5 Jun
2005
5 Jun
'05
7:50 a.m.
On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 12:09:38 +0200
Bj??rn Vermo <bv at norbionics.com> wrote:
On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 04:18:29 +0200, Eric Smith
<eric at brouhaha.com>
wrote:
You do not get my point: Instead of adding an extra step to make PDF
files, I think it is better to keep the raw scans. Preferably as PNGs,
but if the scanner software does not provide that, TIFF is workable.
It isn't an 'extra step' in all instances. I have a motorized
sheet-feed scanner that Adobe Acrobat recognizes. I can open Acrobat
and tell it to do 'double side capture' and it will happily sheet-feed
through the first side of a stack of pages, then prompt me to pile them
'other side down' on the scanner and scan them again. Then it will
automatically interleaf the scanned pages as sequential pages.
It doesn't get 'easier' than that, and any other method requires
significantly more steps. And TIFF scanning (where you end up with an
odd directory full of images, hopefully with filenames that properly
indicate the page sequence) is a LOT more work.
Bj??rn Vermo <bv at norbionics.com> wrote:
Please do
not waste any time making new PDF documents,
Please don't waste any time complaining about PDF documents. In
many cases, you're lucky to get the data in any form at all.