Date   : Fri, 29 Jun 2001 08:33:48 +0200
From   : "Mark Usher" <mu.list@...>
Subject: Re: Wouter's vital doc scans 'n stuff

> Regarding magazine scans: doc is certainly not acceptable (bad bad
> Robert, for suggesting this!),

> rtf is also a monstrosity that should be
> nuked (html conversions of the rtf stuff in the bbc doc project
> please!).
> I can't read rtf on unix, haven't seen any decent conversion
> programs and I'm not going to start windoze to read rtf!

RTF suffers from alot of bloat, but as soon as it is zipped then that
problem is overcome.
The RTF format was chosen because almost all WP packages can read it, even
wordpad etc.
It can also be read on a MAC and an ARC.
I was sure there was something for LINUX aswell.

> PDF also seems pretty much useless (separating out the text and putting
> back in the graphics is going to be a hell of a job). Just use the
> filing system and use small jpg's for navigating, big ones for detail,
> and make text files of all articles/listings etc.
Yes, alot of work, plus cost of buying the package in the first place.
Some of the newer scanner software packages will try and split up the page
into it's various different component parts automatically. Not the best of
results though for a professional finish.

> And JPEG 2000 is not yet a standard, so not an option either. I'm
> probably just going to use JPEG. Still doing some testing on what's best
> and the format etc.
JPEG is a very bad format for archiving, and TIFF or PNG should be used.
This is because EVERY time you save a JPEG it will lose quality as it will
be recompressed. Very dangerous.


Mark