> I may be using the term "raw" incorrectly--I just
> mean that that the
> images have not gone through any laborious
> post-processing after
> scanning. I am using an auto-adjust button and
> tweaking the contrast
> in Xsane which performs the scans though.
>
> OK, so I should use TIFF. Now, on to compression.
>
> Xsane, via libtiff I'd imagine, provides several
> compression
> schemes: JPEG DCT, and something called "pack
> bits". Is the JPEG DCT
> compression LZT in sheep's clothing or is this
> something I could use
i believe the JPEG DCT really is lossy. most print
houses would expect LZW, but theres no reason to
compress these images unless you cant fit them on
whatever media your sending them (they all take zip
disks, and have no problem with DOS formatted ones) of
course theres the UNISYS problem with LZW...
save jpeging them for when your actually using them,
in the mean time keep the "originals". when you do
jpeg them, gimp versions past 1.0 have a new jpeg plug
in that allows you to see the result in real time
while you decide how far to compress it (and shows you
file size while your at it) so i suggest using that.
you may want to concider calibrating your scanner and
monitor, look here http://ohm.phys.ualberta.ca/scarse/
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/
-- Source code, list archive, and docs: http://www.mostang.com/sane/ To unsubscribe: echo unsubscribe sane-devel | mail majordomo@mostang.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun May 21 2000 - 08:57:37 PDT