Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.user > #203774 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kamaraju kusumanchi <raju.mailinglists@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2019-01-01 18:40 +0100 |
| Last post | 2019-01-04 11:00 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 51 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user
[OT] scanned files are large in size kamaraju kusumanchi <raju.mailinglists@gmail.com> - 2019-01-01 18:40 +0100
Re: [OT] scanned files are large in size <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2019-01-01 19:50 +0100
Re: [OT] scanned files are large in size Anders Andersson <pipatron@gmail.com> - 2019-01-01 20:00 +0100
Re: [OT] scanned files are large in size "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2019-01-01 20:30 +0100
Re: [OT] scanned files are large in size <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2019-01-01 20:40 +0100
Re: [OT] scanned files are large in size kamaraju kusumanchi <raju.mailinglists@gmail.com> - 2019-01-02 04:50 +0100
Re: [OT] scanned files are large in size tomas@tuxteam.de - 2019-01-02 10:40 +0100
Re: [OT] scanned files are large in size Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2019-01-02 11:10 +0100
Re: [OT] scanned files are large in size <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2019-01-02 11:30 +0100
Re: [OT] scanned files are large in size deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-02 12:10 +0100
Re: [OT] scanned files are large in size Chris Ramsden <chris.ramsden@gmail.com> - 2019-01-02 12:10 +0100
Re: [OT] scanned files are large in size <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2019-01-02 12:40 +0100
Re: [OT] scanned files are large in size mick crane <mick.crane@gmail.com> - 2019-01-02 20:20 +0100
Re: [OT] scanned files are large in size Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2019-01-02 20:30 +0100
Re: [OT] scanned files are large in size David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-01-03 03:50 +0100
Re: [OT] scanned files are large in size Siard <shiems146@kpnplanet.nl> - 2019-01-03 14:10 +0100
Re: [OT] scanned files are large in size Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2019-01-03 14:20 +0100
Re: [OT] scanned files are large in size deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-03 15:20 +0100
Re: [OT] scanned files are large in size Siard <shiems146@kpnplanet.nl> - 2019-01-03 16:00 +0100
Re: [OT] scanned files are large in size Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2019-01-03 17:30 +0100
Re: [OT] scanned files are large in size deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-03 17:30 +0100
Re: [OT] scanned files are large in size David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-01-03 21:30 +0100
Re: [OT] scanned files are large in size Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2019-01-02 15:50 +0100
Re: [OT] scanned files are large in size <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2019-01-02 16:00 +0100
Re: [OT] scanned files are large in size deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-02 16:20 +0100
Re: [OT] scanned files are large in size <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2019-01-02 16:30 +0100
Re: [OT] scanned files are large in size deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-02 17:20 +0100
Re: [OT] scanned files are large in size <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2019-01-02 17:40 +0100
Re: [OT] scanned files are large in size Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2019-01-02 20:10 +0100
Re: [OT] scanned files are large in size Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2019-01-02 16:20 +0100
Re: [OT] scanned files are large in size tomas@tuxteam.de - 2019-01-02 16:20 +0100
Re: [OT] scanned files are large in size Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2019-01-02 18:00 +0100
Re: [OT] scanned files are large in size David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-01-03 04:10 +0100
Re: [OT] scanned files are large in size David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-01-03 03:30 +0100
Re: [OT] scanned files are large in size kamaraju kusumanchi <raju.mailinglists@gmail.com> - 2019-01-03 05:00 +0100
Re: [OT] scanned files are large in size Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2019-01-04 18:30 +0100
Re: [OT] scanned files are large in size Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-01-04 19:50 +0100
Re: [OT] scanned files are large in size Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2019-01-04 20:50 +0100
Re: [OT] scanned files are large in size deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-04 20:40 +0100
Re: [OT] scanned files are large in size Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2019-01-04 21:00 +0100
Re: [OT] scanned files are large in size David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-01-05 03:20 +0100
Re: [OT] scanned files are large in size Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2019-01-01 21:10 +0100
Re: [OT] scanned files are large in size kamaraju kusumanchi <raju.mailinglists@gmail.com> - 2019-01-02 05:00 +0100
Re: [OT] scanned files are large in size Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2019-01-02 20:20 +0100
Re: [OT] scanned files are large in size Jörg-Volker Peetz <jvpeetz@web.de> - 2019-01-02 12:40 +0100
Re: [OT] scanned files are large in size kamaraju kusumanchi <raju.mailinglists@gmail.com> - 2019-01-03 05:00 +0100
Re: [OT] scanned files are large in size David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-01-03 06:10 +0100
Re: [OT] scanned files are large in size Jörg-Volker Peetz <jvpeetz@web.de> - 2019-01-03 09:40 +0100
Re: [OT] scanned files are large in size Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2019-01-03 14:50 +0100
Re: [OT] scanned files are large in size David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-01-03 21:50 +0100
Re: [OT] scanned files are large in size Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2019-01-04 11:00 +0100
Page 1 of 3 [1] 2 3 Next page →
| From | kamaraju kusumanchi <raju.mailinglists@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-01 18:40 +0100 |
| Subject | [OT] scanned files are large in size |
| Message-ID | <xbwbf-3Xz-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
A scanned document from Canon pixma mx870 printer is significantly larger compared to the same document scanned on a different scanner. When I look at both the images side by side on a PC, there is no visual difference between the two. I am trying to understand the underlying cause and fix it if possible. As shown below, scanned_in_office.pdf is 332Kb, scanned_on_mx870.pdf is 1.7 Mb. % ls -al scanned_in_office.pdf scanned_on_mx870.pdf -rw-r--r-- 1 rajulocal rajulocal 331796 Jan 1 11:54 scanned_in_office.pdf -rw-r--r-- 1 rajulocal rajulocal 1775460 Jan 1 11:48 scanned_on_mx870.pdf Both are are scanned at 600 dpi. The only difference I see is in bpc, enc fields. % pdfimages -list scanned_in_office.pdf page num type width height color comp bpc enc interp object ID x-ppi y-ppi size ratio -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 0 image 5104 6600 gray 1 1 ccitt no 7 0 601 600 183K 4.5% 2 1 image 5104 6600 gray 1 1 ccitt no 14 0 601 600 138K 3.4% % pdfimages -list scanned_on_mx870.pdf page num type width height color comp bpc enc interp object ID x-ppi y-ppi size ratio -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 0 image 5100 6600 gray 1 8 jpeg no 8 0 600 600 1066K 3.2% 2 1 image 5100 6600 gray 1 8 jpeg no 14 0 600 600 665K 2.0% Questions: 1) Does the large file size have anything to do with the printer itself? Is there anything I can do (ex:- update the driver/firmware or something)? 2) Is the difference in image sizes due to the bpc (1 vs. 8) or encoding (ccitt vs jped) fields? 3) If yes, how to change them? thanks raju -- Kamaraju S Kusumanchi | http://raju.shoutwiki.com/wiki/Blog
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | <tomas@tuxteam.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-01 19:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xbxh1-4Bs-25@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #203774 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Tue, Jan 01, 2019 at 12:34:38PM -0500, kamaraju kusumanchi wrote: > A scanned document from Canon pixma mx870 printer is significantly > larger compared to the same document scanned on a different scanner. > When I look at both the images side by side on a PC, there is no > visual difference between the two. I am trying to understand the > underlying cause and fix it if possible. > > As shown below, scanned_in_office.pdf is 332Kb, scanned_on_mx870.pdf is 1.7 Mb. > > % ls -al scanned_in_office.pdf scanned_on_mx870.pdf > -rw-r--r-- 1 rajulocal rajulocal 331796 Jan 1 11:54 scanned_in_office.pdf > -rw-r--r-- 1 rajulocal rajulocal 1775460 Jan 1 11:48 scanned_on_mx870.pdf > > Both are are scanned at 600 dpi. The only difference I see is in bpc, > enc fields. Yep. The one image is encoded as CCITT (aka Group 4, aka fax [1]), which is passable for low res B&W images, but not that much for hi-res or color (or gray scale). It compresses much worse than the other which is JPEG, which is expressly made for hi-res and color (or grayscale) images. OTOH, CCITT is lossless and JPEG lossy ;-) > Questions: > 1) Does the large file size have anything to do with the printer > itself? Is there anything I can do (ex:- update the driver/firmware or > something)? That depends on what is encoding the images: does the scanner itself "make" the PDF? Or some software, computer-side? > 2) Is the difference in image sizes due to the bpc (1 vs. 8) or > encoding (ccitt vs jped) fields? CCITT vs JPEG, yes. > 3) If yes, how to change them? Hmmm. I don't know yet whether you have to talk to your scanner or to your scan software... Cheers [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_4_compression -- tomás
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anders Andersson <pipatron@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-01 20:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xbxqG-4F0-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #203778 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 7:40 PM <tomas@tuxteam.de> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 01, 2019 at 12:34:38PM -0500, kamaraju kusumanchi wrote: > > A scanned document from Canon pixma mx870 printer is significantly > > larger compared to the same document scanned on a different scanner. > > When I look at both the images side by side on a PC, there is no > > visual difference between the two. I am trying to understand the > > underlying cause and fix it if possible. > > > > As shown below, scanned_in_office.pdf is 332Kb, scanned_on_mx870.pdf is > 1.7 Mb. > > > > % ls -al scanned_in_office.pdf scanned_on_mx870.pdf > > -rw-r--r-- 1 rajulocal rajulocal 331796 Jan 1 11:54 > scanned_in_office.pdf > > -rw-r--r-- 1 rajulocal rajulocal 1775460 Jan 1 11:48 > scanned_on_mx870.pdf > > Yep. The one image is encoded as CCITT (aka Group 4, aka fax [1]), which is > passable for low res B&W images, but not that much for hi-res or color (or > gray scale). It compresses much worse than the other which is JPEG, which > is > expressly made for hi-res and color (or grayscale) images. > > OTOH, CCITT is lossless and JPEG lossy ;-) > Not sure what you mean by "compresses much worse" here, but the CCITT version is much smaller than the JPEG version. Maybe you meant that CCITT looks worse after compression, which is weird when you also write that CCITT is lossless!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-01 20:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xbxTH-54c-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #203779 |
Hi, tomas wrote: > > Yep. The one image is encoded as CCITT > > It compresses much worse than the other which is JPEG, Anders Andersson wrote: > Not sure what you mean by "compresses much worse" here, but the CCITT > version is much smaller than the JPEG version. Because it uses 1 bit per channel/color whereas the other file uses 8 bpc. The fact that their size ratio is less than 1:8 demonstrates the lossy compression power of the algorithm used in the 8 bpc image. kamaraju kusumanchi, the OP, might see differences between both files if using a viewer that can zoom-in far enough that scan pixels of 1/600 inch become larger than the screen pixels. Have a nice day :) Thomas
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | <tomas@tuxteam.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-01 20:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xby3n-57E-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #203779 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Tue, Jan 01, 2019 at 07:55:55PM +0100, Anders Andersson wrote: > On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 7:40 PM <tomas@tuxteam.de> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 01, 2019 at 12:34:38PM -0500, kamaraju kusumanchi wrote: [...] > > OTOH, CCITT is lossless and JPEG lossy ;-) > > > > Not sure what you mean by "compresses much worse" here, but the CCITT > version is much smaller than the JPEG version. Maybe you meant that CCITT > looks worse after compression, which is weird when you also write that > CCITT is lossless! You're right -- but Thomas has the solution for this riddle (the CCITT throws away the grayscale information -- so, lossy too, after all :-) Cheers -- t
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kamaraju kusumanchi <raju.mailinglists@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-02 04:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xbFHz-1wb-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #203778 |
On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 1:40 PM <tomas@tuxteam.de> wrote: > > Yep. The one image is encoded as CCITT (aka Group 4, aka fax [1]), which is > passable for low res B&W images, but not that much for hi-res or color (or > gray scale). It compresses much worse than the other which is JPEG, which is > expressly made for hi-res and color (or grayscale) images. > > OTOH, CCITT is lossless and JPEG lossy ;-) > ok, thanks. > > Questions: > > 1) Does the large file size have anything to do with the printer > > itself? Is there anything I can do (ex:- update the driver/firmware or > > something)? > > That depends on what is encoding the images: does the scanner itself > "make" the PDF? Or some software, computer-side? > The scanner itself makes the pdf files. > > 2) Is the difference in image sizes due to the bpc (1 vs. 8) or > > encoding (ccitt vs jped) fields? > > CCITT vs JPEG, yes. > ok. What about bpc? Does that matter for file size? > > 3) If yes, how to change them? > > Hmmm. I don't know yet whether you have to talk to your scanner > or to your scan software... I think there is not much I can do from the scanner's settings. But I was wondering if I can use some software (like convert, gs etc.,) to change the encoding, bpc etc., and reduce the file sizes without sacrificing too much on the quality. To be honest, both files look the same when viewed side by side. -- Kamaraju S Kusumanchi | http://raju.shoutwiki.com/wiki/Blog
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | tomas@tuxteam.de |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-02 10:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xbLah-4VR-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #203787 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Tue, Jan 01, 2019 at 10:41:06PM -0500, kamaraju kusumanchi wrote: > On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 1:40 PM <tomas@tuxteam.de> wrote: [...] > > OTOH, CCITT is lossless and JPEG lossy ;-) > > > ok, thanks. But note that Anders observed that the larger files are actually the JPEGs (somewhat to my surprise). A possible explanation would be that the CCITT loses the grayscale information, as Thomas observed (CCITT is bitonal), but then you should be able to see a difference between both images. In any case, if the scanners insist on producing PDFs, you'll have to extract the images, convert them and, if necessary, repack them again as PDFs. For an one-off job, the Gimp seems just about right; if you want to automate it, I'd try with the ImageMagick suite, but perhaps there are folks around who have more experience in those things. And next time, try to find a scanner which provides you with a raw image. Wrapping images in PDFs is... not elegant. Cheers -- tomás
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joe <joe@jretrading.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-02 11:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xbLDj-5lA-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #203789 |
On Wed, 2 Jan 2019 09:59:48 +0100 tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > > And next time, try to find a scanner which provides you with a raw > image. Wrapping images in PDFs is... not elegant. They do this to cater for multiple pages, whereas in my experience, most scanning is single-sheet. Even the Simple Scan program on Debian defaults to pdf, something which cannot be configured. -- Joe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | <tomas@tuxteam.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-02 11:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xbLWG-5sg-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #203790 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Wed, Jan 02, 2019 at 09:40:33AM +0000, Joe wrote: > On Wed, 2 Jan 2019 09:59:48 +0100 > tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > > > > And next time, try to find a scanner which provides you with a raw > > image. Wrapping images in PDFs is... not elegant. > > They do this to cater for multiple pages, whereas in my experience, > most scanning is single-sheet. Even the Simple Scan program on Debian > defaults to pdf, something which cannot be configured. I get this, and offering that option seems to make sense. But forcing it (and forcing an image format like JPEG) doesn't make sense. So either provide the knobs or let the host software do it. My scanner just transfers the raw image. The scan program is responsible for the transformation to the target format, which I can choose. This is how /I/ want to be treated, as a paying customer. Cheers -- tomás
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-02 12:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xbMzn-5Vl-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #203791 |
tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > I get this, and offering that option seems to make sense. But forcing > it (and forcing an image format like JPEG) doesn't make sense. So either > provide the knobs or let the host software do it. > > My scanner just transfers the raw image. The scan program is responsible > for the transformation to the target format, which I can choose. This is > how /I/ want to be treated, as a paying customer. +1 I did some research before buying a scanner and I bought Epson Perfection 33-330. The iscan application let you choose the image format. I am not quite sure what it uses if I say multiple pages in one PDF. I will try this, but I assume it acts based on the configuration before scanning (i.e. grayscale or black/white etc.) regards
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Ramsden <chris.ramsden@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-02 12:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xbMzn-5Vl-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #203791 |
On 2019-01-02 10:24, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > My scanner just transfers the raw image. The scan program is responsible > for the transformation to the target format, which I can choose. This is > how /I/ want to be treated, as a paying customer. > > Cheers > -- tomás Would you mind sharing with us what make and model you use? I haven't found it easy to identify which scanners offer this feature. -- Chris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | <tomas@tuxteam.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-02 12:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xbN2p-659-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #203794 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Wed, Jan 02, 2019 at 11:04:07AM +0000, Chris Ramsden wrote: > On 2019-01-02 10:24, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > > My scanner just transfers the raw image. The scan program is responsible > > for the transformation to the target format, which I can choose. This is > > how /I/ want to be treated, as a paying customer. > > > > Cheers > > -- tomás > > Would you mind sharing with us what make and model you use? I haven't > found it easy to identify which scanners offer this feature. Sorry, I don't have access to it at the moment. I'll try to look it up when I'm back home. Anyway, it's now over 12 years old -- I doubt it's still on the market. At that time I looked at the SANE databases [1] to help me make a decision, together with my (then) computer dealer (ah, I miss him, he knew what matters: having a computer dealer you trust is worth gold). Cheers [1] http://sane-project.org/ -- tomás
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mick crane <mick.crane@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-02 20:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xbUdA-2bP-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #203791 |
On 2019-01-02 10:24, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Wed, Jan 02, 2019 at 09:40:33AM +0000, Joe wrote: >> On Wed, 2 Jan 2019 09:59:48 +0100 >> tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: >> >> >> > >> > And next time, try to find a scanner which provides you with a raw >> > image. Wrapping images in PDFs is... not elegant. >> >> They do this to cater for multiple pages, whereas in my experience, >> most scanning is single-sheet. Even the Simple Scan program on Debian >> defaults to pdf, something which cannot be configured. > > I get this, and offering that option seems to make sense. But forcing > it (and forcing an image format like JPEG) doesn't make sense. So > either > provide the knobs or let the host software do it. > > My scanner just transfers the raw image. The scan program is > responsible > for the transformation to the target format, which I can choose. This > is > how /I/ want to be treated, as a paying customer. > having a scanner do PDFs is weird, see Obama birth certificate, how do you know is a faithful copy ? A piece of paper with marks on it is an image and should be treated as such. mick -- Key ID 4BFEBB31
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-02 20:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xbUnf-2f0-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #203825 |
On Wed 02 Jan 2019 at 19:17:00 +0000, mick crane wrote: > On 2019-01-02 10:24, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 02, 2019 at 09:40:33AM +0000, Joe wrote: > > > On Wed, 2 Jan 2019 09:59:48 +0100 > > > tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And next time, try to find a scanner which provides you with a raw > > > > image. Wrapping images in PDFs is... not elegant. > > > > > > They do this to cater for multiple pages, whereas in my experience, > > > most scanning is single-sheet. Even the Simple Scan program on Debian > > > defaults to pdf, something which cannot be configured. > > > > I get this, and offering that option seems to make sense. But forcing > > it (and forcing an image format like JPEG) doesn't make sense. So either > > provide the knobs or let the host software do it. > > > > My scanner just transfers the raw image. The scan program is responsible > > for the transformation to the target format, which I can choose. This is > > how /I/ want to be treated, as a paying customer. > > > > having a scanner do PDFs is weird, see Obama birth certificate, how do you > know is a faithful copy ? Eh? > A piece of paper with marks on it is an image and should be treated as such. Egad. I wish I had thought of that. -- Brian.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-03 03:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xc1f3-6mc-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #203825 |
On Wed 02 Jan 2019 at 19:17:00 (+0000), mick crane wrote: > On 2019-01-02 10:24, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 02, 2019 at 09:40:33AM +0000, Joe wrote: > > > On Wed, 2 Jan 2019 09:59:48 +0100 tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > > And next time, try to find a scanner which provides you with a raw > > > > image. Wrapping images in PDFs is... not elegant. > > > > > > They do this to cater for multiple pages, whereas in my experience, > > > most scanning is single-sheet. Even the Simple Scan program on Debian > > > defaults to pdf, something which cannot be configured. > > > > I get this, and offering that option seems to make sense. But forcing > > it (and forcing an image format like JPEG) doesn't make sense. So > > either > > provide the knobs or let the host software do it. > > > > My scanner just transfers the raw image. The scan program is > > responsible > > for the transformation to the target format, which I can choose. > > This is > > how /I/ want to be treated, as a paying customer. > > having a scanner do PDFs is weird, see Obama birth certificate, how do > you know is a faithful copy ? > A piece of paper with marks on it is an image and should be treated as > such. If I could be bothered to look, I might be able to come across a raw sound or video file on this Debian system. It's quite normal to wrap such raw data in a container format of some sort. So I can't understand your objection to wrapping a scanned image into a PDF container, which makes a lot of data handling a lot easier than would otherwise be the case. An obvious example was already mentioned: put a document into the ADF, press the button, obtain one file containing the entire document. Other examples would be postprocessing with programs like pdftk and pdfjam. Would you really send a scanned document to a company/institution as a multitude of image attachments instead of a single PDF? If you want the image back from a PDF, that's what the pdfimages program is for. I would assume that tomás is pleased with the packaging of the raw scan data into an image format of some description, so what's the difference? Cheers, David.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Siard <shiems146@kpnplanet.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-03 14:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xcaV4-43B-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #203842 |
David Wright wrote: > So I can't understand your objection to wrapping a scanned image into > a PDF container, which makes a lot of data handling a lot easier than > would otherwise be the case. After scanning, an image almost always needs editing. Crop, rotate to correct a skew horizon, remove specks, adjust light and contrast. Gimp can open a pdf, but not in its original resolution, so there is loss of quality. Pdfimages can extract the image first, but its original format (tiff? jpg? pnm?) remains unclear then, so there is a conversion, again causing loss of quality (AFAIU). > Other examples would be postprocessing with programs like pdftk and > pdfjam. Those programs cannot edit images. > An obvious example was already mentioned: put a document into the > ADF, press the button, obtain one file containing the entire > document. [...] Would you really send a scanned document to a > company/institution as a multitude of image attachments instead of > a single PDF? That should be the final stage of the process, not the beginning! You can use img2pdf to put the images in a pdf container, without affecting the image quality.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-03 14:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xcb4J-46O-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #203862 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Siard (2019-01-03): > After scanning, an image almost always needs editing. Crop, rotate to > correct a skew horizon, remove specks, adjust light and contrast. That depends on the purpose. > Pdfimages can extract the image first, but its > original format (tiff? jpg? pnm?) remains unclear then, so there is a > conversion, again causing loss of quality (AFAIU). You are mistaken. If the image is stored losslessly in the PDF, then extracting it to any lossless format will not lose any quality. If the image is stored with a lossy codec, pdfimages can be directed (RTFM) to re-wrap the codec data in an adequate container, causing no extra loss of quality either. Regards, -- Nicolas George
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-03 15:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xcc0N-4EZ-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #203862 |
Siard wrote: > After scanning, an image almost always needs editing. Crop, rotate to > correct a skew horizon, remove specks, adjust light and contrast. > Gimp can open a pdf, but not in its original resolution, so there is > loss of quality. Pdfimages can extract the image first, but its > original format (tiff? jpg? pnm?) remains unclear then, so there is a > conversion, again causing loss of quality (AFAIU). Don't know about you, but I usually press the button and get the image. Sometimes I use PDF to scan multiple pages into one document, sometimes I scan in PNG or JPG and create a PDF out of them. As a user I do not want to spend time for correction. Put the image in the scanner the way you want it to be scanned, select the options on software side and just press a button.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Siard <shiems146@kpnplanet.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-03 16:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xccDv-4RQ-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #203866 |
deloptes wrote: > Siard wrote: > > After scanning, an image almost always needs editing. Crop, rotate > > to correct a skew horizon, remove specks, adjust light and contrast. > > Don't know about you, but I usually press the button and get the > image. Sometimes I use PDF to scan multiple pages into one document, > sometimes I scan in PNG or JPG and create a PDF out of them. > > As a user I do not want to spend time for correction. Put the image > in the scanner the way you want it to be scanned, select the options > on software side and just press a button. Very different here. I scan from within Gimp: File > Create > XSane > Device dialog... Then the image scanned with XSane opens directly in Gimp.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-03 17:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xce2C-5Pg-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #203869 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
deloptes (2019-01-03): > If it is a document, why should I open it in Gimp? The level of "my use case is the only use case" in this subthread is frightening and staggering. -- Nicolas George
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 3 [1] 2 3 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user
csiph-web