On 7/14/26 18:55, Brian K. White wrote:
On 7/14/26 16:22, Brian K. White wrote:
On 7/14/26 16:08, Brian K. White wrote:
On 7/12/26 20:46, Joshua O'Keefe wrote:
On Jul 12, 2026, at 8:52 AM, Joshua O'Keefe
<[email protected]> wrote:
It resulted in a file under a meg.
Correction: "under a *gig*"
My apologies to the list for continuing to reply to myself but it
might be helpful to post my first pass at making the file a little
more manageable: https://archive.org/details/trs-80-model-100-
portable- computer-ocr-compressed <https://archive.org/details/
trs-80-model-100- portable-computer-ocr-compressed>
If anyone finds issues, I'd love to hear about it.
That is a great looking copy, still looks perfect while being half
the size.
Wait I sold you short. half? 1/3rd!
...and looks like I missed some things still.
pg 208/215 chr 226, the glyph is fine but the keystroke has an @ and the
@ is half missing.
Never mind! It's like that in the physical print!
But that's another problem with highly optimized post-processed scans
too. Any defects look like a bad scan or bad post-processing.
With an unadulterated and lossless version at least you can see that you
are looking at all there ever was, nothing destroyed by threshold levels
or compression artifacts.
--
bkw
