ok I take it back, there are definitely some jpeg artifacts in the
simple-scan color scan when I zoom in over 500%, but the file size
difference still seems quite dramatic.
still cannot produce a grayscale image that does not have this weird
stepping/aliasing artifact and now that I've zoomed in
was this ever resolved?
I'm evaluating scanning programs for linux and xsane comes highly
recommended, but a typical color scan of a test document I'm using
generated a huge 17440k pdf vs. a 824k from simple-scan and visually I
am not seeing any difference. The grayscale scan was 5596k and seems
May I add my own contribution - I am running on Maverick, x86_64; I just
scanned a single sheet, with few numbers typed, some of them in color -
a pretty raw and almost empty document; I scanned it in 150dpi, full
color, the result was a 2.8 MB pdf file; then I applied a trick I
discovered by
I also suffer from this problem. A ten-page scan of a printed document
results in a 43MB PDF.
What I found which works well is to apt-get install libtiff-tools and
then use xsane to print to TIFF, and tiff2pdf to convert to PDF. The
result is only 5MB and appears to have similar quality to the
Same here.
I use a HP C7280 and almost all my scans are 1-multiple page and 2-output to
pdf.
A standard A4 business letter, scanned grayscale to pdf in 200 dpi will get me
about 1,2MB per page. That's quite ridiculous really and it makes mailing those
docs awkward. Not all my relations have
Confirmed in Lucid.
--
xsane PDF file sizes could be optimized
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/75384
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
I'd also like to see improved support of image compression when
generating PDF. When you're scanning multi-page documents as opposed to
art-work, small file size is more important than optimal image quality.
--
xsane PDF file sizes could be optimized
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/75384
You
Hi guys,
Following your discussion I think I am in a different (lower) league but
as an end user, trying to get similar results as those I get from the HP
scanning software under windows I very much recognise your issues which
have troubled me since I started using Unbuntu last year. Today I hope
Seems like a reasonable request.
** Changed in: xsane (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided = Wishlist
--
xsane PDF file sizes could be optimized
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/75384
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
** Changed in: xsane (Ubuntu)
Status: New = Confirmed
--
xsane PDF file sizes could be optimized
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/75384
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
Hi
Good, when anything may be handled possibly by a minor script change,
why going through major changes? Let me know if I may be of help.
Cheers
Antonio
--
xsane PDF file sizes could be optimized
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/75384
You received this bug notification because you are a
Hi Tommy
Thanks for the ps multipage feature tip. Today we used that together with gm
convert (Graphics Magick) to create a splendid pdf. I installed 'context' so as
to try pstopdf, but still, the final size is almost doubled in relation to the
size of the file created with gm convert, and the
Thank you for the clarification -- I had forgotten about GraphicsMagick
(a fork of ImageMagick). GraphicsMagick should be superior for a
stable solution, and I should redo my tests using it.
I have not dug into the code of xsane. I suspect a command-line or
script option could be slapped in
Got it, and have installed quiteinsane, I was aware of its existence,
but as you, when some stuff performs daily duties properly, why
change...well, going to give it a try and dig a little more.
--
xsane PDF file sizes could be optimized
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/75384
You received this
Hi
The worst part was that I could not see a bit of a difference between a
scanned jpg image and a converted graphics magick (not image magick,
note) in pdf format or a native scanned xsane pdf. No artifacts,
nothing. That was the reason I re-opened this bug. I can send over some
examples, but
Hi! :-)
I am returning to this because I think the bug exists indeed, my secretary has
been complaining about this, making me lose time checking why she has hit the
wall, or if there is a fix it is not obvious to me...
scanned a color document, 150dpi, full color, xsane 0.994, Jaunty 32 and
re-opened it, I think it is even worse than described in Jaunty.
** Changed in: xsane (Ubuntu)
Status: Invalid = New
--
xsane PDF file sizes could be optimized
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/75384
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is
Hi-- thanks for your support of my ancient bug. Now that there are two
of us who want this, maybe we can petition for it as a wishlist item, at
least.
I completely understand why they closed it -- what you and I are doing
with imagemagick is to use a worse or lossier compression scheme to
Thank you for taking the time to report this bug and helping to make
Ubuntu better. I have reproduced this issue by using xsane to produce
both a pdf (1.4MB) and ps (1.8MB) scan, and then converting the ps to a
pdf (103.8KB). Upon visual inspection, it is apparent that this large
difference in
19 matches
Mail list logo
