DP doesn't require it, although they prefer images under 100KB per page. I don't downscale my proofing images unless I'm consistently over 100KB, and only if the image is still legible afterwards. I've run projects with 4 to 8 color grayscale images[0], and have seen a couple of projects with color PNGs (some sort of children's story, IIRC). The squirrels are fine with it as long as you have a good reason and if you include a warning of large project images in the project comments. I have heard of projects being pulled because a new PM unnecessarily uploaded multi-MB proofing images, though. Now the proofing interface does downscale in software further than that, depending upon user settings, and many browsers don't properly promote the downscaled images from bitonal to grayscale. IIRC, Opera does, FF doesn't, IE7-8 only will if you display the image with some MS-only css element (ms-interpolation-mode or some such) that doesn't work in IE9... -R C [0] Mostly for my microfilm scanning experiments, which started with marginally useful page scans, but also for the occasional project with miniscule footnotes, or really old wood-block printed books... On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 3:20 PM, Jim Adcock <jimad@msn.com> wrote:
This brings up another issue: DP requires down-scaling of bit-densities on the page images that they use to such a degree as to make them hardly usable for any purposes, even those of DP, namely hand-eye manual turking of the OCR output. DP does this because they say some of their volunteers are working on such low-bandwidth machines that they have to do this to everyone.
Hopefully PG isn't just storing DP down-scaled page images! That would be almost worse than nothing.
At least 300 dpi please!
_______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d