On 30 January 2012 10:58, tranchais wrote:
>> You say that you are using thresholding, but the log file doesn't show
>> this.
> Yes, it does, on lines 76 and 80
No. Those just tell you the default settings, should you use the
threshold tool. To actually use it, you have to go to Tools/Threshold.
Le 30/01/2012 08:01, Jeffrey Ratcliffe a écrit :
> As I said, the file size depends heavily on the compression.
>
> You are using JPG compression, which is good for photo-type images, but
> not for scans of text.
>
> The image is 8-bit, when 1-bit would have done.
>
> You say that you are using th
As I said, the file size depends heavily on the compression.
You are using JPG compression, which is good for photo-type images, but
not for scans of text.
The image is 8-bit, when 1-bit would have done.
You say that you are using thresholding, but the log file doesn't show
this.
Try scanning
Le 26/01/2012 17:36, Jeffrey Ratcliffe a écrit :
> This depends heavily on the compression options you chose when saving
> the PDF, and whether you embedded OCR output. Please start with
>
> gscan2pdf --log=log
>
> save a PDF, close gscan2pdf, and post the log file.
>
Thank you for your quick answe
This depends heavily on the compression options you chose when saving
the PDF, and whether you embedded OCR output. Please start with
gscan2pdf --log=log
save a PDF, close gscan2pdf, and post the log file.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is s
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/922162
Title:
pdf output file is 6 times bigger than if created by simple-scan
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/
