eBook formats

On 2015-06-02, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:

> I have a boatload of books, papers, etc. in a variety (too many!) of
> different formats (TXT, PDF, PS, CBR/CBZ, MOBI, EPUB, DOC, RTF, etc.).
> I'd like to pick *one* format and convert them *all* and forget
> about having to make sure I have the *right* reader on the right
> *device*, etc.
>
> Any comments (pointers to references) to help in deciding which
> would be the "least bad" choice?  And, what I risk losing in the
> process?

epub is good if it's all text (if you would like to be able to read
them on a phone or tablet).  Epub is OK with footnotes, but if there
are photos, drawings, diagrams, tables, or example code snippets, then
epub isn't great, and pdf is probably best.

-- 
Grant Edwards               grant.b.edwards        Yow! I had a lease on an
                                  at               OEDIPUS COMPLEX back in
                              gmail.com            '81 ...

On Mon, 01 Jun 2015 22:10:51 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:

>I have a boatload of books, papers, etc. in a variety (too many!) of
>different formats (TXT, PDF, PS, CBR/CBZ, MOBI, EPUB, DOC, RTF, etc.).
>I'd like to pick *one* format and convert them *all* and forget
>about having to make sure I have the *right* reader on the right
>*device*, etc.

Good plan, but it's easier to just have a decent format converter such
as Calibre in case you run into problems.  I carry a flash drive with
a mix of documents.  If I need to read something, I convert it to MOBI
mostly because that's what my various Kindle readers seem to like and
because I like to email documents directly to my Kindle readers which
requires a MOBI file.

>Any comments (pointers to references) to help in deciding which
>would be the "least bad" choice?  And, what I risk losing in the
>process?

See the comments from the author of Calibre on the topic:
<http://manual.calibre-ebook.com/faq.html#what-formats-does-app-support-conversion-to-from>
Note that he considers PDF the worst choice.  Reading between the
lines, I think he prefers:  LIT, MOBI, AZW, EPUB in that order.

I've found that converting web pages into various formats is possible.
Calibre has templates for handling various news web pages:
<http://calibre-ebook.com/dynamic/recipe-usage>


-- 
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

On Tue, 02 Jun 2015 06:46:17 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:

>Hi Spehro,
>
>On 6/2/2015 5:35 AM, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
>> On Mon, 01 Jun 2015 22:10:51 -0700, the renowned Don Y
>> <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I have a boatload of books, papers, etc. in a variety (too many!) of
>>> different formats (TXT, PDF, PS, CBR/CBZ, MOBI, EPUB, DOC, RTF, etc.).
>>> I'd like to pick *one* format and convert them *all* and forget
>>> about having to make sure I have the *right* reader on the right
>>> *device*, etc.
>
>> Definitely .CHM  LOL.
>>
>> What device will you mostly be reading them on? And do you read a
>> letter size page at a time or peek through a small window?
>
>I want to move them all onto a couple of tablet PC's (~12" dia screen)
>which will be the "normal" (portable) means of accessing them.  Anything
>that I need to reference for longer periods of time (e.g., while writing
>code, designing hardware, etc.) I will network mount and access from
>my regular workstations.  (I don't use/carry "mobile devices" so I'm not
>bound by their tiny screen sizes)
>
>Some of the novels *might* be nice to read on a paper-back sized
>device but most that I've seen would be too tiring on my eyes.
>
>I'd prefer something even larger (e.g., TRULY page-sized) but that's
>not essential; viewing half a page, magnified, with the tablet in
>landscape orientation will probably be sufficient.

PDF seems to work quite well on iPads, in the iBooks app. Not so great
on phones. In particular the navigation isn't as annoying as it could
be. 

-- 
Best regards, 
Spehro Pefhany
Amazon link for AoE 3rd Edition:            http://tinyurl.com/ntrpwu8
Microchip link for 2015 Masters in Phoenix: http://tinyurl.com/l7g2k48

Hi Simon,

On 6/2/2015 6:55 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2015-06-02, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:
>> On 6/2/2015 12:00 AM, David Brown wrote:
>>>
>>> In my view, this is an easy decision - pdf is the only practical choice.
>>>    It also has the advantage that the majority of the stuff you have will
>>> probably already be in pdf format.
>>
>> This ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ is the biggest win.  The biggest down-side
>> is viewing documents on "smaller screens" (where "small" is defined as "less
>> than the size of the original medium").  E.g., most "papers" would require
>> at least a ~15" diagonal screen to avoid the "pan and scan" interface.

> Do you have any current or potential future requirements to examine
> these documents in a character cell/non-GUI environment ?

To do so would be very limiting, IMO.  Many of the documents (esp those
that are the most interesting) are assemblages of scanned TIFFs, or
printed FICHE that was then scanned (often at a poor resolution) etc.

So, I've pretty much resigned myself to being able to access them
as if they were dead trees -- just dead *silicon* trees!  :-/

On 6/2/2015 8:03 AM, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Jun 2015 06:46:17 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:

>> I'd prefer something even larger (e.g., TRULY page-sized) but that's
>> not essential; viewing half a page, magnified, with the tablet in
>> landscape orientation will probably be sufficient.
>
> PDF seems to work quite well on iPads, in the iBooks app. Not so great
> on phones. In particular the navigation isn't as annoying as it could
> be.

I think all of them suck; there's something about the user experience
of a "real" book that is hard to replicate electronically.  So, any
electronic version thereof has to add capabilities that simply aren't
possible with print (e.g., multimedia, interaction, etc.) to compensate
for the munged interface.

On 6/2/2015 7:43 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Jun 2015 22:10:51 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:
>
>> I have a boatload of books, papers, etc. in a variety (too many!) of
>> different formats (TXT, PDF, PS, CBR/CBZ, MOBI, EPUB, DOC, RTF, etc.).
>> I'd like to pick *one* format and convert them *all* and forget
>> about having to make sure I have the *right* reader on the right
>> *device*, etc.
>
> Good plan, but it's easier to just have a decent format converter such
> as Calibre in case you run into problems.

I plan on doing the conversion *once* -- instead of each time I need
to view a document (I'm only targeting *one* sort of device; ebook
devices just don't cut it, for me).

> I carry a flash drive with
> a mix of documents.  If I need to read something, I convert it to MOBI
> mostly because that's what my various Kindle readers seem to like and
> because I like to email documents directly to my Kindle readers which
> requires a MOBI file.
>
>> Any comments (pointers to references) to help in deciding which
>> would be the "least bad" choice?  And, what I risk losing in the
>> process?
>
> See the comments from the author of Calibre on the topic:
> <http://manual.calibre-ebook.com/faq.html#what-formats-does-app-support-conversion-to-from>
> Note that he considers PDF the worst choice.  Reading between the
> lines, I think he prefers:  LIT, MOBI, AZW, EPUB in that order.

Note that his bias against PDF seems to be rooted in the fact that
PDF isn't intended to *be* converted -- except to another identically
formatted *page*!

You can apply similar logic to any of the other formats that he
describes -- none have "ideal" presentations so you're always letting
the targeted device impose its constraints on the content.

Imagine viewing schematics ("oh, my!  the screen is too small!"),
sheet music, complex illustrations, etc.

> I've found that converting web pages into various formats is possible.
> Calibre has templates for handling various news web pages:
> <http://calibre-ebook.com/dynamic/recipe-usage>

I'm not interested in consuming and archiving "news" pages.  The few
HTML documents that I keep are just technical documents that their
authors opted to create in that format.

As a result, they don't fit onto "physical" pages very well -- because
they weren't conceived with page sizes or boundaries in mind.  Converting
them to other formats is too "involved" -- you have to re-layout the
document in a way that (hopefully) is visually appealing, efficient
and doesn't change the content appreciably ("Hmmm... this illustration
won't fit, here -- I cram it on the next page.  Oh, crap!  That's a
verso page so the text will now be separated from it!")

On 6/2/2015 6:55 AM, Grant Edwards wrote:

> epub is good if it's all text (if you would like to be able to read
> them on a phone or tablet).  Epub is OK with footnotes, but if there
> are photos, drawings, diagrams, tables, or example code snippets, then

??  just because of the "serial" nature of the flow?  E.g., I know that when
I create documents, I go to great lengths to keep "non-text" objects and
the associated descriptive text "nearby" -- deliberately anchoring the
former to the latter and shepherding it's placement (instead of letting
the tools automatically "fit them where they may")

> epub isn't great, and pdf is probably best.

As I target PDF for my container of choice, I am keenly aware of what the
final presentation will be like -- whether viewed "online" or rendered to
paper (e.g., I will avoid downsampling certain photos and illustrations if
I think an online viewer might want to zoom for greater detail -- detail
that would not be reproducible in a print for).

Several formats appear to just be tweeks to others with DRM additions
(I don't purchase "best sellers" so there's no appeal to supporting
any of those)

Op 02-Jun-15 9:00, David Brown schreef:
> On 02/06/15 07:10, Don Y wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have a boatload of books, papers, etc. in a variety (too many!) of
>> different formats (TXT, PDF, PS, CBR/CBZ, MOBI, EPUB, DOC, RTF, etc.).
>> I'd like to pick *one* format and convert them *all* and forget
>> about having to make sure I have the *right* reader on the right
>> *device*, etc.
>>
>> Any comments (pointers to references) to help in deciding which
>> would be the "least bad" choice?  And, what I risk losing in the
>> process?
>>
>
> txt is portable, compact, and easily parsed - but you lose all the
> formatting, structure, images, etc., and it is not necessarily easy to
> convert other formats to txt.
>
> pdf is the most portable (while still retaining structure and
> formatting) - there are readers for it on every device and every OS.
> You have the advantage and disadvantage that the page layout is fixed
> and the same on every screen or printed page.

This is a major disadvantage on small screen (6" or less) eInk based 
e-Readers. PDF's intended to be rendered on letter- or A4 sized pages 
are close to useless on these devices. A full page view renders text 
unreadably small, and because of the slow refresh of eInk displays 
panning and zooming is something that only a masochist could enjoy.

Some (but not all) e-Readers can reflow PDF's with varying degrees of 
success. The reflowing PDF's leaves often something to desired, this is 
hardly surprising because the PDF format is not intended for that, in 
fact its objective is exactly the opposite; display the page exactly as 
the author intended.

On 02.6.2015 г. 22:55, Dombo wrote:
> ....
>
> This is a major disadvantage on small screen (6" or less) eInk based
> e-Readers. PDF's intended to be rendered on letter- or A4 sized pages
> are close to useless on these devices. A full page view renders text
> unreadably small, and because of the slow refresh of eInk displays
> panning and zooming is something that only a masochist could enjoy.

Well on a 1920x800 5" TFT or OLED display you could give it a
go - I personally need 3 (3.5 is better) dioptres for that....
Having a 25 years old body would also work for most people, I have
yet to figure out how to get one again though.
Basically you have to view from 15-20 centimeters with your eyes
in focus.
Now if you have a 1920x1080 5.5" display (popular nowadays)... I don't
know what one can see, never tried that. The 20 cm will get close to 10,
I don't think a body at any age would be much help, one just needs
dioptres - 5 or above I guess. A microscope may turn out to be better.

> Some (but not all) e-Readers can reflow PDF's with varying degrees of
> success. The reflowing PDF's leaves often something to desired, this is
> hardly surprising because the PDF format is not intended for that, in
> fact its objective is exactly the opposite; display the page exactly as
> the author intended.

I am not sure I have had a reflowing pdf reader in my hands, the
purpose of the pdf format being exactly as you state, but I have
memories of painfully trying to view some pdf via my phone (just 800x600
pixels that one) so this may have been part of the problem. May be
not though, I am not sure. May be the reader I got under android
was just pathetic, I have not dug deep into that.

Dimiter

Hi Dimiter,

On 6/2/2015 2:00 PM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
> On 02.6.2015 г. 22:55, Dombo wrote:
>> ....
>>
>> This is a major disadvantage on small screen (6" or less) eInk based
>> e-Readers. PDF's intended to be rendered on letter- or A4 sized pages
>> are close to useless on these devices. A full page view renders text
>> unreadably small, and because of the slow refresh of eInk displays
>> panning and zooming is something that only a masochist could enjoy.
>
> Well on a 1920x800 5" TFT or OLED display you could give it a
> go - I personally need 3 (3.5 is better) dioptres for that....

Then "viewing" becomes *tedious*.  Imagine trying to read the fine print
in telephone directories all day...

> Having a 25 years old body would also work for most people, I have
> yet to figure out how to get one again though.

Don't let L hear you -- else she may think you're looking for a
different *sort* of 25yo body!

> Basically you have to view from 15-20 centimeters with your eyes
> in focus.

When reading *reference* documents at my workstation (i.e., I am not
completely absorbed in the process of "reading" but, rather, *consulting*
them), I rotate one of the monitors to portrait mode and end up with a
larger than normal version of a typical "letter-sized" page -- that is
comfortable to read "at monitor distance".

The device I am trying to set aside for *this* purpose is intended to
be used more as a "book"; so I can carry it into the living room and
*read*/study the materials present on it.

> Now if you have a 1920x1080 5.5" display (popular nowadays)... I don't
> know what one can see, never tried that. The 20 cm will get close to 10,
> I don't think a body at any age would be much help, one just needs
> dioptres - 5 or above I guess. A microscope may turn out to be better.
>
>> Some (but not all) e-Readers can reflow PDF's with varying degrees of
>> success. The reflowing PDF's leaves often something to desired, this is
>> hardly surprising because the PDF format is not intended for that, in
>> fact its objective is exactly the opposite; display the page exactly as
>> the author intended.
>
> I am not sure I have had a reflowing pdf reader in my hands, the
> purpose of the pdf format being exactly as you state, but I have
> memories of painfully trying to view some pdf via my phone (just 800x600
> pixels that one) so this may have been part of the problem. May be
> not though, I am not sure. May be the reader I got under android
> was just pathetic, I have not dug deep into that.

The early argument of PDF vs. HTML was exactly that:  PDF concentrates
on *form*/presentation; HTML focuses solely on *content*.

While lots of material is available in HTML form, the concept of a
(print) "page" seems to be one to which people inherently relate.
HTML "pages" can run on forever... there's a point at which you want
to "flip" to the next page as it gives you an artificial break in the
flow.

Read something on a web site and you never really know how much more
remains to be read...