-Original Message-
From: U'll Be King of the Stars [mailto:ullbek...@andrewnesbit.org]
Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2019 3:36 AM
To: Paul Birkel; General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Sci-fi and science fiction [was Re: Scanning question (Is destruction
of old tech docs a
On 21/07/2019 06:48, Paul Birkel via cctalk wrote:
I'm reminded a bit of "A Canticle for Leibowitz"!
Thank you for the reference.
Sci-fi and science fiction are very broad genres that I don't have any
particular active fondness for. I want to explore these genres more
deeply because I am
I am so tempted to claim that I had a signed first edition copy of
*Canticle* but that I tossed it when I got my kindle.
On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 12:36 AM U'll Be King of the Stars via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
> On 21/07/2019 06:48, Paul Birkel via cctalk wrote:
> > I'm reminded a
I'd suggest that in 2019 when bits are cheap and high-quality scanners
nearly as cheap, "crappy quality digital image" is a bit of a straw man.
Yes, I've seen plenty of barely-readable or practically unreadable scans,
but they were made years or decades ago.
What dpi qualifies as not "crappy"?
Great
info!https://www.zdnet.com/article/to-the-moon-ibm-and-univac-appollo-11s-integrators/?ftag=TREc64629f=46856739
800 bpi, bloody luxury.
I was an FE on a Univac 418 installation, the Uniservo VI C drives that
we used had three choices, 200, 556, and 800. We had to extract
billing data daily to send to head office, I think they had an IBM 360
that read them, and we had to check alignment every month
correction--- be aware the variable dot size was on fonts not
graphical text
In a message dated 7/21/2019 2:24:58 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
cctalk@classiccmp.org writes:
although at 300dpi on HP laser-jet 3 there were variable sizes dots giving
better curve fit.
a great
On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 11:41 AM Warner Losh via cctalk
wrote:
> 600dpi. The file is 22MB vs 12MB, so that's worth it. The 1200dpi version
> was almost 70MB which is starting to get a bit large for a 60 sheet
> document. The sweet spot seems to be 600dpu, at least for this material.
I don't know
> On Jul 20, 2019, at 8:45 PM, Grant Taylor via cctalk
> wrote:
>
> On 7/20/19 2:37 PM, Nigel Johnson via cctalk wrote:
>> I never could figure out why would anybody need dbase IV when RMS was built
>> into the VAX file system?
>
> Compatibility with other dbase files from other platforms
IN SCANNING PHOTOS FOR SMECC IF LARGE, I SCAN AT 300, IF SMALL AND IN
CASE WE WANT TO MAKE LARGER, SOMETIMES 600. ED#
ps 1200 SEENS TO GO NO WHERE EXCEPT SOMETIME AD WEIRDNESS
In a message dated 7/21/2019 1:58:45 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
cctalk@classiccmp.org writes:
On
On 7/21/2019 4:16 AM, Joseph S. Barrera III via cctalk wrote:
I'd suggest that in 2019 when bits are cheap and high-quality scanners
nearly as cheap, "crappy quality digital image" is a bit of a straw man.
Yes, I've seen plenty of barely-readable or practically unreadable scans,
but they were
Yes, and although it rarely happens, and is just shrugged off as
"something didn't go right with that scan", ARTIFACTS can sometimes occur.
Oversimplifying a bit, . . .
consider the output of a Laserjet "MINUS" or a Laserjet-Plus (CX engine)
as being a grid of squares with a circular dot
On Sun, Jul 21, 2019, 12:35 PM Jason T via cctalk
wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 11:41 AM Warner Losh via cctalk
> wrote:
> > 600dpi. The file is 22MB vs 12MB, so that's worth it. The 1200dpi version
> > was almost 70MB which is starting to get a bit large for a 60 sheet
> > document. The
On Sun, 21 Jul 2019, Jason T via cctalk wrote:
I don't know about the ScanSnap specifically, but I suspect that
1200dpi mode may be interpolated, not true optical 1200. In either
case, I've rarely seen any great benefit to using >600, at least on
any scanner I've used (my main workhorse now
On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 11:42 AM ED SHARPE via cctalk
wrote:
> Great info!
> https://www.zdnet.com/article/to-the-moon-ibm-and-univac-appollo-11s-integrators/?ftag=TREc64629f=46856739
>
The Boeing Museum of Flight is doing Moon landing events this weekend. The
Living Computer Museum is showing
On 7/21/19 11:41 AM, ED SHARPE via cctalk wrote:
> Great
> info!https://www.zdnet.com/article/to-the-moon-ibm-and-univac-appollo-11s-integrators/?ftag=TREc64629f=46856739
Since I'm just winding up (I hope!) archiving a batch of tapes from JPL
from the 60s and 70s, I might toss in a word or two.
we save to 3 formats and sometimes add a text file format too
the 3 for each and ALL scans are
tiffjpegpdf with embedded textand sometime a text file
ed#
In a message dated 7/21/2019 3:20:53 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
cctalk@classiccmp.org writes:
On 07/21/2019 04:48 PM, ben via cctalk
not concerned about scanning
just how the output looked for setting type... the variable sized dots
were a real winner. AND A GREAT SELLER!
In a message dated 7/21/2019 3:34:43 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
cctalk@classiccmp.org writes:
Yes, and although it rarely happens, and is just
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
On Sun, Jul 21, 2019, 4:16 AM Joseph S. Barrera III via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
> I'd suggest that in 2019 when bits are cheap and high-quality scanners
> nearly as cheap, "crappy quality digital image" is a bit of a straw man.
> Yes, I've seen plenty of barely-readable or
On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 1:13 PM Fred Cisin via cctalk
wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Jul 2019, Jason T via cctalk wrote:
> > I don't know about the ScanSnap specifically, but I suspect that
> > 1200dpi mode may be interpolated, not true optical 1200. In either
> > case, I've rarely seen any great benefit
On 07/21/2019 04:48 PM, ben via cctalk wrote:
It is not the DPI that is problem on some scans, but they
used
a LOSSY format to store the data. JPEG IS NO!
Yes, ABSOLUTELY! JPEG is designed for things that have
smooth tones, like people and outdoor photographs. It is
horrible with anything
thanks for pointing this handy manual out just got one of these in alas
with out the wall wart to charge it... and the 16 line screen version has
is in a display but its wall ward is stored somewhereanyone have
a box of these and wants to share let me know. thanks
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
Yes, the variable sized dots was a significant upgrade from the oversized
fixed dots.
The oversized fixed dots (LJII) were a significant upgrade from the
undersized fixed dots (LJ, LJ+), and made it possible to finally get a
solid black. THAT had been a major problem. See the illustrations
On 07/21/2019 05:16 AM, Joseph S. Barrera III via cctalk wrote:
What dpi qualifies as not "crappy"? 300dpi? 400? 600?
Most of the text of these documents don't need super high
resolution. But, some contain hand-drawn schematics where
an 11 x 17 original has been shrunk to 8.5 x 11" and
although at 300dpi on HP laser-jet 3 there were variable sizes dots giving
better curve fit.
a great selling feature!
Made me $$ (grin)!
Ed#
In a message dated 7/21/2019 12:13:14 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
cctalk@classiccmp.org writes:
It's like the difference between laser printing
Addendum: that particular source of artifacts won't happen if scanning the
300DPI original with a scan resolution other than 300DPI.
Yes, and although it rarely happens, and is just shrugged off as "something
didn't go right with that scan", ARTIFACTS can sometimes occur.
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:
At 01:48 AM 21/07/2019 -0400, Paul Birkel wrote:
>If I may summarize/generalize, Guy, I think that your point is that there
>are Technical Artifacts and there are Cultural Artifacts -- and the two sets
>overlap to some degree. Where the overlap lies is subject to great debate,
>IMO.
Indeed.
Send an email to a11anmah0...@gmail.com for the 026 manual. He has 029s,
as well as the service manual for the 029.
He has a friend who worked on all these machines until the early 2000s.
He will give you the fellow's email address for the 026 info you want.
Cindy
On 7/21/19 9:07 PM, Guy
On Mon, 22 Jul 2019, Guy Dunphy via cctalk wrote:
Most of us probably wouldn't destroy a Cultural Artifact (e.g., Taliban
destruction of Buddha of Bamiyan statue) but many might destroy a Technical
Artifact in the belief that its overt information content defines its value,
and that one that
Ed said
> Great
> info!https://www.zdnet.com/article/to-the-moon-ibm-and-univac-appollo-11s-integrators/?ftag=TREc64629f=46856739
>
Here's an all-employees memo my dad kept about IBM's part in the success of the
mission:
On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 7:02 PM ED SHARPE via cctalk
wrote:
>
> thanks for pointing this handy manual out just got one of these in alas
> with out the wall wart to charge it... and the 16 line screen version
> has is in a display but its wall ward is stored
Great to know Tony! Yea the battery is dead indeed! Will the wallwart
power it even though the battery is dead? Wish I could remember where I
put the wall warts... missing are the one for a 16 line portable, a disc
drive and the thinkjet printer.
Oddly enough the HP 75
At 07:58 PM 21/07/2019 -0700, you wrote:
>> Even if the digital version _did_ fully capture the information content, I
>> strongly dispute that the physical item/document has lost it's value.
>> That 'digital is all we need' viewpoint is a trap for the naive, because:
>
>. . . and does it FULLY
36 matches
Mail list logo
