's suppose that you're lucky enough to have a lot of Apollo materials, and you recognize that the simplistic scheme mentioned above is going to take forever to accomplish.  In that case, you need to put a little more thought ... and possibly money ... into the digitization.  If money is the obstacle, contact me and I can probably defray expenses. 

In the photo at right, which you can click to enlarge if you'd like to admire it, is a stack of documents sent to me by original AGC developer Fred Martin.  The large pale-green document in front is the AGC program listing of Apollo 8; it's about 1600 pages of 11"×15" fanfold paper.  Behind it, the brown document in two volumes is the Command Module AGC program listing of Apollo 9; it's about 1700 8"×10.5" double-sided pages,  with an easy-to remove binder.  Next to that is a collection of miscellaneous documents—the top document being a portion of the Apollo 10 GSOP—perhaps another 1500 pages of 8.5"×11" double-sized pages, with either easy-to-remove bindings or staples.  That's a stack of documents that you'd be lucky to have, but which would certainly be far beyond the capabilities that most people have at their disposal for digitization of documents or images in any reasonable amount of time and effort.

In a case like this, I'd usually just recommend letting us do the digitization for you, and of course that's exactly what Fred did.  But perhaps you've got more time at your disposal and are keener to volunteer the time and energy to do the digitizations as a do-it-yourself project?  What then?  (By the way, Fred helped write the software and then preserved it for 40 years, so that's enough expenditure of time and energy as far as I'm concerned.  Thanks, Fred!)  I don't know that I can really give any definitive advice, but I can show you what I did, and that may at least serve as a guide to whether you want to do it or not.

A Note on File Formats ... If You Care

I've gotten some flack for suggesting in some of my recommendations below that JPG is a good file format for preserving the scanned images of these documents.  The complaint is that JPG is a "lossy" storage format, while some other file formats like PNG or TIFF are "lossless".  For a digital camera, an image in RAW format is even better than PNG or TIFF, since in addition to being lossless it facilitates certain types of image post-processing that PNG or TIFF do not.

What that means is that while PNG doesn't degrade the imagery, JPG does degrade them ... but probably not in any way that is perceptible.  In other words, lossless is GOOD, and lossy is BAD, but not terribly bad.

The problem is that the lossless PNGs may in some cases be incredibly larger than JPGs of the same source material.  For example, consider the AGC program listing of the SOLARIUM program, used on the unmanned Apollo 4 and Apollo 6 missions.  JPGs of the individual pages of this program listing are around 6 MB each, while PNGs and TIFFs of the same pages are around 45 MB and 50 MB each.  And while the JPGs are (in a theoretical sense) certainly degraded, you can display the JPG right next to the PNG and zoom in to any magnification you care to use, and will never be able to see that degradation with the naked eye.  On the other hand, if the document you want to scan is very clearly sharp black print on clean white paper, then there won't be too much size penalty in using PNG rather than JPG.  Indeed, the PNGs may even be smaller than the JPGs.

So my general recommendation is that if you have the option of choosing the storage format of your images, and if PNG images aren't too much bigger than JPG, then by all means use PNG.  Otherwise use JPG.  (And if your equipment produces JPGs, leave them as JPGs; converting a JPG to PNG after it has been created is of no use at all, since any data loss will already have occurred at the time the images were created.)

My Current Scanner Recommendation

If money is no object, the best current solution is to use what's known as an "overhead scanner" or "book scanner".  That's a device that allows the document or printout to lay flat on a desk or table-top, with the built-in camera pointing straight down at it.

When I say "money is no object", I don't mean that these devices are necessary terribly expensive — though "expense" is obviously subjective — but merely that not everyone has one sitting around the house already.  And not everyone feels like spending money to make scans for somebody else!

At any rate, if you have one of these, or access to one, it's the best way to go.  If, for example, you pay to have the Internet Archive scan material for you, this is the kind of device they use, albeit a much fancier and more-expensive one than the kind somebody like me uses (as seen in the photo at left).  Book scanners have the great advantage of being very fast and simple to use, being absolutely non-destructive to the material being scanned, and typically come with software that "flattens" the imagery so that you don't have to take a lot of pains to squash the material flat.  All of the document digitization I've done in the last couple of years has been done with a device of this type.

The last Apollo fanfold program listing I scanned was also done with a book scanner, though admittedly when scanning a fanfold listing it helps to augment the setup with a bit of extra do-it-yourself rigging.  For example, I threw together a stand to support the scanner a little above the top of the desk, so that I could feed the pages through, onto the black pad, underneath the scanner.  If anyone's interested in the details of that, drop me a line and I'll write up a more-detailed description, with some photos.

But as I say, most people are not in the position to use this recommendation, since they may have a digital camera or a cheap flatbed scanner sitting around, but don't have a book scanner.  If so, the following sections have my older recommendations on the subject.  There are really two different cases, and they need to be handled completely differently.  The methods used for one aren't suitable for the other, or at least not without some re-imaginings ... which is to say, not without some ideas that have occurred to me but which I haven't actually tried myself.  The two different cases are:

My Old Recommendation:  Digitizing a Fanfold Computer Printout

A computer printout of an AGC program listing will typically be on oversized (11"×15") fanfold paper.  In most cases, it will be on extraordinarily thin, floppy white paper with black lines, although in some cases the computer paper has green and orange bands on it.  All of these points make such a listing difficult to deal with.

First, as a theoretical proposition, it might be possible to scan such a document using a tabloid-sized (11"×17") flatbed scanner, and very carefully (so as not to tear the pages apart) slide the pages across the scanner one at a time.  If you did so, I dare say the results would be exceptional, and would be far better than the method I'm actually going to recommend using.  I have such a scanner myself, but the scanner itself is so poor and so slow that it would be unthinkable to actually use it.  Aside from price, the problem is speed.  So if you were to purchase such a scanner, you find that it was unusable if it took (say) 1 minute to scan each page.  Most scanner models do not give you a specification for the scanning speed, and that usually means slow ... slow ... slow.  If you have occasion to try this approach let me know the details (including the scanner model) and how well it worked out.  At the present time, not having tried this approach myself, I'd probably recommend the Epson GT-20000 ($1500) scanner.

But putting talk of scanners aside, the method we have used at Virtual AGC & friends is a digital camera.  A digital-camera setup was used for obtaining images of AGC software for Apollo 4, Apollo 8, Apollo 11 CM, Apollo 11 LM, and Apollo 15-17 CM.  If you actually look at the images so achieved, you may not be impressed with the quality.  Indeed, those images are not even the raw images from the cameras, but were post-processed to make them look better!  But realize that the goal was not be able to make an image that you could print out that would be indistinguishable from the original hardcopy.  Rather, the goal was to achieve legible text, with minimal document wear, and a reasonable expenditure of time.  And I think a reasonable compromise has been achieved between those goals.  If your goal is to make something indistinguishable from the original, go back to the last paragraph and think about scanners again.

One great advantage of the digital camera approach is that the equipment cost is very cheap, since most people have an acceptable camera already, or else can purchase one for a very modest cost.  How good a camera is needed?  As you'll discern from the following table, the "features" that most people would choose a camera for are not necessarily good for our purposes.  The best camera for the job may well be the one in which you can turn off the most "features".  Fancy optics and what-not?  Forget them, as they'll not help you one bit for the digitization!

The Ideal Camera
Minimally Acceptable Camera
  • 5 megapixels or greater
  • Tripod-mountable
  • AC adapter to run from 120V rather than from batteries
  • Manual mode in which auto-focus can be turned off
  • Means of setting the white-balance as desired
  • Means of setting the exposure as desired
  • 2-3 exposures per second.
  • 16 GB or greater storage—for example, 16 GB SDHC card—accessible without unmounting the camera from the tripod
  • USB 2.0 interface, accessible without unmounting the camera from the tripod.
  • Remote control
  • 4 megapixels or greater
  • Tripod-mountable

Examples:  practically any new camera in the $100-200 range.

Most of the criteria listed for the "ideal camera" are really productivity features that allow you to attain a better rate of speed in the photography.  The best sustained rate it is possible to achieve using the method I'll describe is around 8-10 seconds per page, allowing an entire AGC listing to be photographed in about 5 hours.  Any productivity feature that is lacking makes the process take longer, although there are tradeoffs between some of the features so that if you have one of the features you might not need some of the others.  The remaining criteria are for the purpose of maintaining shot-to-shot consistency, but obviously the importance of that is debatable. 

The cheapest known example of a camera having all of the features (at least as options) listed above is the Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1, which presently (8/2009) costs around $800.  I have also used the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ5, which is an older, now obsoleted, less expensive ($350) camera that lacks several of the productivity features mentioned above.  Both were very acceptable.  The better camera produced better results, but that may be because of improvement in my understanding of white balance more than any other factor.  However, working without the productivity features made the work go much more slowly with the older camera, particularly in so far as extracting the photos from the camera was concerned.

Let's go through the criteria one-by-one to understand whether or not they'll be important to you:
Now, what will you need in order take the pictures?
What?  Some books?  A moving box?  You'll understand in a moment.

First, let me show you the setup I actually use, which will be a little different than yours (no moving box!), because a friend has been kind enough to create a special-purpose copy-stand for me.  What you see in the photos below, which you can click to enlarge if you like, is a table with my laptop computer and the white custom-built copy-stand I mentioned on it.  Perhaps 6 feet in front of the table—the exact distance isn't critical—is a tripod with the camera on top of it and two lamps clipped to the sides of it.  Because it happens to be a very light-weight tripod, and it is atop carpeting, some books have been placed underneath the legs of the tripod to hopfully reduce settling and vibration.  The various cables you see are the power cords of the computer, the camera, and the lights, and the USB cable (going through several extensions) from the camera to the laptop computer.  The fanfold printout, for what it's worth, is the Apollo 8 AGC program listing.  At the beginning of the photo shoot, it was completely on the floor, but at this point I've already advanced one page at a time through perhaps 1200 pages, and the pages that have already been photographed are stacked up behind the page being photographed.

There are a few of important points to note that may not be clear from the photographs:
Even though I don't appear in the pictures at all, the technique is very simple:  I step forward and move the paper up by one page, aligning it properly, then I step back out of the light and press the camera button.  Then repeat.  I suggest taking 2-3 pictures for each page, since it takes 6-7 seconds to advance the paper and only a second to take the picture, so (timewise) extra pictures are essentially free.  I'd also suggest doing a test run of 50 pages or so to make sure you're doing it right before photographing 1700 pages!

For the camera setup:
Now of course, you probably don't have a custom-built copy stand.  The custom-built copy-stand is great for me because it folds up and is light-weight, and I usually have to travel to take these photos, but you can get results of just as high quality without it.  What you do is to take a sturdy cardboard box, and place it where the copy-stand would have been, at the edge of the table.  Put a book under the front edge of the box to tilt it a little.    Fill the box with books or other weights so that it won't move around.  Tape some white paper at the front to make the front surface of the box white.  Make a mark on the white paper to show where the edge of the printout is supposed to go.  Voila!  Instant, cheap copy-stand!  I have taken hundreds of photos using this exact moving box :), and believe me that the quality of the photos is identical to what they are with the fancy copy-stand.

When you're all done photographing—or before, if you're insecure :)—pull the photos from the camera into your computer, and step through them to see that you have at least one legible picture from every page, then send them to me.

My Old Recommendation:  Digitizing a Normal Document

A "normal" document that is just a stack of pages in a binder requires a very different technique than a fanfold document such as a program listing, and depending on the equipment at your disposal may be very much faster to digitize or very much slower.  Several digitizing methods are discussed below.  Understand that no matter what method you use to digitize the document, you are going to be better off removing its binder and restoring it afterward than trying to digitize with the binder in place.  In the three sub-sections below, you should be able to determine relatively quickly if you can use that method or not, therefore quickly move to the next section if need be.

The Convenient Way

The most convenient way to digitize a normal document, if you have the equipment at your disposal to do so, is to use a scanner with an automatic document feeder (ADF).  It's also the priciest method if you have to purchase the equipment yourself, but many workplaces have suitable equipment available if they will allow you to use it.  If the documents you are digitizing don't belong to you, you may not be allowed to use a document feeder.  For example, the National Archives was fine with me wanting to scan documents on a flatbed scanner, but had rules against automatic document feeders.  At any rate, if you don't have access to such a scanner, or wouldn't be allowed to use it, advance to the next section.

I do enough document scans that I actually thought it was worth my while to purchase a fairly high-end scanner, an Epson WorkForce Pro GT-S80.  This gadget has a 75-page feeder, can pull through 40 pages per minute, and can scan both sides of the page at once (so that it effectively scans 80 pages per minute).  It's not cheap.  On the other hand, I also have an HP R60 multi-function device (printer/scanner/fax) with a 25-page feeder, that can probably pull and scan 1-2 pages per minute.  It wasn't cheap, either.  So there's a very wide range of performance, and none of it is cheap.  But of course, if there's a document feeder the digitization process can run unattended and it doesn't really use up any of your time, regardless of the speed.

Most scanners do not specify a scanning speed, and with good reason ... they're very, very slow.  The reason for this is that scanners for personal use are basically optimized for scanning a small number of photographs at very high quality, as opposed to a very high volume of documents at fairly low quality.  Scanners which are optimized for the latter are identified by the buzzword "document scanner" as opposed simply to "scanner".  Document scanners are optimized for 200 dpi black&white scanning, and the speed specification relates to a 200 dpi b&w configuration.  That's the setting I typically use myself, except in rare cases of very small print.

Other than the price, the only real drawback of the scanner with ADF is that there is a very small chance of a paper jam that could conceivably damage your document.  (That was the reason for the National Archives' rule against ADF.)  Having scanned many thousands of pages using ADFs, I don't believe that's something to worry about, but it's something you might want to test out by scanning dummy documents before scanning real documents.  A lesser drawback with a very fast machine (such as my scanner) is that it scans the pages so fast that there can be a pretty big variation in the alignment of the pages.  :)

The Safest Way

If a scanner with ADF can't be used, a flatbed scanner may be the next-best option.  I call it the "safest way", but I don't really believe it's any safer than ADF since humans are no more perfect at handling paper than machines are.  The principal difficulty with a flatbed scanner is, as described in some detail in the prior section, that they are typically very, very slow.  For example, scanning a single page might take 45 seconds.  Without an ADF, that 45 seconds, times however many pages there are, comes right out of your lifespan and probably won't be replaced, karma notwithstanding.

The irony is that old scanners which provided a mere 150-600 dpi rather than the modern photographic thousands of dpi were often much faster.  With my old HP ScanJet 2C that's over ten years old, I can sustain a throughput of about 10 seconds per scan at 200 dpi b&w.  I used this method for scanning many thousands of pages at the National Archives.

At any rate, you can figure it out for yourself whether the flatbed will work for you.  Scan a few pages, time it, extrapolate to see how long it will take to do the entire job, and then decide if that fits into a reasonable budget.

A Re-Imagining

One thing I haven't tried, but which may be worth considering is to use a variation of the digital camera methodology described earlier for fanfold printouts.  If the same method was used, except that a lip or clip or magnets or some other trick was added to added to allow the copy-stand to hold a single page at a time, you could probably digitize documents at a rate of about 10 seconds per page.  But as I say, it has never been tried, that I know of.

Getting the Digitized Documents To Us

The size, in bytes, of document scans or photographs is typically quite large.  If you can package your scans in small chunks—say, 10-20 megabyte zipfiles—you may be able to email them to me one at a time. 

Another very good option is to use an online storage space such as Google Drive or Dropbox to store the images, and then just send me a link to them.

You can also physically mail me DVDs or USB keys with the data on them.  Inquire by email for a physical shipping address.  Make sure you have backups of any data you send, in case the ones being shipped are lost in transit!  I'd prefer not returning the DVDs or USB keys to you.  If you need shipping expenses or the cost of DVD-R or USB keys to be defrayed, let me know the total amount and the method by which you'd like the money sent to you.

Getting Us To Do It For You

There are two basic possibilities for getting me to do the digitizing for you, as follows:
  1. If you ship documents or AGC program listings to me, I will digitize any that aren't already online, and then return the originals to you—or to a museum, if you would prefer.  Inquire by email about a physical shipping address.  I can defray the shipping cost, if requested.
  2. I can come to your location to perform the digitization.  However, I am only willing to do this if the benefit is very great, and if you are willing for me to use the digitization methods I've outlined on this web-page.  As far as I know, the only cases in which I would consider the benefit very great are:  you have previously-unavailable program listings for AGC, AGS, or LVDC; or, you have a large quantity (thousands of pages) of previously unavailable documents.  This is not to say that I think small documents aren't valuable, just that my time, safety, and convenience have value as well.  Besides, if I came to your location it would have to be something that was scheduled months in advance.
As far as the notion of donating to a museum is concerned, if you were interested I'm presently recommending the Research Library of the Wings Over the Rockies Air & Space Museum in Denver.  In general a research library is probably preferable to a museum as such, since documents have very little sex appeal when considered as display items, but may be profitably viewed for research if properly supervised.  The Virtual AGC project has no affiliation with the museum, but has received very significant help from the Research Library in the past, and that is the basis for my recommendation.  Obviously, there are many other fine institutions which deserve consideration as well, if you have some personal preferences in that regard.

Sadly, an important point to consider about shipping documents, is that there is a non-zero probability that they will be lost in transit, even if they are shipped by the safest feasible means.  The most popular methods of shipping in the U.S.—namely FedEx, UPS, and the USPS—do not publish their shipping-loss rates.  If you google this question, you'll find any number of meaningless personal rants about lost packages, demonstrating that one or more of these shippers are terrible.  However, somebody got the bright idea of looking at the insurance rates being charged, and estimating the loss rates from the insurance charges.  On this basis, one can conclude that FedEx and UPS are roughly equivalent to each other, and that either of them is perhaps twice as good as the USPS.  Alarmingly, though, the package-loss rate would appear to be on the order of 1%.  By "on the order of", I don't mean exactly 1%; perhaps it is 2% or 0.5%.  But it is probably less than 10% and greater than 0.1%.  (Figure it out for yourself:  FedEx and UPS charge something like $0.32 per each $100 of insurance.  So they must expect something like a 0.3% loss.)

Now, when you're shipping a commercial item the loss rate doesn't really matter, because if you insured the object properly then in the worst case all you have to do is to order another one.  But when you're shipping a one-of-a-kind object, you can't just order up a new one.  No amount of insurance can compensate for the loss.  So that's something you'll want to consider if you decide to ship your documents to me.

And speaking of insurance, how much is reasonable?  Well, recent activity on eBay suggests that a typical Apollo Program document may be worth about $300, so that's the number I'll arbitrarily use when shipping items back to you unless instructed otherwise.

This page is available under the Creative Commons No Rights Reserved License
Last modified by Ronald Burkey on 2021-01-15.

Virtual AGC is hosted