Pentagon too... what's next?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Woyciesjes [mailto:DAW@yalepress3.unipress.yale.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2001 9:23 AM
> To: classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org (E-mail)
> Subject: OT: World Trade crash...
> Importance: High
>
>
> I take it you all heard about the two 737s (?) hitting the world trade
> buildings...
> one was possibly a hijacked airliner... each hit a seperate tower, I
> believe...
>
> --- David A Woyciesjes
> --- C & IS Support Specialist
> --- Yale University Press
> --- mailto:david.woyciesjes@yale.edu
> --- (203) 432-0953
> --- ICQ # - 905818
>
Jim Battle wrote:
> At 02:16 PM 9/10/01 -0700, you wrote:
> excess. The KA655 TM
> >that is on the DFWCUG site appears from the PDF to be 100
> DPI/8 bit (note
> >that's 800 bits per inch net and the result is harder to
I don't know where 100dpi/8-bit came from -
its 600dpi/1-bit (apart from maybe one or two pages
which are 600dpi/8-bit). I don't know how
to persuade Acrobat to tell me what the
underlying resolution is, but I expect it's
possible!
> I agree that 300 dpi @ 1bpp is superior for text and line art
> than 100 dpi
> @ 8bpp, but I think your math is askew. You need to compare
> the # of bits
> per sq in, not inch. So 100 dpi @ 8bpp is 10KB/in^2, while
> 300 dpi @ 1bpp
> is 11.25 KB/in^2. For text and line art, though, the 1bpp image will
> compress a lot better.
I make 600dpi/1-bit to be a smidgen under 44KB/sq-in.
This is an A4 scan (of a photocopy of an original
which is less than A4 in all dimensions IIRC) so
thats 8.5x11.5in i.e. anything less than ~4MB/page
is compression kicking in! I think the pages
average something like 300KB/page.
I get PDF direct from the scanner but I don't think
it does G4 compression. If anyone has a tool which will
take in a PDF and spit out a G4-compressed PDF,
I'd be very interested. I think I've seen people
claim that 300dpi/1-bit scans run at about 60KB/page
so I assume that G4 compression would bring these
documents down to about 250KB/page (15-20% smaller).
Of course, "perfect" OCR would knock it down
a good deal more than that!
Antonio
>
> And if, for some reason, you want to scan line art and text
> in gray scale,
> 4bpp is plenty enough. Use 8bpp only for continuous-tone images.
Possibly true (although almost every page
that I use 8-bit for does have a photo
of some gubbin or other). But the scanner
spits out 1-bit or 8-bit and there are not
that many knobs available for tweaking.
Antonio
Jim Tuck wrote:
> To convert to PDF, I normally use ABBYY FineReader 5.0, a
> very nice bit of OCR software. It preserves layout well, does
> near-font conversion of readables, and includes images of
> whatever is questionable.
>From my pov, the most interesting question
is how close to 100% correct conversion
does it manage to do? Give an A4 (or US Letter)
page full of text, how many errors (i.e. incorrect
letter or punctuation mark) would you expect to
see after proof-reading manually? (Questionable
usages where the character is inserted as an
image don't really count since there is no
"loss" of information ... they don't help
reduce the size either though).
Does it take PDF wrapped around TIFF as an input?
Antonio
For me, it's usually Kofax Imagecontrols for capture, destripe,
deskew, and char rebuild. (I happen to have a nice Fujitsu high-
speed document scanner with Kofax accelerator). I have used
Photoshop and a series of filters to do the same thing, albeit
slower. Gimp works just as well as PS.
Photoshop on Macs, Kofax on NT, and Gimp on *nix.
To convert to PDF, I normally use ABBYY FineReader 5.0, a
very nice bit of OCR software. It preserves layout well, does
near-font conversion of readables, and includes images of
whatever is questionable.
I have also used tif2ps and ps2pdf on *nix, operating on the
source tiff. This is usually best if I want near-perfect PDFs
>from the source images.
I'll be honest; I don't have that much demand for PDF. Most
of my work product is either plain ASCII text or multipage TIFF.
I'll do an odd PDF once every few months for Marketing, that's
it. Other people could comment much better on PDF
conversion.
Jim
On Tuesday, September 11, 2001 1:21 AM, Bruce Ray
[SMTP:bkr@WildHareComputers.com] wrote:
> Jim
>
> ...so what tools do you find adequate/appropriate for scanning
> manuals,
> "cleaning" them up, and converting to Adobe .pdf format... and on
> what
> platform(s)..
>
> Bruce
On Sep 10, 23:26, Paul Williams wrote:
> I'm looking at dumping the ROMs from a VT100 board, but I'm having
> trouble finding pinouts of the ROMs.
>
> The VT100 FMPS says that locations E40, E45, E52 and E56 on the basic
> board are 8316E 2Kx8 ROMs. However, the schematics don't show the
> designations for all 24 pins. The online Chip Directory doesn't contain
> the pinout for the 8316 either.
>
> My PROM Programmer will handle 2716 EPROMs, which the Chip Dir. does
> contain a pinout for, and looks compatible with the 8316. I'd be tempted
> to try dumping one of them, were it not for the fact that E45 on my
> board is actually labelled "AM9218CPC", the pinout for which is also
> absent from the Chip Dir.
>
> Could anyone please tell me definitively whether the 8316, 9218 and 2716
> are pin-compatible?
Nearly, providing you're referring to the 5-volt-only 2716. The polarity
of the chip selects is mask-programmable on the 8316. I don't know which
way DEC used for the VT100, but the way they usually did it was CS1 and CS2
(pins 18 and 20) active-low with CS3 active high (pin 21, Vpp on a 2716,
which is usually at +5V for reading). The alternative is CS1, CS2, and CS3
all active-low.
So if you are reading DEC 8316's on a programmer, set it for 2716, and if
it reads as if empty, bend out pin 21 and ground it.
I'd be interested to know which VT100 ROMs you have, since I collect such
things. The number that matters is something like 23-031E2 (23- means ROM,
031 is the code number, and E2 means 16K bit). The standard VT100 ROMs are
031 (or 061), 032, 033, and 034, but there are lots of variants. I have
images (and original ROMs) of 061, 032, 033, 034 but I'd like to get any
others to add to the archive.
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Network Manager
University of York
Chuck McManis wrote:
> This topic has gone over the list a few times, from
> experience, the "best"
> scans are 600 DPI black and white compressed into PDF files.
No problem here.
> The KA655 TM that is on the DFWCUG
> site appears from the PDF to be 100
> DPI/8 bit (note
> that's 800 bits per inch net and the result is harder to
> read)
The KA655 TM was done at 600dpi ... the source,
however, was a none-too-good photocopy.
Remember that Acrobat will display however
you tell it to and fit-to-page on a 17"
monitor looks quite different to the same
on a 19" or 21" monitor. Try fit-to-width
and see if that helps.
> scanning this manual to my list. They don't appear to have
> come up with a
> 'standard' for their scans. That would help too.
I suspect that if they mandated a standard
then they might put off people who might
otherwise contribute (and I still say
that any scan is always better than no scan!).
The scans just need to be good enough to
be able to be OCRd perfectly 10 years from
now (once someone gets around to writing
OCR software that works almost perfectly
rather than the current crop which seems
to fail most of the time).
Antonio
I work in digital imaging for part of my living, and do work for a
number of
archival projects as well.
600dpi@1bpp is insane. 300dpi is usually fine, if there is a prob
increase the
image depth.
Jim
On Monday, September 10, 2001 5:17 PM, Chuck McManis
[SMTP:cmcmanis@netapp.com] wrote:
>
>
> This topic has gone over the list a few times, from experience, the
> "best"
> scans are 600 DPI black and white compressed into PDF files. This
> achieves
> exactly what is needed, get the data without a lot of excess. The
> KA655 TM
> that is on the DFWCUG site appears from the PDF to be 100 DPI/8 bit
> (note
> that's 800 bits per inch net and the result is harder to read) I'll
> add
> scanning this manual to my list. They don't appear to have come up
> with a
> 'standard' for their scans. That would help too.
>
> --Chuck
>
> Thanks, dq. I have seen that doc, but it speaks mainly of the
> 3.5 drive, which had several enhancements not available on the
> 5.25 drive. Was the Apple ][ controller sufficiently similar to
> the IIgs and progeny that this documentation is appropriate for
> it also? I've never heard the Apple ][ controller chip referred
> to as 'IWM' -- is that my ignorance, or was the chip renamed, or
> are they (maybe slightly) different beasts?
It's my understanding that the single-chip Integrated WOZ Machine
replaced and duplicated the function of the discrete-component-based
equivalent on the Apple II family...
FWIW, the Lisa 1 and the very first non-production Macs used a strange
5.25 inch floppy known as the Twiggy Drive... I can show you photos
of Macs that had been retrofitted for the 3.5 inch drives, but those
drives are visible through huge 5.25 inch gaping holes...
So while I can't say with certainty, I doubt the original circuit
has any capability not duplicated in the IWM chips.
Regards,
-dq
Sorry but your wrong.
Here in the USA IEEE-488/GPIB cards are considered industrial
interfaces and command premium prices. I bought one for a
control system and paid $399US!! That was for a cheaper non-dma
slow GPIB.
Allison
-----Original Message-----
From: Louis Schulman <louiss(a)gate.net>
To: classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Date: Monday, September 10, 2001 9:13 PM
Subject: Re: IEEE-488 interface and Commodore Pet
>On Mon, 10 Sep 2001 19:55:38 +0100 (BST), Tony Duell wrote:
>
>#> > I don't know if the Brain Box supplied software only works
>#> > with their card or any card.
>#>
>#> The card claims to be compatible with the IBM IEEE card,
>#
>#Which IBM IEEE card? There are at least 2, and they are totally
>#different. I was given an IBM IEEE488 card which uses a pair of 9914
>#chips (one for data transfer, one to send commands, I think). The one
in
>#the O&A Techref is based round a NEC 7210 chip.
>
>The information I received from Brain Boxes is that their card uses the
NEC 7210 chip. They still have some
>of these cards in stock, although they are no longer in production.
They sent me a very helpful e-mail. The
>only problem is that they want 320 pounds for one card.
>
>Well, I don't know what things cost in Britain, but out-of-production
DOS-based ISA cards generally don't
>sell for US $540. Usually, it is more like US $5, maybe new US $50.
So, I don't think I will be doing any
>business with Brain Boxes.
>
>Louis
>
> Chuck McManis wrote:
>
> something up for me. Where exactly has the DFWCUG ever indicated
that scans
>sent to them will be made available to others? If you go to their
home page
><http://www.dfwcug.org> there is no mention of it, there are no
links to
>any scans in their "resources" section, there is nothing at all to
indicate
>such things will ever become available.
I'm guessing you never read John Wisniewski's
post in one (or more) DECnotes conferences
on the Easynet where he announced the
project - several years ago now!
I've sent them about 6 CDs worth of stuff
(like the uVAX 2K Tech manual and the
KA655 tech manual and the TU58 user guide that
appeared over the weekend) so it certainly
looks to me as though if you send them scans,
they'll make them available. A goodly
chunk of the stuff has never been through
my hands so either others are sending
ready made scans (which they have asked for)
or they have scanned manuals themselves
which others have sent to them (one of the
status messages indicated that they have
500lbs of docs waiting to be scanned).
AFAIK they had Digital's blessing to
do this (John was openly soliciting
information within Digital).
Don't take my word for it - scan that 11/730
docset and see if it appears or not - the
11/780 one seems to have made it!
>Actually a much better link is this one:
><http://208.190.133.201/decimages/moremanuals.htm>
OK - I see the problem now.
I pointed Bill at a bunch of places
when he announced decdocs.org -
it's a nice easy URL and I can remember
it without having to search (or organise!)
my bookmarks.
From there you hit the DFWCUG link
and end up at http://montagar.com/~patj/dec/hcps.htm .
If you go via the DFWCUG site at http://www.dfwcug.org/,
hit the Cheshire cat link near the bottom.
I cannot find their "mission statement" anywhere
there (I'm sure it used to be there!) but a
quick search turns up an update:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Patrick+Jankowiak&hl=en&safe=off&rnum=48&selm=3A6AA429.5241E8F5%40worldnet.att.net
>However, someone decided to scan some of the manuals as low
resolution 8
>bit grey scale (what a waste of someone's scanning time!)
Maybe, I usually resort to greyscale for pages with
photographs or fine detail that B&W seems to miss.
Greyscale is better than nothing !
Antonio