[Coco] Re: Feedback on Quality Requested

[Michael Wayne Harwood]

Richard,



> 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.

I agree with you - I will create a sample of page 3 in .jpg format for a
side by side comparison.  Aside from the moire there are things to point
out such as the camera's images have bleed through from the page behind
it, the text of the .djvu files is not as clear due to the cleaning
process I put the pages through.  I should have done a better job with
apples to apples comparisons in all respects.  I will correct that as soon
as I can.


> 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.

I agree with you here as well - I have been scanning the magazines I have
and if there are magazines in better shape I would welcome them, or scan
from them.  Bear in mind that the costs will be for licensing ($36) and
materials ($??) plus shipping only - i will not be adding in any profit
for myself or the project.

> 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.

.jpg is not under consideration as a format for the re-publishing of the
project - I am sorry I did not communicate that clearly. One of the things
that I have found is that when comparing .pdf and .djvu files is that the
.djvu files are almost always of better quality at smaller sizes.  Both
.pdf and .djvu have text searching ability, and are supported for
everything the project has as a goal.  I decided to primarily pursue .djvu
and would be ecstatic for a volunteer to create .pdfs of the images for
inclusion as an option.

Bear in mind the number of pages is close to 25,000 so for a single 4.7gb
DVD to include everything the average size per image will need to be
around 150kb to 170kb depending on how much space will be needed by the
"Rainbow on Tape/Disk" data files and the searchable index.

I don't think that a double-layer DVD is going to be compatible with
everyone's system who may buy the product, so that leaves us with a few
options:

  1. One single-layer DVD (lesser image quality)
  2. Two single-layer DVD's (better image quality, more cost and the index
would be broken up)
  3. Choice to purchase either 1 or 2 depending on your desires.

If choice #3 was determined we add a layer of complexity insofar as having
to re-publish the magazines at least twice, possible four times if we
included the .pdf version as an option.  This also means that either more
DVD's would need to be burned up front to cover what someone may order, or
that DVD's would need to be burned on the fly according to consumer
request.  Although we could certainly take pre-orders towards the end of
the publishing work, the problem would still exist for future orders.

My opinions is that we should have at most two options to make it
reasonable to be able to create and ship the product.  My personal opinion
is that both .pdfs and .djvu versions should be offered if possible, and
that both versions should be comparable in quality.  I also think that
having an end product spread over more than one DVD to ensure better end
product quality is a sacrifice that is very much worth doing.

Regards,
Michael Harwood