12 Nov
2004
12 Nov
'04
9:38 a.m.
Re: "Obviously the value would be greatly enhanced if we could knock up an
index (document title or part number, where it starts, where it ends) and
better yet if individual docs could be pulled out into separate pdfs."
All of this is fairly easy if you have full-version Adobe Acrobat. I'm not
saying it's not time consuming, but it's far less difficult than many people
(who have never used full-version Acrobat, but have only used the reader)
would suspect.
I MIGHT do it if I get access to the files. Downloading 1,000 jpegs will
probably take a lot more time than consolidating them into a PDF file, which
can then be fairly indexed.
12 Nov
12 Nov
11:54 a.m.
>>>> "Barry" == Barry Watzman
<Watzman(a)neo.rr.com> writes:
Barry> Re: "Obviously the value would be greatly enhanced if we could
Barry> knock up an index (document title or part number, where it
Barry> starts, where it ends) and better yet if individual docs could
Barry> be pulled out into separate pdfs."
Barry> All of this is fairly easy if you have full-version Adobe
Barry> Acrobat. I'm not saying it's not time consuming, but it's far
Barry> less difficult than many people (who have never used
Barry> full-version Acrobat, but have only used the reader) would
Barry> suspect.
Barry> I MIGHT do it if I get access to the files. Downloading 1,000
Barry> jpegs will probably take a lot more time than consolidating
Barry> them into a PDF file, which can then be fairly indexed.
I would hope the scans are TIFF, not JPG. JPG images are generally
blurry, especially if the original had sharp black & white contrast.
JPG is NOT fit for that job.
paul
12:10 p.m.
On Fri, 2004-11-12 at 17:54 -0500, Paul Koning wrote:
I would hope the scans are TIFF, not JPG. JPG images
are generally
blurry, especially if the original had sharp black & white contrast.
JPG is NOT fit for that job.
Well *we* know that :-) Given that it was mentioned that they've only
been scanned at 200dpi, anything's possible...
12:38 p.m.
I would hope the scans are TIFF, not JPG. JPG images
are generally
blurry, especially if the original had sharp black & white contrast.
JPG is NOT fit for that job.
Fully agreed. However, 200 dpi JPG is considerably better than
"how can we scan fiche", which is where the rest of us seem
to have been stuck for the last N years :-)
Now at least we can argue about how best to index and
post-process the stuff and then watch Paul try to
OCR it all for Manx ...
Antonio
--
---------------
Antonio Carlini arcarlini(a)iee.org
12:35 p.m.
All of this is fairly easy if you have full-version
Adobe
Acrobat. I'm not
saying it's not time consuming, but it's far less difficult
than many people
(who have never used full-version Acrobat, but have only used
the reader)
would suspect.
Back in my previous job the scanner produced non-G4-TIFF-in PDF.
For my later scans I use to use Adobe (V5??) to extract
G4-TIFFs and then pull the pages back in.
The two issues were:
(1) you can only select so many pages to pull in in one go
(maybe 50 or so) and that gets a little wearing when
trying to stitch back a 400 page document.
(2) sometimes it would miss out a page - so I had to eyeball
everything afterwards (there was no obvious pattern to
the dropped page(s)).
With 4GB of data to verify, that may take some time!
I MIGHT do it if I get access to the files.
Downloading
1,000 jpegs will
probably take a lot more time than consolidating them into a
PDF file, which
can then be fairly indexed.
A lot of the work can be automated. Converting the TIFFs to
G4-TIFF (if needed) and then producing a PDF can all be
done with ImageMagik and various other tools. But you need
to know where document A begins and ends, unless you fancy
going through large pdf documents, pulling out doc-A and
then doc-B and then doc-C ...
Antonio
--
---------------
Antonio Carlini arcarlini(a)iee.org
12:54 p.m.
On Fri, 2004-11-12 at 23:35 +0000, Antonio Carlini wrote:
A lot of the work can be automated. Converting the
TIFFs to
G4-TIFF (if needed) and then producing a PDF can all be
done with ImageMagik and various other tools. But you need
to know where document A begins and ends, unless you fancy
going through large pdf documents, pulling out doc-A and
then doc-B and then doc-C ...
I've always sworn by Imagemagick for the last few years, but have
recently discovered a nice gotcha in reading multi-page 1bpp TIFF
images. Imagemagick doesn't efficiently handle low-bpp images - it
always upgrades everything to 24bpp internally before writing out, even
if the output format doesn't need it.
So here I am trying to convert a 22 page TIFF image to individual
images, and Imagemagick is eating up 400MB of RAM and 17GB of disk cache
to do it. Ouch. Worth remembering that it's not always the most
efficient thing when it comes to image handling...
cheers
Jules
7192
days inactive
7192
days old
5 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
a.carlini＠ntlworld.com -
julesrichardsonuk＠yahoo.co.uk -
pkoning＠equallogic.com -
Watzman＠neo.rr.com