Re: Scanning Results
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019, 12:43 Warner Losh via cctalk wrote: > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 8:09 AM geneb via cctalk > wrote: > > > On Mon, 22 Jul 2019, Christian Corti via cctalk wrote: > > > > > So for the moment, I have to keep all my scans local (but accessible). > > > > > No you don't. Uploading to archive.org is painless and easy. > > > > Maybe I'll try both :) > I am always open to hosting well-scanned docs at my site as well: http://chiclassiccomp.org/docs >
Re: Scanning Results
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 8:09 AM geneb via cctalk wrote: > On Mon, 22 Jul 2019, Christian Corti via cctalk wrote: > > > So for the moment, I have to keep all my scans local (but accessible). > > > No you don't. Uploading to archive.org is painless and easy. > Maybe I'll try both :) Warner
Re: Scanning Results
On Mon, 22 Jul 2019, Christian Corti via cctalk wrote: So for the moment, I have to keep all my scans local (but accessible). No you don't. Uploading to archive.org is painless and easy. g. -- Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007 http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind. http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home. Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies. ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes. http://scarlet.deltasoft.com - Get it _today_!
Re: Scanning Results
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 8:23 AM Christian Corti via cctalk wrote: > > On Sun, 21 Jul 2019, Guy Dunphy wrote: > > http://www.bitsavers.org/bitkeepers is something else. > > The site's contact email is right down the bottom of the front page. > > Visual, to stop spambots. > > Also Al posts here in cctalk. > > Speaking of this, I suggest to rethink the method of submitting scans to > bitsavers. I did successfully transfer stuff there in the past, but my > last attempts (putting the scans available for downloading, naming them > in bitsavers-type file name syntax and writing an email to aek) resulted > in nothing. No answer, no uploads to bitsavers, nothing. I did that a > couple of times in different intervals, each attempt was futile. > I highly appreciate and support bitsavers, I just can't contribute > anything. For example, I would think that scans of original HP 98x0 > desktop calculator blueprints would be something of interest. > So for the moment, I have to keep all my scans local (but accessible). I would agree. A couple of years ago I scanned the manuals for the Trend UDR and HSR500 paper tape readers (these being 'real' manuals with parts lists, schematics, adjustment information, etc). I offered them here, I was ignored. I suspect the scans were not up to 'bitsavers' standards, but I did check they were readable (particularly the schematics). This is in sharp contrast to several other (technical, but not computer) groups I deal with who have attitude that any information is better than nothing. If a better scan turns up, or more information turns up, or.. they update things. But they are glad of any information on the grounds that even one section from a manual (or jsut the schematics pages or..) can be useful. So essentially I no longer offer stuff here. -tony > Christian
Re: Scanning Results
On Mon, 22 Jul 2019, it was written Just give him time, he is only human after all ;-) I know :-) I think I should wait some more years (I found a mail from Feb. 2016, the last was from Aug. 2018) ;-)) Christian
Re: Scanning Results
On 2019-07-22 09:23, Christian Corti via cctalk wrote: > On Sun, 21 Jul 2019, Guy Dunphy wrote: >> http://www.bitsavers.org/ bitkeepers is something else. >> The site's contact email is right down the bottom of the front page. >> Visual, to stop spambots. >> Also Al posts here in cctalk. > > Speaking of this, I suggest to rethink the method of submitting scans to > bitsavers. I did successfully transfer stuff there in the past, but my > last attempts (putting the scans available for downloading, naming them > in bitsavers-type file name syntax and writing an email to aek) resulted > in nothing. No answer, no uploads to bitsavers, nothing. Just give him time, he is only human after all ;-)
Re: Scanning Results
While Al is working through his backlog, the HP Computer Museum would be happy to put them up in the appropriate device webpages. They would be a great addition to a site that focuses on vintage HP computing equipment! On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 at 17:23, Christian Corti via cctalk < cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > On Sun, 21 Jul 2019, Guy Dunphy wrote: > > http://www.bitsavers.org/bitkeepers is something else. > > The site's contact email is right down the bottom of the front page. > Visual, to stop spambots. > > Also Al posts here in cctalk. > > Speaking of this, I suggest to rethink the method of submitting scans to > bitsavers. I did successfully transfer stuff there in the past, but my > last attempts (putting the scans available for downloading, naming them > in bitsavers-type file name syntax and writing an email to aek) resulted > in nothing. No answer, no uploads to bitsavers, nothing. I did that a > couple of times in different intervals, each attempt was futile. > I highly appreciate and support bitsavers, I just can't contribute > anything. For example, I would think that scans of original HP 98x0 > desktop calculator blueprints would be something of interest. > So for the moment, I have to keep all my scans local (but accessible). > > Christian >
Re: Scanning Results
On Sun, 21 Jul 2019, Guy Dunphy wrote: http://www.bitsavers.org/bitkeepers is something else. The site's contact email is right down the bottom of the front page. Visual, to stop spambots. Also Al posts here in cctalk. Speaking of this, I suggest to rethink the method of submitting scans to bitsavers. I did successfully transfer stuff there in the past, but my last attempts (putting the scans available for downloading, naming them in bitsavers-type file name syntax and writing an email to aek) resulted in nothing. No answer, no uploads to bitsavers, nothing. I did that a couple of times in different intervals, each attempt was futile. I highly appreciate and support bitsavers, I just can't contribute anything. For example, I would think that scans of original HP 98x0 desktop calculator blueprints would be something of interest. So for the moment, I have to keep all my scans local (but accessible). Christian
Re: Scanning Results
At 03:57 PM 21/07/2019 -0600, you wrote: >On 7/21/2019 9:04 AM, Guy Dunphy via cctalk wrote: > >> Starting again with the clean full size scan, reduce to 1200 x 1620, (a good >> screen size) >> and 8 bit/px indexed. (Adequate for this page.) Saved file size: 339 KB. >>File: 7903_07_1200_8.png > >Umm I am running 800 x 600 here. I have gone back to smaller >screen since FireFox seems to displaying TINY FONTS all the time. You know all browsers and PDF utils have adjustable zoom, right? Pretty sure you can also set the default zoom. And in many cases can specify 'fit page to screen.' Maybe that's why your tiny fonts problem? Anyway, not relevant. I should have been more precise. 1200 H px is a good resolution for presenting text pages since it adequately preserves typical fonts. 1000 is still just OK, 800 is bare minimum, fails for fine print. Much higher than 1200 is overkill, though if you want to, why not... With finer diagrams higher res can be necessary. >I like 80x20 screen sized TEXT. Also different pdf viewers display >differently. I read my PDF on Android PDF reader and not every thing >displays in the default reader. > >Umm 74170 ... TTL data book, turn on reader ... look up part.. Btw, when you're doing parts lookup a lot, a 2nd screen is a great boon. If you're using a desktop machine. Guy
Re: Scanning Results
On 7/21/2019 9:04 AM, Guy Dunphy via cctalk wrote: Starting again with the clean full size scan, reduce to 1200 x 1620, (a good screen size) and 8 bit/px indexed. (Adequate for this page.) Saved file size: 339 KB. File: 7903_07_1200_8.png Umm I am running 800 x 600 here. I have gone back to smaller screen since FireFox seems to displaying TINY FONTS all the time. I like 80x20 screen sized TEXT. Also different pdf viewers display differently. I read my PDF on Android PDF reader and not every thing displays in the default reader. Umm 74170 ... TTL data book, turn on reader ... look up part.. Btw, I don't suppose anyone has a copy of a utility called PDF Dissector, from Zynamics? Google bought out Zynamics and withdrew the utility from the market, in 2011. Guy Ben.
Re: Scanning Results
At 09:05 PM 20/07/2019 -0700, Al wrote: > >> I wish I knew why ISO and Adobe never updated PDF to include PNG images. > >The pdf format supports png just fine. Oh does it! The texts say it doesn't, and it definitely didn't originally. Maybe the change is in one of the more recent ISO standards since ISO 32000-1:2008 ? (That cost many hundreds of dollars so I don't have them.) >A modified version of Eric Smith's tumble accepts png as input. I hadn't heard of that one. Something to have a look at. My, google tries *really* hard to make me look at 'Eric Smith tumblr' But actually: http://tumble.brouhaha.com/ No mention there of PNG files, as of 2017. https://github.com/brouhaha/tumble Last update Dec 2017. Says: README: tumble: build a PDF file from image files Copyright 2003-2017 Eric Smith Tumble is a utility to construct PDF files from one or more image files. Supported input image file formats are JPEG, and black and white TIFF (single- or multi-page). Black and white images will be encoded in the PDF output using lossless Group 4 fax compression (ITU-T recommendation T.6). This provides a very good compression ratio for text and line art. JPEG images will be preserved with the original coding. The current version of Tumble will only work on little-endian systems, such as x86, VAX, and Alpha. The byte order dependencies will be fixed in a later release. Still no mention of PNG. Modied by who/where? Do you have a link? The ISO 32000-1:2008 in Table 6 defines the PDF compression methods, that can be applied to 'streams' (ie binary data blocks, including images.) See PDF_32000_2008_table_6_700_gray_16.png This and other files mentioned below, at http://everist.org/png-pdf Point being, that PDF internally does not allow foreign image encodings, otherwise how would PDF viewers deal with them? You can pass a PDF constructor an image in any format the constructor can understand, then it will re-encode using one of the defined PDF stream compression methods. Or you can use a pure binary stream 'attachment', but then the reader doesn't know it's an image. >The Tektronix color catalog scans on bitsavers were scanned as pngs Looking at this one (because it's one I happened to pick a paper copy off my shelf): http://bitsavers.org/pdf/tektronix/catalog/Tektronix_Catalog_1975.pdf Taking page physical 52, PDF #58 (Because I like Tek 7903 scopes) The photoshop CS6 extraction of that page from the PDF is 2550 x 3296 px. I saved it as PNG 24 bit, file size is 6,744 KB. File Tektronix_Catalog_1975-58.png This is not the compressed image size inside the pdf. Without a PDF analysis tool that would be really tedious to determine. Ditto the compression format. Of course Photoshop is not going to tell you. Enlarging in photoshop, the image has definitely been JPG encoded in the PDF, as it has the typical JPG edge noise on characters. File image_jpg_artifacts.png No way your scanner produced that. Important point there. You may have passed your PDF creator a PNG image, but in the PDF it was re-encoded as JPG. Other issues: * Bleed through of print on other side of paper. Cure: Use a black backing sheet. * A lot of shading in the 'white' paper. Inflates file size. Cure: set scanner curves correctly. * Plenty of specking. Cure: scanner curve, plus manual touchup in photoshop. * The crop frame is off the page edges. I scanned the same page from my paper copy, at 300 DPI, black backing, to PNG-24. Result: file 7903_02.png 3221 x 4349 px. File 5,249 KB (BTW 300 DPI is a bit too little for the screened images.) Notice higher res compared to the PDF image, but already smaller file. Just by having cleaner 'white'. Did manual touchup in photoshop. Mostly to get rid of some remaining shading & specks in white. Summary: select color ranges of black and blue text, add a block for the image, expand 2 px, invert sel, fill with pure white. Paint a few remaining specks. Select the screened image block, blur 1.8 px radius to kill screening dots. Yes, I'm aware this is tedious, and no I don't know of a way to automate it. Because it needs to be fine tuned every time. So I'm also aware this is not practical for bulk scanning. Just demonstrating contrasts. Then scale to 2550 H. (vert now 3443, different due to PDF vers wider crop.) Save as PNG 24 bit. File: 3,675 KB. file: 7903_06_2550_24.png Vastly better quality than the PDF version, already about half the file size. If the page was only black text, we could now save in PNG 4 bits/px grayscale. But it has color and and shaded image. So choose 8 bit/px indexed. File: 7903_06_2550_8.png Absolutely no visible difference, but now the saved file is reduced to 1,058 KB. Starting again with the clean full size scan, reduce to 1200 x 1620, (a good screen size) and 8 bit/px indexed. (Adequate for this page.) Saved file size: 339 KB. File: 7903_07_1200_8.png Btw, I don't suppose anyone has a copy of a
Re: Scanning Results
I wish I knew why ISO and Adobe never updated PDF to include PNG images. The pdf format supports png just fine. A modified version of Eric Smith's tumble accepts png as input. The Tektronix color catalog scans on bitsavers were scanned as pngs
Re: Scanning Results
At 11:41 PM 19/07/2019 -0600, you wrote: >OK. I've done the first of the manuals I have. Thanks for all the helpful >hints. > >I took apart the Rainbow User's Manual's metal spiral spine. I scanned it >with scansnap and ran it through the indexing function. I think I tweaked >the settings in a reasonable way. > >The results look good to my eye, but I'm not 100% sure, so I thought I'd >post it here for feedback: > >https://people.freebsd.org/~imp/EK-P100E-OM-001_Rainbow_100_Owner's_Manual-Nov-1982.pdf Congratulations, that is nicely done. I like the way you took the trouble to keep the purple ink on some page's LED diagrams, and the cover images. I'm not fond of that two-tone encoding of B text, but that is an artifact of PDF. (Unless you go to ridiculous bits/pixel formats, ie large file sizes.) Since PDF does not allow inclusion of images encoded as PNG. And PNG does the best B text image compression, in run-length encoded 4 bits/pixel grayscale. Which preserves character and line edges very nicely, while still achieving better file compression. I wish I knew why ISO and Adobe never updated PDF to include PNG images. It's one of the worst failings in PDF. Just that one alone makes PDF unacceptable. :) Maybe because trying to type the right one (PDF vs PNG) is really error prone? When you scanned the pages, what was the raw save format? (If any.) If it was any format like RGB/24, or indexed 256 color, did you keep the raw files? >Second, how do I submit this to bitkeepers? I've looked around and don't >see how. maybe I'm just being blind... http://www.bitsavers.org/bitkeepers is something else. The site's contact email is right down the bottom of the front page. Visual, to stop spambots. Also Al posts here in cctalk. Guy
Scanning Results
OK. I've done the first of the manuals I have. Thanks for all the helpful hints. I took apart the Rainbow User's Manual's metal spiral spine. I scanned it with scansnap and ran it through the indexing function. I think I tweaked the settings in a reasonable way. The results look good to my eye, but I'm not 100% sure, so I thought I'd post it here for feedback: https://people.freebsd.org/~imp/EK-P100E-OM-001_Rainbow_100_Owner's_Manual-Nov-1982.pdf I have the manual still apart and can do additional scanning runs easily enough. The paper is in great shape. Second, how do I submit this to bitkeepers? I've looked around and don't see how. maybe I'm just being blind... Warner
