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
OpenDNS or Google Public DNS?
Which do you all prefer? I had to replace my wireless router at home, and I soon realized I was back to using Cox's craptacular servers again. I had OpenDNS set before, but didn't know about Googles then. -- Bruce Johnson Wherever you go, there you are B. Banzai, PhD -- 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: OpenDNS or Google Public DNS?
I use googles public dns. Its much much better. I have cox as well and their dns servers are crap -- 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: OpenDNS or Google Public DNS?
At 1:56 PM -0700 5/28/2011, Bruce Johnson wrote: Which do you all prefer? I had to replace my wireless router at home, and I soon realized I was back to using Cox's craptacular servers again. I had OpenDNS set before, but didn't know about Googles then. I prefer my defaults from Verizon or the L3's, 4.2.2.1, 4.2.2.2, etc. dig 'em all. See what gives you the best response. It's all about the route... fwiw, - Dan. -- - Psychoceramic Emeritus; South Jersey, USA, Earth. -- 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: OpenDNS or Google Public DNS?
That's why I use Google's. They use prefetching and it's pretty accurate and generally faster. I don't have any experience with Verizons however, but I do with google, cox, yahoo, Timewarner and maybe 2 others. -- 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: OpenDNS or Google Public DNS?
I would caution against using Level 3's DNS as there is a lot of talk about Level 3 restricting their DNS Servers so only people with Level 3 IP Addresses can use them. From: Dan dantear...@gmail.com To: g3-5-list@googlegroups.com; macin...@googlegroups.com Sent: Saturday, May 28, 2011 5:11 PM Subject: Re: OpenDNS or Google Public DNS? I prefer my defaults from Verizon or the L3's, 4.2.2.1, 4.2.2.2, etc. dig 'em all. See what gives you the best response. It's all about the route... fwiw, - Dan. -- - Psychoceramic Emeritus; South Jersey, USA, Earth. -- 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: OpenDNS or Google Public DNS?
[html formatting removed, and whole text trimmed] At 4:18 PM -0700 5/28/2011, Albert Carter wrote: I would caution against using Level 3's DNS as there is a lot of talk about Level 3 restricting their DNS Servers so only people with Level 3 IP Addresses can use them. cite? The only reference I find is an unsubstantiated comment made to blog post at circleid -- in 2008 -- three years ago! http://www.circleid.com/posts/87143_dns_not_a_guessing_game/ And aside -- Albert, please remember to post in PLAIN TEXT and TRIM on these LEM lists. - Dan. -- - Psychoceramic Emeritus; South Jersey, USA, Earth. -- 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
