From: David Starner <prosfilaes@gmail.com>
That's what the OCR program likes. Distributed Proofreaders are very likely to continue producing B&W 300 dpi scans in most cases for the near future.
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. Note that 1-bit 600 dpi images may be generated later from 8-bit 200-300 dpi images. 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.
* 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.
* Math text is better in its original print than in the TeX or math-html equivalent.
Typewritten text with equations added in in pen is better than TeX? I think there's good reasons why Knuth made TeX.
I have scanned math books printed at 1890. The default TeX font and layout looks awful compared to the books. Equations added with pen seems to have been a bad trend between 1960-1990 when publishers, such as Springer, started accepting the author-provided camera-ready prints. The authors at worst did use manual typeset machine. However, a few authors used Troff and TeX without the pen inked equations. Juhana -- http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/linux-graphics-dev for developers of open source graphics software
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005, Juhana Sadeharju wrote:
Note that 1-bit 600 dpi images may be generated later from 8-bit 200-300 dpi images.
This is done with a dither and is NOT what you want for OCR. -- Greg Weeks http://durendal.org:8080/greg/
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.
participants (3)
-
David Starner -
Greg Weeks -
Juhana Sadeharju