Hello Janusz,
you wrote:
> input and output files processed with `unpaper --layout double'
I guess you used '--layout double-rotated'? This is the setting with which I
get the same results as
you.
Yes, there is a bug in the 'double-rotated' template. It has got broken in
version 1.1, because the
handling of sheet-sizes and page-sizes has changed a lot while making 1.1,
which now confuses the
'double-rotated' template. Thanks for noting this.
As a workaround, try adding '--sheet-size a4-landscape', this forces the sheet
size to be correct in
the end.
If you need to preserve the exact pixel-size of the images, '--sheet-size
3516,2560' would be the
workaround to do that, but please get a recent CVS version of unpaper.c and
compile it to do this,
because there is another minor bug in the 1.1 release which makes unpaper fail
to parse simple pixel
values in size-parameters (only the more complicated case with
measurement-suffices like
'12.34cm,23.45cm' works in the current 1.1 release). This is just a tiny bug
already fixed in CVS.
(Btw., you may also want to add something like '--border 0,100,0,0
--border-align top
--border-margin 1.75cm' to get nicer results.)
...finally, let me apologize for the late answer. I have been moving to a new
home in the past
weeks, so I didn't have time for this.
hth
Jens
Janusz S. Bie? schrieb:
> On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 Jens Gulden <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Hello,
>>
>>unpaper version 1.1 has been released. unpaper is a tool for
>>post-processing scanned book pages.
>
>
> [...]
>
>
>>- The behaviour of the 'double' template, used with the --layout parameter
>> by specifying "--layout double", has been changed slightly. The input
>> images are no longer assumed to be rotated by 90 degrees, as they would
>> be when scanned from paper with a usual ADF-scanner.
>
>
> Please have a look at
>
> http://www.mimuw.edu.pl/polszczyzna/unpaper/
>
> where I placed the input and output files processed with `unpaper
> --layout double'. I find it difficult to describe the results in
> words, but they are not correct. Am I doing something wrong?
>
> Best regards
>
> Janusz
>
> P.S. Thanks for your immediate answer to my question of 28th August.
>
