From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by befuddled.reisers.ca (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 3299B1EFC7C; Fri, 6 Nov 2015 08:50:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.cableone.net (mail.cableone.syn-alias.com [64.8.70.48]) by befuddled.reisers.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D3A601EFC79 for ; Fri, 6 Nov 2015 08:50:06 -0500 (EST) X_CMAE_Category: , , X-CNFS-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=BuKJwOn5 c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=N7ROiU+uN+ZcfkC/B8gPEQ==:117 a=N7ROiU+uN+ZcfkC/B8gPEQ==:17 a=K-v-2zaBAAAA:8 a=otLtsZP2AAAA:8 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=2WyT8Yf-AAAA:8 a=qPKtzgQbAAAA:8 a=sgMOz-sOAAAA:8 a=8ZlFOPnxePHZAZ09etwA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 X-CM-Score: 0 X-Scanned-by: Cloudmark Authority Engine X-Authed-Username: Z2xlbm5lcnZpbkBjYWJsZW9uZS5uZXQ= Authentication-Results: smtp01.cableone.cmh.synacor.com smtp.user=glennervin; auth=pass (LOGIN) Received: from [96.31.177.163] ([96.31.177.163:60885] helo=LennyAcer5720) by mail.cableone.net (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 3.6.6.45965 r(Core:3.6.6.0)) with ESMTPSA (cipher=AES256-SHA) id CB/D9-06283-600BC365; Fri, 06 Nov 2015 08:49:58 -0500 Message-ID: Reply-To: "Glenn" From: "Glenn" To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." References: <0E3E79A1-F2B3-40EF-A679-E6B165047A2D@icloud.com> <87mvut5fvx.fsf@mushroom.localdomain> <563B7621.1010603@math.wisc.edu> <563C812C.5000807@baechler.net> In-Reply-To: <563C812C.5000807@baechler.net> Subject: Re: Scanning Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2015 07:49:56 -0600 Organization: Home MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6002.18197 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.1.7601.17609 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 X-BeenThere: speakup@linux-speakup.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2015 13:50:09 -0000 That may have to do with too much resolution picking up too many anomalies, like grains of the paper and smudges and the like. Glenn ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tony Baechler" To: Sent: Friday, November 06, 2015 4:30 AM Subject: Re: Scanning According to Project Gutenberg Distributed Proofreaders (pgdp.net if you're interested), they actually recommend not scanning at 600 DPI. They recommend 300 DPI for most books and 400 DPI in rare cases. I can confirm this to be the case in my experience. When I scan at the highest resolution, I actually get worse text results. Not only does 300 DPI scan faster, but seems to do a better job. Of course I don't know about non-English text. Maybe 400 DPI works better for other languages. On 11/5/2015 7:30 AM, John G Heim wrote: > I did a lot of experimentation while scanning in the D&D manual. I found > that I got best text recognition when I scanned in the page as line art. > My > scanner has a top resolution of 600 dots per inch. I don't know if that's > good or bad. It's is a really ancient scanner. Someone just gave it to me > because they were upgrading to Windows XP and it didn't have drivers. When > would that have been, 2001? But it still works great in linux. _______________________________________________ Speakup mailing list Speakup@linux-speakup.org http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup