[Coco] [OT] Graphics Advice for Cleaning Scans

[Jeff Teunissen]

t.fadden at cox.net wrote:
> GIGO.  If you start with a bad scan, your gunna have a bad scan forever. 
> To all the people that complain that the files are too big, bad scans 
> are what your gunna get.
> The Djvu are OK, but I don't particularly like them myself.  I like the 
> original scans much better. In todays world where 1 terrabyte drives are 
> under $100, and dvd's are less than 20 cents.  I can't understand why 
> anyone would give up quality for size. Just my grumpy old opinion, so 
> don't get your shorts in a knot!  :-)

Who's trading anything? :)

For the most part, the DjVu conversions *don't* trade quality for size -- the
only real difference is the better size, speed, and utility (through the
addition of hidden text).

The size gains are achieved through better methods, not a reduction in
quality. Better compression techniques, progressive display, etc.

That said, it is true that the methods I'm using blend the background
half-toning employed by the printer into a solid light gray background color
(when that's possible), but that's done to improve readability: I *could*
nearly perfectly reproduce every dot of ink on the page in about a quarter the
space of the PDFs (making them archival quality), but I'm aiming at something
that's more useful and smaller, rather than just smaller.

Why Lonnie sprayed black dots all over BASIC program listings until the
readership revolted in 1991 is simply beyond my comprehension. It didn't
really make them look better, all it did was harm the reader's ability to
decipher the listing (is that a comma or a period, a colon or a semicolon?).
Among other things, I'm working to correct that error.

Maybe that's the reason...he wanted people to subscribe to Rainbow on Tape. :)