On 7/27/05, Juhana Sadeharju <kouhia@nic.funet.fi> wrote:
I thought we wanted additionally in future to produce the image versions of the books. If so, the 16 level 100-200 dpi versions should be made from non-B&W scans.
I don't think there's a concensus on this; I see the images as off-products that happen to be useful for errata and some scholarly research, but there's no need to make them pretty.
I suggest to scan, e.g., with 8-bit 300 dpi and immediately convert both to 1-bit 600 dpi and to 4-bit 150 dpi if original scans are too much.
What good is 1-bit 600 dpi converted from 8-bit 300 dpi? Upconverting that direction is rarely a useful idea.
* The original print is more pleasant to read than the ascii or html text.
In some cases, but that generally indicates you're handling it wrong.
I have no effect on how the computer displays the ascii and html texts.
Yes, you do. You have control over which program displays, and what fonts it's displayed in.