The positioning of the cameras may be 1) fixed; 2) capable of constrained movement (somewhat flexible); or 3) capable of movement in all directions (completely flexible).
Examples:
Fixed (mostly)
> Ultem's hovering platen build: mounted to platen
> Rob's inverted platen build: mounted, can be linearly moved, with hassle, along the side of the platen at intervals
Somewhat flexible
> daniel_reetz's The New "Standard Scanner" : mostly fixed, but capable of rotation around a bolt
> gsloop's New build...: adjustable mount with linear movement
Completely flexible
> clemd973 pioneered the completely flexible approach in Clemd's DIY build in photos by using gooseneck microphone extensions.
The question is: how much of a problem is inflexible camera positioning?. I would imagine that an inability to, parallel to the page, move the camera toward the spine of a book would result in keystoning. One might also be less able to avoid unwanted reflections, although that might be solvable with different light positioning.
On the other hand, the prevalence of fixed or somewhat fixed camera positioning in many builds implies that lack of flexibility in camera position is not a great drawback.
Some thoughts:
Might platen angle matter (e.g., 90 degrees vs. more obtuse angles)?
Complete flexibility in positioning allows one to position a camera closer or farther from the page. This could be worthwhile for those interested in maximizing the resolution of the image.
NB: clemd973's solution does comes at a cost. I estimate it costs about $36 for a pair of extensions, adapters, and straps versus about $6 (assuming the 2x4 wood pieces are "free" as sunk costs) for the New "Standard Scanner".
Please weigh in. In your build, has flexibility in camera positioning mattered? Is flexibility worth paying for?
