You are correct. I rotated, split the pages, combined the files and tried to clean it up a bit. The source is still the original files that were linked hear earlier in the thread.
> On Oct 20, 2026, at 12:02 PM, 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 <http://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! > > -- > bkw > > On 10/20/26 01:47, Mike Hyde wrote: >> I tried cleaning it up a bit. >> nec8201_techref.pdf <https://drive.google.com/file/ >> d/1lrG5xFYHzFkpzP9aIkPClPZplgM7CVsL/view?usp=sharing >> <https://drive.google.com/file/%20d/1lrG5xFYHzFkpzP9aIkPClPZplgM7CVsL/view?usp=sharing>> >> drive.google.com <http://drive.google.com/> <https://drive.google.com/file/ >> d/1lrG5xFYHzFkpzP9aIkPClPZplgM7CVsL/view?usp=sharing >> <https://drive.google.com/file/%20d/1lrG5xFYHzFkpzP9aIkPClPZplgM7CVsL/view?usp=sharing>> >> drive_favicon_2026_32dp.png <https://drive.google.com/file/ >> d/1lrG5xFYHzFkpzP9aIkPClPZplgM7CVsL/view?usp=sharing >> <https://drive.google.com/file/%20d/1lrG5xFYHzFkpzP9aIkPClPZplgM7CVsL/view?usp=sharing>> >> <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lrG5xFYHzFkpzP9aIkPClPZplgM7CVsL/view? >> usp=sharing >> <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lrG5xFYHzFkpzP9aIkPClPZplgM7CVsL/view?%20usp=sharing>> >>> On Oct 19, 2026, at 10:39 PM, Gary Weber <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> Kurt's scan is in three parts: >>> >>> https://www.web8201.net/Files/LIBRARY_web8201/nec8201_techref_pt1.pdf >>> <https://www.web8201.net/Files/LIBRARY_web8201/nec8201_techref_pt1.pdf>, >>> https://www.web8201.net/Files/LIBRARY_web8201/nec8201_techref_pt2.pdf >>> <https://www.web8201.net/Files/LIBRARY_web8201/nec8201_techref_pt2.pdf>, >>> https://www.web8201.net/Files/LIBRARY_web8201/nec8201_techref_pt3.pdf >>> <https://www.web8201.net/Files/LIBRARY_web8201/nec8201_techref_pt3.pdf> >>> >>> And yes these are getting uploaded to archive.org <http://archive.org/> >>> <http://archive.org/ >, along with all of the other PDFs I have fro the >>> various other manuals. >>> >>> Gary >>> >>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2026 at 7:44 PM B9 <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> __ >>> I suggest uploading to archive.org <http://archive.org/> >>> <http://archive.org/> as a start. >>> >>> --b9 >>> >>> >>> On October 19, 2026 6:54:45 PM PDT, Kurt McCullum >>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> I've just finished scanning the manual but it's just over 36 >>> megs in size. I need to figure out where to upload it, but >>> when I do I will send the links. >>> >>> Kurt >>> >>> On Sun, Oct 18, 2026, at 9:41 PM, John R. Hogerhuis wrote: >>>> I think it was Kurt McCullum that had a clean copy... >>>> >>>> I need the following pages from the NEC tech ref: >>>> >>>> Pg 77, 78, 79, 97, 99, 105, 177, 119, 191, 198, 210, 211, 228 >>>> >>>> What I am working on is a very accurate OCR with good >>>> formatting of the ASCII art and accurate content for all >>>> assembly listings, etc. I'm using gemma4:31b on a local rig >>>> to do the conversions to ASCII and ultimately .md. My current >>>> purpose is informing the AI as to low level access to file >>>> system etc for it to generate VirtualT socket tests for >>>> Gary's port of SuperROM. >>>> >>>> The AI is doing a much better ocr of the content than the >>>> PDF has. It is doing an excellent job. Even at ASCII art. >>>> Sometimes hallucinating portions of diagrams that aren't >>>> there, which is bizarre. And it keeps stopping and needing to >>>> be kicked to continue working. Even so it will save me a lot >>>> of time and we will all have a more tractable version of the >>>> content, ultimately. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> -- John. >>> > > > -- > bkw
