On Mon, Mar 05, 2001 at 07:24:53PM -0500, Alfta Reginleif wrote:

> >The images are also a bit wide for my screen. My impression
> >is that a size reduction would not hurt. But probably the
> >present size is an advantage for the OCR process (?)
>
> On the size and the color, again those are how the files came to me and my
> main priority was to get them up quickly so the dictionary could be of use to
> the most people, but now that I do have them up and can start making some
> adjustments. I wanted to keep the originals large for OCR but I can reduce
> them now and also do a negative image on the .GIF's. I have a test image up
> at
> http://www.midhnottsol.org/public/concise/gifs/test.gif
> It looks pretty good on my screen. I am hoping a few people can go check it
> out to see if it looks good for everyone. If so then I'll start working on
> converting them. The image I have there is 751 pixels wide. I won't be
> able to get it done very quick but I'll work on switching them gradully
> perhaps 10 pages each day until I get them done.

It works nicely on my screen ... but so did the tiffs. Some blurriness in your
example; in particular, the bold lower case e looks like a circle with a line
through it .. the gap that should be at the lower right of the circle is gone.

However, I had blurriness in the tiffs too, especially with the bold text,
though I don't remember e as a specific problem.

Actually, the sample gif looks/feels overall slightly less blurry than the
tiffs did ... This worries me a little (was meaningful detail lost?) but seems
basically goog (since nothing seems to have been lost).

This is on a linux system using netscape's built in gif reader. (I'm too
lazy to try it from a PC :-))

In this whole project of reducing them, I'd say just be really careful not
to lose any meaningful detail. That's really the main thing, at least from
my POV. (I'd rather have akward than blurry...)

--
Arlie

(Arlie Stephens arlie@...)