Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #203774 > unrolled thread

[OT] scanned files are large in size

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  [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 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#203876

Siard wrote:

> Very different here. I scan from within Gimp:
> File > Create > XSane > Device dialog...
> Then the image scanned with XSane opens directly in Gimp.

If it is a document, why should I open it in Gimp?
The use cases for documents are either you save it somewhere (archive) or
you mail it to someone. Therefore you have usually also a mail button on
the scanner.

regards

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#203905

On Thu 03 Jan 2019 at 14:07:15 (+0100), Siard wrote:
> 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.

In that case it sounds as if selecting PDF would be the wrong format
for you to save in. I hope your scanner has a more appropriate choice
available.

> 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).

Not knowing your model of scanner, I can make no comment. People
presumably investigate how to obtain the highest quality scan from
whichever they buy, and in a format that is appropriate for them.

Here, if I were working directly on the bits of raw image, I would
choose PDF colour uncompressed 600dpi from which pdfimages yields
PPMs (type P6), which are easy to handle, unlike the lossy JPEG.

> > Other examples would be postprocessing with programs like pdftk and
> > pdfjam.
> 
> Those programs cannot edit images.

No, they're really for working at the level of pages. But some of the
things they do can be considered as "editing", like scaling, masking,
watermarking, straightening up (though one could be forgiven for
failing to find that option). These are the sorts of things that
commercial office workers might expect to do. (I haven't bothered
to mention collation, 90° rotations, and so on.) This is likely a much
bigger target for marketing all-in-one devices as well as cheaper
scanners.

I'm guessing that serious image manipulators buy much more versatile
up-market scanners, just as pro digital photographers expect their
cameras to be able to output raw image data. Some of the things they
do could be considered fraudulent in an office environment!

> > 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.

That would be a disaster for office productivity.

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#203805

On Tue 01 Jan 2019 at 22:41:06 -0500, kamaraju kusumanchi wrote:

> 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.

I'm intrigued; I hadn't realised that conversion of the scanned image
for some vendors' devices took place on the device itself. How do you
know this happens? It is the frontend to SANE (xsane or scanimage, for
example) which I've always associated with image aquisition conversion.

-- 
Brian.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#203806

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Wed, Jan 02, 2019 at 02:44:14PM +0000, Brian wrote:
> On Tue 01 Jan 2019 at 22:41:06 -0500, kamaraju kusumanchi wrote:

[...]

> > The scanner itself makes the pdf files.
> 
> I'm intrigued; I hadn't realised that conversion of the scanned image
> for some vendors' devices took place on the device itself. How do you
> know this happens? It is the frontend to SANE (xsane or scanimage, for
> example) which I've always associated with image aquisition conversion.

Some scanners mail things around, these days. I don't want to even think
about how many security holes lurk in there.

There's no limit to the amount of stupid^H^H^H^H^H^Hnonsense vendors are
capable of when enough computing power is put in their hands.

Cheers
-- tomás

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#203808

tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:

> Some scanners mail things around, these days. I don't want to even think
> about how many security holes lurk in there.
> 
> There's no limit to the amount of stupid^H^H^H^H^H^Hnonsense vendors are
> capable of when enough computing power is put in their hands.

When user is asking (and paying) for it, you just deliver (the bare minimum
to satisfy the need). In the past 5-10 years there was a big change in
printing and scanning in all the companies I've been with. Now you have
the "follow me" option and you can access your print jobs on each printer,
you can scan, mail or fax from each printer (as it has usually scanner on
top - this multifunction crap). From hardware and software perspective it
might be a disaster ... but who cares if the crap works.

regards

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#203811

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Wed, Jan 02, 2019 at 04:14:10PM +0100, deloptes wrote:
> tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> 
> > Some scanners mail things around, these days. I don't want to even think
> > about how many security holes lurk in there.
> > 
> > There's no limit to the amount of stupid^H^H^H^H^H^Hnonsense vendors are
> > capable of when enough computing power is put in their hands.
> 
> When user is asking (and paying) for it, you just deliver (the bare minimum
> to satisfy the need) [...]

I used to believe that, too. But nowadays I think users can be (and get!)
nudged into asking for whatever vendors want them to want.

It's like smoking: the ideal thing to sell, because people aren't getting
what they look for (freedom, adventure) but just a stick which quickly
burns away. They *have* to return for more -- the ideal merchandise, if
you ask me. Then, it reportedly damages the user's health. Yet vendors
have always managed to convince their users to buy and smoke that stuff.

Why shouldn't that work with scanners, or software, or security "products",
or DRM schemes?

Cheers
-- tomás

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#203815

tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:

> I used to believe that, too. But nowadays I think users can be (and get!)
> nudged into asking for whatever vendors want them to want.
> 

Lets not talk about the users, because what I am seeing in the minds of the
millenia is fearing. So I do not expect it to get better (unfortunately).

> It's like smoking: the ideal thing to sell, because people aren't getting
> what they look for (freedom, adventure) but just a stick which quickly
> burns away. They *have* to return for more -- the ideal merchandise, if
> you ask me. Then, it reportedly damages the user's health. Yet vendors
> have always managed to convince their users to buy and smoke that stuff.
> 

The addiction to nicotine is something I miss in regards to scanners and
printers.

> Why shouldn't that work with scanners, or software, or security
> "products", or DRM schemes?

I think companies are triggering the features as companies pay for support
and IMO through support most money is made. But the schemes are also there
for the users. Why would you have a business product line and a personal
one. The personal is usually less expensive and if you are not a company
you may not purchase business product?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#203817

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Wed, Jan 02, 2019 at 05:18:19PM +0100, deloptes wrote:
> tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> 
> > I used to believe that, too. But nowadays I think users can be (and get!)
> > nudged into asking for whatever vendors want them to want.

[...]

> I think companies are triggering the features as companies pay for support
> and IMO through support most money is made.

Companies have also another "feature" (at least bigger ones): those making
the buying decision aren't those having to use the product. I guess there
are hordes of salespeople trained just on this feature.

> But the schemes are also there
> for the users. Why would you have a business product line and a personal
> one. The personal is usually less expensive and if you are not a company
> you may not purchase business product?

Yes, of course.

Cheers
-- t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#203823

On Wed 02 Jan 2019 at 16:14:10 +0100, deloptes wrote:

> tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> 
> > Some scanners mail things around, these days. I don't want to even think
> > about how many security holes lurk in there.
> > 
> > There's no limit to the amount of stupid^H^H^H^H^H^Hnonsense vendors are
> > capable of when enough computing power is put in their hands.
> 
> When user is asking (and paying) for it, you just deliver (the bare minimum
> to satisfy the need). In the past 5-10 years there was a big change in
> printing and scanning in all the companies I've been with. Now you have
> the "follow me" option and you can access your print jobs on each printer,
> you can scan, mail or fax from each printer (as it has usually scanner on
> top - this multifunction crap). From hardware and software perspective it
> might be a disaster ... but who cares if the crap works.

You are correct, the last 5-10 years has seen a change in printing and
scanning technology. It is all for the better and Debian is up there
with the advancements. Doesn't this give you a warm and fuzzy New Year's
feeling of satisfaction?

Millions of people are using multifunctions successfully for their
everyday needs and with little complaint. No, that's an underestimate!
10s and 100s of millions.

-- 
Brian.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#203809

tomas@tuxteam.de (2019-01-02):
> Some scanners mail things around, these days. I don't want to even think
> about how many security holes lurk in there.
> 
> There's no limit to the amount of stupid^H^H^H^H^H^Hnonsense vendors are
> capable of when enough computing power is put in their hands.

Some scanners/copiers use a lossy compression algorithm based on
small repeated 2D patterns that can lead to substituting a digit for
another.

http://www.dkriesel.com/en/blog/2013/0802_xerox-workcentres_are_switching_written_numbers_when_scanning?

Regards,

-- 
  Nicolas George

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#203810

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Wed, Jan 02, 2019 at 03:56:27PM +0100, Nicolas George wrote:

[...]

> http://www.dkriesel.com/en/blog/2013/0802_xerox-workcentres_are_switching_written_numbers_when_scanning?

=:-o

I just skimmed that but... it's exquisite, for a very strange value
of "exquisite".

Thanks
-- tomás

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#203820

On Wed, 2 Jan 2019 15:51:47 +0100
<tomas@tuxteam.de> wrote:

>
> 
> Some scanners mail things around, these days. I don't want to even
> think about how many security holes lurk in there.

The practical alternatives are to hook the scanner into the SMB sharing
system, or use sneakernet. Which of those has fewer potential security
issues? 

A company I do some work for is no longer self-sufficient in IT, it is
part of the company international IT Borg. As such, its PCs are all
hooked by VPN into a Windows domain, which rules out SMB networking with
anything non-Borg, and all the USB sockets are disabled. Not, oddly,
the SD card slots...

I've just eliminated an old PC there, which existed solely as a SMTP
server for the scanner. It now uses a Raspberry Pi running (straying
back on-topic) Raspbian.

-- 
Joe

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#203844

On Wed 02 Jan 2019 at 16:54:37 (+0000), Joe wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Jan 2019 15:51:47 +0100 <tomas@tuxteam.de> wrote:
> > Some scanners mail things around, these days. I don't want to even
> > think about how many security holes lurk in there.
> 
> The practical alternatives are to hook the scanner into the SMB sharing
> system, or use sneakernet. Which of those has fewer potential security
> issues? 

Well that depends on what you mean by security. I assume from what you
write below that you're perhaps thinking of the person who scans
sensitive documents onto a USB stick and carries it out of the building.

In my case, the security vulnerability is the sneakernet one: I use a
stick to transfer the scans from the scanner to an encrypted laptop.
A burglar could steal the unsecured stick as part of their swag.

> A company I do some work for is no longer self-sufficient in IT, it is
> part of the company international IT Borg. As such, its PCs are all
> hooked by VPN into a Windows domain, which rules out SMB networking with
> anything non-Borg, and all the USB sockets are disabled. Not, oddly,
> the SD card slots...
> 
> I've just eliminated an old PC there, which existed solely as a SMTP
> server for the scanner. It now uses a Raspberry Pi running (straying
> back on-topic) Raspbian.

My scanner is either one floor up or one down from where I normally
work (attic office, basement kitchen). Wifi scanning directly into the
computer would be a pointless exercise because the documents still
have to be physically loaded onto the scanner bed.

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#203841

On Wed 02 Jan 2019 at 14:44:14 (+0000), Brian wrote:
> On Tue 01 Jan 2019 at 22:41:06 -0500, kamaraju kusumanchi wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> I'm intrigued; I hadn't realised that conversion of the scanned image
> for some vendors' devices took place on the device itself. How do you
> know this happens? It is the frontend to SANE (xsane or scanimage, for
> example) which I've always associated with image aquisition conversion.

It really is rather easy. You insert a USB stick into the scanner,
press scan, and later observe that a JPEG or PDF file has appeared
on the stick, as appropriate.

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#203846

On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 9:23 PM David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> wrote:
>
> On Wed 02 Jan 2019 at 14:44:14 (+0000), Brian wrote:
> >
> > I'm intrigued; I hadn't realised that conversion of the scanned image
> > for some vendors' devices took place on the device itself. How do you
> > know this happens? It is the frontend to SANE (xsane or scanimage, for
> > example) which I've always associated with image aquisition conversion.
>
> It really is rather easy. You insert a USB stick into the scanner,
> press scan, and later observe that a JPEG or PDF file has appeared
> on the stick, as appropriate.
>

Yes, that is precisely what I did. Stick a USB into the scanner and
press the scan button.

-- 
Kamaraju S Kusumanchi | http://raju.shoutwiki.com/wiki/Blog

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#203993

On Wed 02 Jan 2019 at 22:56:22 -0500, kamaraju kusumanchi wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 9:23 PM David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed 02 Jan 2019 at 14:44:14 (+0000), Brian wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm intrigued; I hadn't realised that conversion of the scanned image
> > > for some vendors' devices took place on the device itself. How do you
> > > know this happens? It is the frontend to SANE (xsane or scanimage, for
> > > example) which I've always associated with image aquisition conversion.
> >
> > It really is rather easy. You insert a USB stick into the scanner,
> > press scan, and later observe that a JPEG or PDF file has appeared
> > on the stick, as appropriate.
> >
> 
> Yes, that is precisely what I did. Stick a USB into the scanner and
> press the scan button.

My HP Envy 4520 has no such button. There is an option for scanning to
the computer, but software is required on the computer to do that and
HPLIP does not provide it.

Anyway, I managed to persuade the device to give me the PDF it would
have sent to a USB stick if the facility had existed (the device has
Apple's AirScan). If it matters, the PDF does not have any Creator or
Publisher information and doesn't contain any embedded or subset fonts.

Scanned at a resolution of 600:

brian@desktop:~$ pdfimages -list out.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         1  0   600   600 2090K 6.4%

ps2pdf reduces the 2090K by about 50% to 1051K.

A different scanner device and source document, of course, and maybe
different methods of PDF production, so I wouldn't read too much into
this.

BTW (for completeness), what machine was scanned_in_office.pdf produced
on?

-- 
Brian.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#204007

On Friday 04 January 2019 12:26:07 Brian wrote:

> On Wed 02 Jan 2019 at 22:56:22 -0500, kamaraju kusumanchi wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 9:23 PM David Wright 
<deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> wrote:
> > > On Wed 02 Jan 2019 at 14:44:14 (+0000), Brian wrote:
> > > > I'm intrigued; I hadn't realised that conversion of the scanned
> > > > image for some vendors' devices took place on the device itself.
> > > > How do you know this happens? It is the frontend to SANE (xsane
> > > > or scanimage, for example) which I've always associated with
> > > > image aquisition conversion.
> > >
> > > It really is rather easy. You insert a USB stick into the scanner,
> > > press scan, and later observe that a JPEG or PDF file has appeared
> > > on the stick, as appropriate.
> >
> > Yes, that is precisely what I did. Stick a USB into the scanner and
> > press the scan button.
>
> My HP Envy 4520 has no such button. There is an option for scanning to
> the computer, but software is required on the computer to do that and
> HPLIP does not provide it.
>
> Anyway, I managed to persuade the device to give me the PDF it would
> have sent to a USB stick if the facility had existed (the device has
> Apple's AirScan). If it matters, the PDF does not have any Creator or
> Publisher information and doesn't contain any embedded or subset
> fonts.
>
> Scanned at a resolution of 600:
>
> brian@desktop:~$ pdfimages -list out.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         1  0   600   600 2090K 6.4%
>
> ps2pdf reduces the 2090K by about 50% to 1051K.
>
> A different scanner device and source document, of course, and maybe
> different methods of PDF production, so I wouldn't read too much into
> this.
>
> BTW (for completeness), what machine was scanned_in_office.pdf
> produced on?

If I take a screen snapshot that might be of interest to my bunch, I 
usually run it thru gimp, exporting it as a jpeg, increasing the 
compression until I start to see artifacts/errors in the preview image, 
then go back up in size till I can't see them anymore, then export to a 
more understandable english name.  By this method I have pulled in an 
image from my camera that was a gigabyte+ when unpacked from its "jpeg" 
output, and smunched it down to 2 or 3 hundred kilobytes for sending 
over the net. And I'm still sending a far higher quality of image than 
I've ever received from a winders machine sending me 25k jpegs. The 
proper description of those when being kind is fugly.

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#204019

On Fri 04 Jan 2019 at 13:41:50 -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:

> On Friday 04 January 2019 12:26:07 Brian wrote:
> 
> > On Wed 02 Jan 2019 at 22:56:22 -0500, kamaraju kusumanchi wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 9:23 PM David Wright 
> <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > On Wed 02 Jan 2019 at 14:44:14 (+0000), Brian wrote:
> > > > > I'm intrigued; I hadn't realised that conversion of the scanned
> > > > > image for some vendors' devices took place on the device itself.
> > > > > How do you know this happens? It is the frontend to SANE (xsane
> > > > > or scanimage, for example) which I've always associated with
> > > > > image aquisition conversion.
> > > >
> > > > It really is rather easy. You insert a USB stick into the scanner,
> > > > press scan, and later observe that a JPEG or PDF file has appeared
> > > > on the stick, as appropriate.
> > >
> > > Yes, that is precisely what I did. Stick a USB into the scanner and
> > > press the scan button.
> >
> > My HP Envy 4520 has no such button. There is an option for scanning to
> > the computer, but software is required on the computer to do that and
> > HPLIP does not provide it.
> >
> > Anyway, I managed to persuade the device to give me the PDF it would
> > have sent to a USB stick if the facility had existed (the device has
> > Apple's AirScan). If it matters, the PDF does not have any Creator or
> > Publisher information and doesn't contain any embedded or subset
> > fonts.
> >
> > Scanned at a resolution of 600:
> >
> > brian@desktop:~$ pdfimages -list out.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         1  0   600   600 2090K 6.4%
> >
> > ps2pdf reduces the 2090K by about 50% to 1051K.
> >
> > A different scanner device and source document, of course, and maybe
> > different methods of PDF production, so I wouldn't read too much into
> > this.
> >
> > BTW (for completeness), what machine was scanned_in_office.pdf
> > produced on?
> 
> If I take a screen snapshot that might be of interest to my bunch, I 
> usually run it thru gimp, exporting it as a jpeg, increasing the 
> compression until I start to see artifacts/errors in the preview image, 
> then go back up in size till I can't see them anymore, then export to a 
> more understandable english name.  By this method I have pulled in an 
> image from my camera that was a gigabyte+ when unpacked from its "jpeg" 
> output, and smunched it down to 2 or 3 hundred kilobytes for sending 
> over the net. And I'm still sending a far higher quality of image than 
> I've ever received from a winders machine sending me 25k jpegs. The 
> proper description of those when being kind is fugly.

Perhaps I am missing something, but this appears to have nothing to
do with my post. If you missed the essentialness in this thread, it
is about scanning, not screen snapshots and cameras.

Please try to keep up.

-- 
Brian.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#204017

Brian wrote:

> and doesn't contain any embedded or subset fonts

not heard that such are required for a jpeg or whatever image format
embedded in pdf file

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#204023

On Fri 04 Jan 2019 at 20:35:47 +0100, deloptes wrote:

> Brian wrote:
> 
> > and doesn't contain any embedded or subset fonts
> 
> not heard that such are required for a jpeg or whatever image format
> embedded in pdf file

I reported. I am not pursuing it further. Neither are you, I think.

-- 
Brian.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web