Le 30/01/2012 08:01, Jeffrey Ratcliffe a écrit :
As I said, the file size depends heavily on the compression.
You are using JPG compression, which is good for photo-type images, but
not for scans of text.
The image is 8-bit, when 1-bit would have done.
You say that you are using
On 30 January 2012 10:58, tranchais pma...@neuf.fr wrote:
You say that you are using thresholding, but the log file doesn't show
this.
Yes, it does, on lines 76 and 80
No. Those just tell you the default settings, should you use the
threshold tool. To actually use it, you have to go to
As I said, the file size depends heavily on the compression.
You are using JPG compression, which is good for photo-type images, but
not for scans of text.
The image is 8-bit, when 1-bit would have done.
You say that you are using thresholding, but the log file doesn't show
this.
Try scanning
Le 26/01/2012 17:36, Jeffrey Ratcliffe a écrit :
This depends heavily on the compression options you chose when saving
the PDF, and whether you embedded OCR output. Please start with
gscan2pdf --log=log
save a PDF, close gscan2pdf, and post the log file.
Thank you for your quick answer.
In
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/922162
Title:
pdf output file is 6 times bigger than if created by simple-scan
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
This depends heavily on the compression options you chose when saving
the PDF, and whether you embedded OCR output. Please start with
gscan2pdf --log=log
save a PDF, close gscan2pdf, and post the log file.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is
