On Fri, 22 Jun 2001 healyzh_at_aracnet.com wrote:
> Unfortunatly you're correct about the problems with Adobe Acrobat. Though
> this partially depends on the software used to create the files. It's a
> shame that OCR software isn't more flexable, and cheaper. Acrobat is still
> far superior to the Type 4 TIFF's (I think this is the right format) that a
> lot of the PDP-8 doc's have been done in.
>
> BTW, that Adobe Acrobat Document I mentioned in the previous post is only
> 3745Kb and that's for a 106 page document scanned at 300dpi.
I've come to accept that the advantages of Adobe outweigh the negatives.
The most practical advantages are that the interface is nice (being able
to page forward and back, and jump between pages, etc.) and you can print
the document and create your own copy. One can't do this so nicely with
TIFFs and a web browser.
3.5MB for a 106 page document is still pretty bloated though.
> > Well, we don't need everyone doing this. One or two handbooks being
> > destroyed to make a digital archive is fine. The best thing to do is
> > scour the net for prior work before one proceeds to shred a book for
> > scanning.
>
> I couldn't agree more, however, the person doing it should ensure that
> they're doing a good enough quality that no one else will need to do
> it again. Plus doing it in a format such as Adobe Acrobat which can
> be read with Open Source tools is also a good thing.
Totally agreed. Minimum resolution should be 300DPI as you suggest (it's
where I get my best results when you are trying to optimize quality/size).
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger
http://www.vintage.org
Received on Fri Jun 22 2001 - 17:22:24 BST