On Tue, Oct 20, 2026 at 10:11 AM Brian K. White <[email protected]> wrote:
> I apologize for criticizing, but this appears to be a blurry 40M version > of these two sharp 5.7M and 3.4M files I found on my drive. I don't know > where I got them, presumably archive.org or web8201. > > https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1yriOM60OrGU94kBm81UsGNcaNmDki5_C > > The 3.4M appears to be a made from the 5.7M. The both have the same > created date in 2005, both say ABBYY FineReader, but the 3.4M also says > modified 2017 and with Adobe Acrobat and is saved as PDF 1.6 while the > 5.7M is 1.2. So someone reprocessed the 5.7M to get the 3.4M without > losing anything as far as I can tell. They both look the same sharpness. > > It appears to have all the same dust speckles and random lines and > scratches and the same major flaws on the pages John specifically > pointed out like 77 and 79. > > Is that in the original and all copies will have it? > ... Yes I see Kurt's new scan has those same things too. > Some original fax or xerox from NEC must have had it. > > What does Kurt's new scan fix? > > Sorry Kurt I know how tedious it is to scan a book! > > Yeah I took a look last night, and I am seeing the same issues. I guess what we had was the same thing. So barring some new discovery we will have to infer what is missing. I have a custom perl runner and agent pushing my prompt and the pages through gemma4-31b. It's taking a while but the results are pretty good and at least now it's doing it without my intervention. With OpenClaw it kept stopping every 3-5 pages. -- John.
