Re: LDS Church starts scanning the microfilm collection.

Steve Hayes wrote:
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 03:47:13 GMT, "Robert M. Riches Jr."
<spamtrap42@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 2006-03-16, Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 11:49:29 -0800, Jim Jaeger <bogus@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

The indexing is underway. My wife spends a few hours a week at it.
Please tell your wife "thank you" from me.
Ditto!

One thing has me concerned about the story at lds.org: It
says they're using JPEG. I certainly hope that's an error
committed by an illiterate journalist, or that they are
using a flavor and/or compression settings of JPEG that
won't introduce too many serious artifacts. It wouldn't be
good to have JPEG artifacts causing letters and digits to
mutate into different letters and digits or muddying up the
image to the point it couldn't be read.

Artifacts?

The first time I thought it was a typo, and so not worht commenting on, but
since you used it twice, I wondered.



http://ai.fri.uni-lj.si/~aleks/jpeg/artifacts.htm

Paul
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: LDS Church starts scanning the microfilm collection.
    ... says they're using JPEG. ... good to have JPEG artifacts causing letters and digits to ... mutate into different letters and digits or muddying up the ...
    (soc.genealogy.computing)
  • Re: LDS Church starts scanning the microfilm collection.
    ... says they're using JPEG. ... good to have JPEG artifacts causing letters and digits to ... mutate into different letters and digits or muddying up the ...
    (soc.genealogy.computing)
  • Re: LDS Church starts scanning the microfilm collection.
    ... says they're using JPEG. ... mutate into different letters and digits or muddying up the ... Given that the jpeg images off their software are often larger than the TIFFs of the same scan, ... Neither the printer nor the scanner can do much about distinguisihing a black smudge that's a dead aunt from a black smudge that's a wiggle at the end of a word. ...
    (soc.genealogy.computing)