[Coco] Re: Feedback on Quality Requested

[Robert Gault]

Micheal,

One really can't make any comparisons between the djvu and jpg images as 
they are not of the same pages. With that caveat, both seem adequate for 
the job although the moire patterns on p3 of the djvu are very bad. It 
would be nice to know if they were introduced by the scanner or djvu process.

Since the project will be sold at about $60-$70 dollars, seems to me the 
main issue should be what will be the quality of the magazines to be 
scanned. Based on the djvu demo, the quality of the magazines will be more 
important than the processes used to acquire and store the images. Paying 
$60 for images of damaged magazines is food for thought.

DJVU offers the ability to search for information within documents and for 
that alone would be superior to jpg for this project. Given that DVD disks 
could be used to store the project, compression ability does not seem much 
of an issue. There are other formats that might be as good or better than djvu.

Richard E. Crislip wrote:

> Hello Michael
> 
> I can not read the scanned imaged, but the camera image looked good to me.
> 
> On 04/27/2006, Michael Wayne Harwood wrote:
> 
>>I can see from my webserver's logs that many people have taken a look
>>at the "scanner.jpg" and "camera.jpg" examples, but I haven't heard any
>>feedback.
>>
>>It's hard for me to believe that no one has an opinion or preference.
>> My intention in presenting these to the list is so that I can gauge
>>how many people would rather sacrifice quality so that they could
>>receive something quickly.
>>
>>One issue that needs to be considered is that if there were two
>>versions of the product (one quickly done with lesser quality and a
>>final product with higher quality) I would not be able to offer a free
>>"upgrade".  Lonnie has stated that the license fees would need to be
>>paid a second time if one were to desire the upgraded product.
>>
>>I have compiled a 9 page .djvu example of how the end product will look
>>as far as image quality goes - it is located at
>>http://www.musicheadproductions.org/downloads/sample.djvu.  This
>>example does not include the "bookmark" style contents that will be
>>included in the final product.
>>
>>Here is a link to the image that is of a lesser quality, but most of
>>the images are already taken and ready to be "re-published" -
>>http://www.musicheadproductions.org/downloads/camera.jpg.
>>
>>So my question is this - would you rather have a product of the quality
>>of the "camera.jpg" or of the "sample.djvu"?
>>
>>
>>Regards,
>>Michael Harwood
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Coco mailing list
>>Coco at maltedmedia.com
>>http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/coco
>>
>>
> 
> Regards