Virtual AGC — AGS — LVDC — Gemini
How to Digitize
Documents and Program Listings
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:
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.
- Check carefully before doing anything that your document isn't
already online somewhere. While I'm an assiduous collector of
this info, I'm not necessarily able to tell you accurately what's
available and what's not. Of course, if you have a different version of something that's already
available, or if you can make it more legible or better in some other
way, go ahead and digitize it anyway!
- The document usually will have a binding on it, and you may be
tempted to scan it with the binding in place. You can certainly
do that. However, the document will suffer excessive wear, the
scans will be relatively poor, and it will be a lot more effort for
you. In almost all cases it's easy to remove the binding before
making the copies, and to put the binding back afterward.
- Don't worry too much about getting the scans into the same form
we use to publish them online ... PDF, JPG, TIFF, etc. Whatever
you send us, we'll preserve the raw images as-is and turn it into an
appropriate format for publishing.
- Don't worry too much about things like color vs. black&white,
dots per inch, etc. Worry about legibility. Make sure that
in whatever images you create, the text and diagrams are readable, even
if you need to zoom in when viewing them to do so. If you need to
use higher dpi in pages that are diagrams than you do on text pages,
then please do so.
- Don't worry about foldouts that are too big to fit on your
scanner. Simply scan them in several passes and provide several
JPGs or TIFFs for them, and we'll digitally recombine them in a
- Do not skip blank pages. We have know way to know that
they're supposed to be blank, and will think that a page is
double-check to make sure that every page is present.
- If you are providing PDF, do not
apply optical character recognition to it (PDF). Let me worry
about that part.
- Simply email me (Ron Burkey <firstname.lastname@example.org>) the
finished PDF or a zipfile of the JPGs or TIFFs ... or send them as a
tarball or a rar archive, or using whatever archiving method pleases
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
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.
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:
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
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
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!
- 5 megapixels or greater
- 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
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
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?
- 5 megapixels or greater—You may think that the more pixels the
better. Well, yes, that's obviously true. The higher the
resolution you want to use, the happier we'll be to get them. But
the images are presently crunched down to about 1400×1000 pixels
for publication online, so most of the pixels from even a 4 megapixel
are going to be thrown away. The advantage of using 5
megapixels as opposed to (say) 3 megapixels is that you don't have to
worry as much about getting an optimal zoom-in when you're setting up
for the shoot. We'll crop off anything we don't
like before we publish the images anyway, so you might as well leave a
little margin around the page when you take the photographs.
- Tripod-mountable—Self-explanatory, I think.
- AC adapter rather than batteries—You're going to take about 3500
shots for a typical AGC program listing. A typical camera's
batteries may give you 200-500 shots. Obviously you can recharge
batteries and change them periodically. This requires a lot of
extra time, but more importantly it requires you to remove the camera
from the tripod and to lose any setups such as zooms you've made.
The re-setup after the battery has been replaced takes time, and you
won't be able to do it exactly the same every time, so different blocks
of pages will be inconsistent in size, lighting, angle, etc., with each
- Auto-focus off—Auto-focus takes extra time on every shot, but it
also means that each shot will be different in appearance, since the
focus will be done a little differently. With a cheap camera,
most shots will be in-focus, but some of them will be out of focus, and
you won't know that until you review the images later. It's
better to set up the focus once and to keep using it that way.
- White-balance—Setting the white balance allows you to compensate
for the color of the lighting used, such as natural light vs.
incandescent lights. You may think that this doesn't matter—I
know that I did—but it
affects the color of the page background, and that in turn affects the
ability to post-process it easily, which in turn affects the final
contrast of the posted images. So if the white-balance isn't
compensated properly, the background will be darker than it needs to be
and the text will be lighter than it needs to be.
- Exposure—Same problem as with auto-focus, except that it usually
expresses itself in an inconsistency in brightness from page to
page. Often the even pages will be at a different brightness than
- 2-3 exposures per second—In the method I'll suggest using, most
of your time is spent in
manually changing from one page to the next. Taking 2 or 3 shots
of each page takes little more time than taking a single shot, but
greatly lowers the odds that you'll have to go back later (after
reviewing the images) and reshoot any of the pages.
- 16 GB or greater storage—For an AGC listing, the recommended
method will require just over 8 GB if two shots are made of every page,
and just under 16 GB if three shots are made. If the camera has a
great enough capacity to store the entire shoot, it saves the time of
stopping in the middle of a shoot to download images and/or to re-setup
after changing SD cards.
- USB 2.0—Actually, the 16 GB criterion and the USB 2.0 criterion
are really mutually exclusive, in that you don't have as much need for
the one if you have the other. The point of the USB 2.0 interface
is that if you don't have big enough internal storage in the camera to
hold the entire shoot, you can download whenever the camera fills up
without having to take the camera off of the tripod and do a re-setup
afterward. USB 1.0 is workable, but (for example) takes about 40
minutes to download from a 2 GB SD card, so it adds something like 50%
to the total photography time just for the downloads. In
contrast, the download time using USB 2.0 is negligible.
Similarly, if the SD cards can be removed without having to remove the
camera from the tripod, then USB might not be needed at all.
- Remote control—This is really just a nice-to-have. With the
method we're going to recommend it's not really needed, it's very nice
to have. It allows you to work without touching the camera, which
means that a much lighter-weight tripod can be used (good for the
pocket-book and very good if you have to carry it around) and that you
don't have to worry so much about bumping the camera as you move around.
What? Some books? A moving box? You'll understand in
- The camera, of course.
- A tripod—by which I mean a regular tripod, not a table
tripod. A heavier, sturdier tripod is better, but on my last
shoot I used a sleazy tripod that Circuit City gave me for free with my
camcorder. And if you have a remote control, the quality of the
tripod doesn't matter at all.
- A table.
- 2-3 60W lamps ... maybe. Depending on the ambient lighting
and how well you are able to configure you camera, you may not even
want to use any extra lighting at all.
- A few pages of white paper.
- Some scotch tape.
- Some books.
- A moving box.
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
There are a few of important points to note that may not be clear from
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
- The binder holding the program listing had to be removed for this
process to work. It was put back on afterward. The program
listing suffers no damage whatever from either the binder removal or
from the photography if you're careful.
- The lamps clamped to the camera tripod are simply normal
special photographic equipment—that just happen to have clamps rather
than supporting bases. I rely on ambient lighting along with
these lamps. The lamps cost me $10 apiece at Target.
would work also, but note that we're trying to get the lighting as even
as possible across the page being photographed, and the more oblique
the light the less even it will be. Also, as you'll see in a
moment, you may have to be careful with floor-standing models to keep
from knocking them over. I happen to be using 60W-equivalent
compact flourescent bulbs rather than actual 60W incandescent bulbs,
simply because it's not as hot that way. As I mentioned above,
you may not even want the extra lighting at all, and in my most-recent
shoot (Colossus 237) I did
not use them. Don't be
fooled into thinking that because the page background is gray rather
than white you need more lights!
- The copy-stand is at a slight angle from vertical, and the camera
is actually angled downward a little to be at right-angles to the
copy-stand. This angling unfortunately limits the distance
between the copy-stand and the camera—in other words, you can't get the
camera very far away—but it has the important purpose of helping the
printout to lay flat against the copy stand. If the copy-stand
were vertical, the paper would have a tendency to waft around in every
little breeze, not only causing the pages to be in motion, but also for
there to be a shadow-casting gap between the paper and the copy-stand.
- The perforated edge between printout pages is placed exactly at
the top of the copy-stand, which is something that can be done very
quickly and accurately when advancing the paper.
- There is a small mark drawn on the copy-stand to show where the
edge of the paper is supposed to go, and it's very easy to align the
paper with this mark.
- But most
important of all, to take a picture you have to
press the camera button downward,
which is the direction in which the tripod support provides the
greatest stability, so there is very little camera motion when you
press the button. That means that while a remote control would be
nice, it is not needed.
When people talk about using a digital camera to photograph documents,
they normally think of the document as laying flat on a table and the
camera looking down from above. This has many disadvantages
compared to the scheme I'm advocating, but the principal disadvantage
is that the camera would be at right angles to the tripod, which is a
very unstable setup, prone to a lot of camera movement, when the camera
button is pressed. If you have a remote control for the camera,
this factor isn't important at all, but the vertical arrangement of the
paper still allows easier paper movement than a horizontal arrangement.
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.
- If you have a choice of file formats (TIFF, JPG, etc.), I'd
recommend using JPG.
- If you have a choice of image quality, choose whatever format
gives you JPG images that are roughly in the range of 1.5-2.5
megabytes. This doesn't have to be very exact.
- If you have a choice of turning auto-focus OFF, do so.
Focus the camera once, at the beginning of the shoot, an let it
focussed the same way throughout.
- If you have a choice of white-balance and exposure, experiment a
little until you get some test shots that look good to you.
- Turn off the flash.
- ... and if you know anything about photography—I sure
don't!—you'll undoubtedly figure out some other improvements.
Just remember, though, if you spend 20 hours experimenting for a 5-hour
shoot, and you don't have more of the same kind of thing to photograph
in the future, you may be overthinking it!
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.
Digitizing a Normal
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
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.
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.
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
However, as mentioned earlier, a complete set of raw photos from an AGC
program listing is typically over 8 gigabytes, and I don't think you're
too likely to want to email 8 gigabytes in 10-20 megabyte chunks.
Nor do I have an online site to which you could upload a huge chunk of
data like this. So in those cases, I'd recommend physically
mailing 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
There are two basic possibilities for getting me to do the digitizing
for you, as follows:
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.
- 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.
Last modified by Ronald Burkey on 2009-08-30.