Re: Need to Print Thousands of Micro$oft doc scans, Ahhh
strange, it used to be only the softies that relied on file name extensions to determine file type. Apple people had the resource fork and Unix people had /etc/magic . Anyway, you can write a nice script that would be a whole lot more robust, but the quick and dirty way would be to run this from the directory where all of your images are located in an xterm, or in a Terminal.app window: % file * | grep -i tif This would identify your tiff files, and then you can move them off to another directory, or what ever you need to do. Jerry On 05/26/11 20:00, Bruce Johnson wrote: On May 26, 2011, at 5:31 PM, glen wrote: Sooo, the QUESTION: is there any Mac software that will sniff out the .tiff docs and send them to my high speed commercial digital copier and allow me to print the 3000 pages without having to open each tiff file separately to to print it. Or is this just another Mico$oft I got'cha. tiff files are not microsoft files. You can use the OS X command line to achieve this. see http://www.mcelhearn.com/2004/12/08/printing-from-the-command-line/ Yes you should be able to do what you want; but it will take some unix chops. The find command is your friend. So the concept is 'find all the files like *.0001- *.0300 on the CD' and send them to the lp command specifying the high-speed printer.' the find command should be able to do this. Hopefully someone with better unix command-line skills can manage this. Asking on a linux forum may get you some help, if you can't find it here. -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: Need to Print Thousands of Micro$oft doc scans, Ahhh
The G4 could eat a higher clocked PIII for lunch. -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: Need to Print Thousands of Micro$oft doc scans, Ahhh
- Original Message From: Jerry apple.mail.lis...@oryx.cc strange, it used to be only the softies that relied on file name extensions to determine file type. Apple people had the resource fork and Unix people had /etc/magic . Anyway, you can write a nice script that would be a whole lot more robust, but the quick and dirty way would be to run this from the directory where all of your images are located in an xterm, or in a Terminal.app window: % file * | grep -i tif This would identify your tiff files, and then you can move them off to another directory, or what ever you need to do. Another easy terminal command that even I could do. I have written them all down; I know one day I will need them. The quick and dirty way I used was simple cmd-F in Finder. Since all the files had a unique six-letter prefix I entered it into the find box this gave me 3400+ file and 3400+ sub folders. Refining the search to Image files gave me the list of 3400+ TIF's I needed. Then dropping after them all into the desktop printer icon -- 20 hrs later all files were printed and billed. Thanks, I promise I will learn terminal, I will learn terminal, I will learn --glen -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: Need to Print Thousands of Micro$oft doc scans, Ahhh
I'd like to rather see this as a get to know something new every day. ;-) All right then! When you print something, the system reads the file and sends the DATA to the printer... regardless of the original file format it was saved in. (at least, that's what I understood) You're right. I was still thinking in terms of Postscript printers, but these days most printers just get a bitmap formatted properly for them by the printer driver. That leaves me wondering what a printer's CPU is doing these days. Anyway, the OP might look into a RAM upgrade for that printer. That would be kind of an answer to his question, after all. Saving an uncompressed TIF or an higly compressed JPG takes the same time (on a modern Mac), but with the JPG you get 1/10th of the size (or less). Yes, but I was talking of lossless compression, where tighter compression requires more passes through the file. Photoshop doesn't give a choice when saving TIFF files except for Layer Compression, where ZIP takes about twice the time. But it's true, that's only a few seconds difference on my 2x500 G4 (for a 2MB file). But it was 68030, 68040 and tens of MHz time! ;-) Nowadays, even a cell phone has more CPU power than a Mac Quadra... :-D Yeah, I remember printing to graphic film with a IIci upgraded to 12MB RAM, or was it 20, and a 100MB harddisk. And that's only 15 years ago... -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: Need to Print Thousands of Micro$oft doc scans, Ahhh
- Original Message From: Geke gevangaste...@googlemail.com I'd like to rather see this as a get to know something new every day. ;-) All right then! When you print something, the system reads the file and sends the DATA to the printer... regardless of the original file format it was saved in. (at least, that's what I understood) You're right. I was still thinking in terms of Postscript printers, but these days most printers just get a bitmap formatted properly for them by the printer driver. That leaves me wondering what a printer's CPU is doing these days. Anyway, the OP might look into a RAM upgrade for that printer. That would be kind of an answer to his question, after all. Saving an uncompressed TIF or an higly compressed JPG takes the same time (on a modern Mac), but with the JPG you get 1/10th of the size (or less). Yes, but I was talking of lossless compression, where tighter compression requires more passes through the file. Photoshop doesn't give a choice when saving TIFF files except for Layer Compression, where ZIP takes about twice the time. But it's true, that's only a few seconds difference on my 2x500 G4 (for a 2MB file). I'm the OP, FYI here's a follow up. The job took about 20 hrs to print the 3400+ files, approximately 200 files/hr not counting downtime. No problem since I could do other work while the files printed in background. They are legal files so I needed to check the numbered pages and noticed 3 or 4 pages out of 100 were printed out of sequence; for example 1,2,3,5,4,6,7 and so on. The system: DA 733 MHz with maxed RAM @ 1.5 GB Canon IR C3220 color copier/printer with Fiery imagePASS C-1 RIP The RIP to much to my surprise is only an Intel PIII 850 Mhz with either 128 MB or 256 MB RAM. So, here is my observations using Activity Monitor and a wall clock. When I drop 200 TIFF files into the desktop printer. The files start to print in about a minute. The DA CPU is pegged at nearly 100% for about 1/2 hour then drops top about 4-6% unless I use the DA for other work. The printer continues to crank out pages at about 4 ppm. The files are approx 100 KB TIFF compressed. From PhotoShop, the resolution is 300 ppi and image size is 2535x3368 pixels (8.45 in. x 11.227 in.) The RIP seems to be the bottleneck. In practical terms the old 733 MHz Mac can process files twice as fast as the RIP. Good exercise, thanks for all who replied. --glen -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: Need to Print Thousands of Micro$oft doc scans, Ahhh
Sorry for creating havoc :-) To sum up how I understand it now: 1. The Mac decompresses the files before sending them to the printer anyway -- so converting them wouldn’t help. 2. File transfer goes at LAN speed. 3. The printer takes a long time RIPing uncompressed tiff files. So either the printer’s CPU is the bottleneck, or the printer’s RAM is really too small for these files and it spends a long time juggling around the data. Re. compression: There can be a big difference in file size, depending on the time you spend analyzing the file. Remember DiskDoubler asking you if you want Fast, Standard, Small, or Smallest/Slow? So it doesn’t directly depend on the scanning, but it does depend on the software used to write the files. If done on a fast computer, one can afford to compress them more than on a slower system. -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: Need to Print Thousands of Micro$oft doc scans, Ahhh
Il giorno 1-06-2011 10:51, Geke ha scritto: Sorry for creating havoc :-) I'd like to rather see this as a get to know something new every day. ;-) 1. / 2. Correct. 3. The printer takes a long time RIPing uncompressed tiff files. Nope. The printer (usually) receives the uncompressed data; the data as is. At that point, data has nothing to do with the file format (compressed or not). One has to understand the difference between the DATA and the file storing it. Image's data is what the image is made of: pixels. Then you store the data into a file, using whatever format (and options) you fancy. The data is still the same data, but has been organised in some way. You can save the data in several different formats... the data remains the same*, but the file's size (and purpose) can change. (ok, some image format would change the data somehow) It's a bit like sending a gift using different boxes or packages... the different packages can vary significantly, but the gift remains the same. When you print something, the system reads the file and sends the DATA to the printer... regardless of the original file format it was saved in. (at least, that's what I understood) So either the printer¹s CPU is the bottleneck, or the printer¹s RAM is really too small for these files and it spends a long time juggling around the data. I think that's correct. Re. compression: There can be a big difference in file size, depending on the time you spend analyzing the file. I would say this isn't true anymore nowadays (at least for images**). When you save an image, different formats use approx. the same time (unless it's hundreds of MBs). CPU are powerful enough now. It's the way the data is organised in, to make a difference in size. Saving an uncompressed TIF or an higly compressed JPG takes the same time (on a modern Mac), but with the JPG you get 1/10th of the size (or less). ** (with video is a different matter: since there's lots more data involved, different saving formats can take much more/less time) Remember DiskDoubler asking you if you want Fast, Standard, Small, or Smallest/Slow? Yeah, I do! :-D But it was 68030, 68040 and tens of MHz time! ;-) Nowadays, even a cell phone has more CPU power than a Mac Quadra... :-D -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: Need to Print Thousands of Micro$oft doc scans, Ahhh
Or: Glen could batch-process the images, i.e. open them and save them uncompressed, and then print those. That would take the load off the printer’s processor and put it on the Mac’s CPU. It would be interesting to try, but I’m not sure if it would make a difference to the bottom line. -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: Need to Print Thousands of Micro$oft doc scans, Ahhh
Il giorno 28-05-2011 13:41, Geke ha scritto: Or: Glen could batch-process the images, i.e. open them and save them uncompressed, and then print those. That would take the load off the printer¹s processor and put it on the Mac¹s CPU. It would be interesting to try, but I¹m not sure if it would make a difference to the bottom line. IMHO, that wouldn't improve the print time at all... just wasting time in processing the images. The long time it's taking - in my hypotesis - it's for transmitting the image's data. If you don't change the data, the time would remain the same. OTOH, if the user changes the data (i.e. lowering the resolution, if it's excessive; or converting from RGB to Grayscale, or from Grayscale to Bitmap - if that doesn't diminish the image quality), could actually lower the transmission time. In the end, it depends on the way the image has been saved. More info about it (resolution, bit depth...) could help. -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: Need to Print Thousands of Micro$oft doc scans, Ahhh
On May 28, 2011, at 4:41 AM, Geke wrote: Or: Glen could batch-process the images, i.e. open them and save them uncompressed, and then print those. That would take the load off the printer’s processor and put it on the Mac’s CPU. Decompressing the tiff file (which is LZW compressed) is done by the CPU anyway, not the printer. -- Bruce Johnson University of Arizona College of Pharmacy Information Technology Group Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: Need to Print Thousands of Micro$oft doc scans, Ahhh
- Original Message From: Valter Prahlad valter.prah...@fastwebnet.it Most multi-page documents (.pdf's or even M$ Word docs) print at the usuall 30 to 80 page/minute even if they large color files. I wonder why these small B/W .tif scans take so long? It might be because they are probably compressed TIFFs, so the actual (uncompressed) data si much bigger (let's say some megabytes uncompressed vs 60 kylobytes compressed?). If the printing sends the uncompressed image binary data, it'll take some time... Yes, that explains it. So I ran some tests for the Geke minded. The test file was 76 KB in its original configuration. This is the size is from Get Info in Preview as the default viewer in 10.4.11. When saved as uncompressed it grew to 8.1 MB. When saved again with LZW compression it was 220 KB. When I changed the default application to PhotoShop the original file grew to 144 KB. When saved as uncompressed it grew to only 1.1 MB. A lot less than 8.1 MB file from Preview . When saved with LZW compression in PS it dropped to 236 KB and when saved with ZIP compression it was 212 KB. Certainly many different file sizes. And I don't have a clue why. I wonder what compression was used originally to get the file to 76 KB? It would be a lot more efficient to store or email a 76 KB files than 200+ KB files if we could do that in an OSX environment. The file is a 1 bit/channel B/W (line art) not 8 bit greyscale. I assume the scans were done on a commerical high speed document scanner in a Windows environment. Perhaps the same scanner is also compatible with Mac OSX. I would love to get my letter size 1 bit .tiff scans down to 70-100 KB compressed size but then I only using inexpensive flatbed scanners. Just a FYI report. --glen -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: Need to Print Thousands of Micro$oft doc scans, Ahhh
- Original Message From: Bruce Johnson john...@pharmacy.arizona.edu On May 28, 2011, at 4:41 AM, Geke wrote: Or: Glen could batch-process the images, i.e. open them and save them uncompressed, and then print those. That would take the load off the printer’s processor and put it on the Mac’s CPU. Decompressing the tiff file (which is LZW compressed) is done by the CPU anyway, not the printer. This is what transpires: When I send 100 or 200 compressed tiff's to the Canon IRC3220 copier/printer. It takes 1-2 minutes to get the green light on the copier/printer start flashing indicating that files are received and printing starts in about another minute, The spinning beach ball on the Mac spins for about another minute and goes away. Then the activity monitor on the Mac CPU is around 4% unless I use the mouse or do other work and then of course the CPU activity goes up. 100 compressed files are approximately 10 MB so I think the transfer time over 10baseT Ethernet is about right. But I suspect the RIP* in copier/printer is taking the heavy load and processing the files since it takes about an hour to print 200 files and in the mean time the Mac is total useful for other work. I don't have the spec's for the RIP in the 3220 but do know it is faster that the RIP in my other copier/printer which has dual-core 2.5 MHz processor. Really would not expect my outdated 733 MHz DA to process these files in a shorter time than the RIP in a production machine -- but I really don't know all the in's and out's of the process so I'm guessing. Thanks again Bruce as always you have been so very helpful. --glen *RIP for the non-Geke this stands for Raster Image Processor which takes the pixels in the file and turns them into a printed page (greatly oversimplified). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raster_image_processor -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: Need to Print Thousands of Micro$oft doc scans, Ahhh
Il giorno 28-05-2011 23:19, glen ha scritto: So I ran some tests for the Geke minded. [...] Certainly many different file sizes. And I don't have a clue why. I'll make some guess... and some explanation. (I could be wrong, though) BTW, it's all about the format (and options) used when saving; it has nothing to do with the original scan application: once you scan the data, that data is THAT data, and file size depends only by the format you use when saving. The test file was 76 KB in its original configuration. This is the size is from Get Info in Preview as the default viewer in 10.4.11. When saved as uncompressed it grew to 8.1 MB. This should be the actual data size... but I'm a bit skeptical about Preview estimate. :-? When saved again with LZW compression it was 220 KB. LZW compression is using - AFAIK - a RLE (Run Lenght Encoded) method; i.e. it records how many identical contiguous pixels are in a line. There are more efficient methods (like ZIP), and that's why you can have smaller sizes when using them. When I changed the default application to PhotoShop the original file grew to 144 KB. I believe this has nothing to do with the file content itself, it's just OSX added some kind of icon (or something) to the file. Hence the size growth. When saved as uncompressed it grew to only 1.1 MB. So, Preview said 8.1 MB but it came out as 1.1 MB when saved? Mhhh something is wrong. Or that file wasn't really uncompressed. The ACTUAL data size is usually showed by Photoshop in the lower left corner of the image window (option: file size - I'm using PS here, but it should true in every image app). E.g., if you create a new document 1000 x 1000 pixel in RGB, that means 1 million pixels with 3 bytes (R+G+B) each. It makes 3 million bytes, and PS show (correctly) 2.86MB. (Wait! Why 2.86 and not 3? - Because a MB is actually 1024 x 1024 bytes, not 1000 x 1000) BTW, my Preview app (OSX 10.4.11), when using Tools/Get Info, doesn't say the actual data size, just the file size. When saved with LZW compression in PS it dropped to 236 KB That's probably the same as 220KB LZW above, plus some kind of icon or preview PS inserted. When PS (or else) adds previews, or color profiles, file size can grow significantly. and when saved with ZIP compression it was 212 KB. That because ZIP method is more efficient (as I said above) than LZW. I wonder what compression was used originally to get the file to 76 KB? I'm wondering as well. Maybe it was JPG? PS offers this method when saving TIFF (I'm using PS CS3). JPG is surely more efficient than LZW or ZIP, but it's LOSSY (you have a loss in quality), while LZW and ZIP are LOSSLESS (original data is mantained identical). The file is a 1 bit/channel B/W (line art) not 8 bit greyscale. You forgot to say the resolution (actual pixel width/height). Knowing that, you can easily calculate the actual (uncompressed) data. An A4 paper sheet (21 x 29.7 cm) at 300 DPI, gives 1.04 MB when bitmap (1 bit x pixel), and 8.30 MB when Grayscale (1 byte per pixel). I would love to get my letter size 1 bit .tiff scans down to 70-100 KB compressed size but then I only using inexpensive flatbed scanners. Again, I'm quite sure the compact file size is about saving format, not some sort of magic by the scanning app. :-) -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: Need to Print Thousands of Micro$oft doc scans, Ahhh
- Original Message From: Bruce Johnson john...@pharmacy.arizona.edu On May 26, 2011, at 5:31 PM, glen wrote: Sooo, the QUESTION: is there any Mac software that will sniff out the .tiff docs and send them to my high speed commercial digital copier and allow me to print the 3000 pages without having to open each tiff file separately to to print it. Or is this just another Mico$oft I got'cha. tiff files are not microsoft files. You can use the OS X command line to achieve this. see http://www.mcelhearn.com/2004/12/08/printing-from-the-command-line/ Yes you should be able to do what you want; but it will take some unix chops. The find command is your friend. So the concept is 'find all the files like *.0001- *.0300 on the CD' and send them to the lp command specifying the high-speed printer.' the find command should be able to do this. Hopefully someone with better unix command-line skills can manage this. Yes the Find Command! I did not need to use command-line -- one day I will need to learn more unix. I just used the Cmd-F in Finder. The first six letters of all the files to be printed are the same and unique. The result was a list of 3431 subfolders and 3431 .tif files (one in each subfolder). Why does commerical M$ scanner software put each scan in a subfolder -- ahh, never mind it's M$. Then I refined the search from Kind-Any to Kind-Images and that gave me a list of the 3431 .tif's. Now I can select as many files as I want to print by clicking on the first and scrolling down the list while holding the shift and clicking on the last. Or I could hit cmd-A to select all 3431 files -- didn't do that. Then I dragged the selected batch into the desk top printer Icon and they print away in the background. I could still use Mac DA for all other work or browsing or checking emails. Wow! Also switched commercial digital copier/printers from a B/W Canon IR8070 to a color IRC3220 (in B/W mode) with a faster RIP this increased speed to 4 prints/min. Generally these machines produce 30 to 80 copies/min but these small (60kb) .tif scans really slow things down. Of course I could use both machines at the same time but really needed to keep one available for other work. Most multi-page documents (.pdf's or even M$ Word docs) print at the usuall 30 to 80 page/minute even if they large color files. I wonder why these small B/W .tif scans take so long? Oh well got 1200 pages printed today only 2200 more to go :-). And worked out a deal with the law firm on cost, so I'm good. Thanks Bruce, --glen -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: Need to Print Thousands of Micro$oft doc scans, Ahhh
Thanks for the follow-up. -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: Need to Print Thousands of Micro$oft doc scans, Ahhh
Il giorno 28-05-2011 1:00, glen ha scritto: Most multi-page documents (.pdf's or even M$ Word docs) print at the usuall 30 to 80 page/minute even if they large color files. I wonder why these small B/W .tif scans take so long? It might be because they are probably compressed TIFFs, so the actual (uncompressed) data si much bigger (let's say some megabytes uncompressed vs 60 kylobytes compressed?). If the printing sends the uncompressed image binary data, it'll take some time... -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Need to Print Thousands of Micro$oft doc scans, Ahhh
Here's the deal. I have been given a CD with more than 3,000 pages scanned in the .tiff format, I assume they were scanned with a high speed commercial digital copier/scanner in a Windows office environment. For security reasons, the scan folder is named xxx_0001. There is also another nondescript file named xxx_0001.OPT. A seach reveals OPT is: OPT file is a Microsoft Visual Studio Workspace Options. This is a binary file that is the workspace options file for the local computer. When I open the scan folder I see 3000 subfolders with names xxx.0001 to xxx.3000. If I open each subfolder I see a one page tiff scan with consecutive legal Bates Numbers xxx.0001 thu xxx.3000. I did open and try dropping the first 15 pages of .tiff files into my desktop printer icon and it prints about 2 pages/minute. That translates to 30 hours non-stop time without breaks or interruptions. These are legal docs I received from a respected local law firm I that I do business with and my job is to print them. I do not think think the firm is willing to pay for 30 hours of work and I would not feel justified in that charge. Sooo, the QUESTION: is there any Mac software that will sniff out the .tiff docs and send them to my high speed commercial digital copier and allow me to print the 3000 pages without having to open each tiff file separately to to print it. Or is this just another Mico$oft I got'cha. This print shop is totally Mac with no Windows PC's. I am using a DA 733 with OS 10.4.11 for this job, any suggestions? --glen -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
