Adding a point for corrupted images is sounding better and better.
I disagree. To check out what happens I converted a JPG picture into a GIF
file
and sent it to myself. One time I converted it with IrfanView and the second
time with PaintShop Pro. Both GIF files had the result
giftopnm: EOF
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Plenz wrote:
Adding a point for corrupted images is sounding better and better.
I disagree. To check out what happens I converted a JPG picture into a GIF
file
and sent it to myself. One time I converted it with IrfanView and the
second
time
On Fri, 25 Aug 2006, Plenz wrote:
Adding a point for corrupted images is sounding better and better.
I disagree. To check out what happens I converted a JPG picture into a GIF
file
and sent it to myself. One time I converted it with IrfanView and the second
time with PaintShop Pro. Both GIF
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, decoder wrote:
Hrm. How much, if any, image processing is duplicated across the
imageinfo/OCR/fuzzyOCR plugins? It might be a benefit to merge them
and expose some options to control which tests are performed.
Well, for example with gif, FuzzyOCR first checks what
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, John D. Hardin wrote:
Could the image-size calculation stuff from the ImageInfo plugin be
merged into this?
I was envisioning all of those tests in a single plugin, with
configuration options to control whether or not the OCR itself (fuzzy
or not) takes place and whether the
Logan Shaw wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, John D. Hardin wrote:
Could the image-size calculation stuff from the ImageInfo plugin be
merged into this?
I was envisioning all of those tests in a single plugin, with
configuration options to control whether or not the OCR itself (fuzzy
or not) takes
On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 04:42:15PM -0500, Stuart Johnston wrote:
which is already handled by SA core modules. I'm assuming that SA only
decodes an attachment once and reuses it for any plugin that needs it.
Yes -- the decode run happens once and the result is stored in the
tree node/object
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 04:42:15PM -0500, Stuart Johnston wrote:
which is already handled by SA core modules. I'm assuming that SA only
decodes an attachment once and reuses it for any plugin that needs it.
Yes -- the decode run happens once and
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Logan Shaw wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 04:42:15PM -0500, Stuart Johnston wrote:
which is already handled by SA core modules. I'm assuming that SA only
decodes an attachment once and reuses it for any plugin that needs it.
--On Tuesday, August 08, 2006 11:51 AM +0200 decoder [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
as I recently mentioned in the FuzzyOcr Thread, I found quite a lot
mails that contain broken or corrupted gifs.
Until we have a better answer, I'd reject anything with an unrecognizable
format. It might be an
On Tuesday 08 August 2006 01:51, decoder wrote:
But I can view it perfectly. Does anyone know what this could be
caused by and a tool which can reliably convert these to pnm?
Another question that I would have in mind is, if that was intended to
happen...
Best regards
Chris
Are you
On Tue, 8 Aug 2006, John Andersen wrote:
Are you sure its perfect? I've seem many of these where
they are intentionally corrupting the last portion (bottom edge)
of the image so as to avoid simple size or hashing techniques.
The ones I saw were the same image visually, but the bottom
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
John D. Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 8 Aug 2006, John Andersen wrote:
Are you sure its perfect? I've seem many of these where they are
intentionally corrupting the last portion (bottom edge) of the
image so as to avoid simple size or hashing
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, decoder wrote:
John D. Hardin wrote:
Adding a point for corrupted images is sounding better and better.
Definetly a good idea... I will try to add this feature in the next
release of FuzzyOcr (v.2.1) then.
I'd suggest a better place would be the imageinfo plugin -
--On Wednesday, August 09, 2006 12:18 AM +0200 decoder
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am also thinking about scanning all attachments, no matter if the
content type specifies image or not (in the current version 2.0, only
attachments that have image in their content type are scanned with
format
15 matches
Mail list logo
