Home› Welcome to the FamilySearch Community!› Suggest an Idea

Digitize unreadable batches

weatherboi
weatherboi ✭
July 17, 2021 edited April 4, 2022 in Suggest an Idea

Over time in doing indexing, I notice FamilySearch will have images that an indexer sent back that was not readable. At one time, we could indicate the reason for returning the batch, one option we could chose was the batch was unreadable. Accuracy is important and with hard to read batches, that makes it difficult for those indexing, reviewing and for anyone researching information for their ancestors. Wonder if it is possible to re-digitzied pages that are blurred?

Here is an example: US—City and Business Directories, 1749–1990 [Part B][MSPN-PQM]

Tagged:
  • New
  • Indexing Ideas
  • Indexing Enhancement
0
0
Up Down
0 votes

New · Last Updated July 17, 2021

Comments

  • J C Bingham
    J C Bingham ✭✭✭
    July 23, 2021

    I don't think that re-digitizing an image that is blurry will be of any use since the blurriness is most likely in the original and was not introduced by the digitizing process. It would be wonderful if some digital magic could be done that would render blurry images more clear, but that is risky at best. One of the things that can sometimes be helpful is to change the brightness and the contrast of the image using the controls in the vertical toolbar that is in the upper left corner of the image area.

    2
  • weatherboi
    weatherboi ✭
    January 12, 2022

    Thank you for your reply. Makes me wonder if it is the fault of the digitzing machine or digitizer or was the actual image blurry?

    0
  • J C Bingham
    J C Bingham ✭✭✭
    January 12, 2022

    One other trick that will sometimes help is to read blurry images through the ruler that is set to yellow and about 70 to 80% transparent.

    1
  • Julia Szent-Györgyi
    Julia Szent-Györgyi ✭✭✭✭✭
    January 12, 2022

    Blurriness is usually the fault of the (micro)filming, not the scanning (digitizing). Correcting it would involve a new visit to the archive, which is generally not feasible.

    (Keep in mind that most of FS's holdings were filmed first, and then later digitized based on the films. Only the newest record contracts are straight to digital.)

    1
Clear
No Groups Found

Categories

  • 28.7K All Categories
  • 23K FamilySearch Help
  • 115 Get Involved
  • 2.6K General Questions
  • 428 FamilySearch Center
  • 436 FamilySearch Account
  • 4.2K Family Tree
  • 3.2K Search
  • 4.5K Indexing
  • 596 Memories
  • 6.2K Temple
  • 311 Other Languages
  • 34 Community News
  • 6.4K Suggest an Idea
  • Groups