[bksvol-discuss] Re: Scheduled to Scan
- From: "Mary Otten" <maryotten@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:18:29 -0500
Sorry, Paul. I'm the one who did footprints of God, and I had posted about my
intension before doing so. Oh well. Maybe your scan is better than mine; can't
hurt to download and compare and upload if yours is the
better quality product, so to speak. Regarding the K1000 optimization wizzard,
I may be in the minority here, but I haven't found it particularly useful,
although I know others have. It seems that the parameters you give
it to start with have an influence on your final so-called optimized results.
For instance, take a page in a book and optimize it with a given brightness
setting and given parameters for the lowest and highest brightness
numbers the wizzard will use. Run through the process and note the settings you
get. Then start with a different starting brightness value and different
boundaries for the wizzard and do the test again. In my
experience, results for the exact same page are sometimes significantly
different, which makes me wonder about the whole process. Shouldn't optimized
settings for a given page or set of pages be pretty much
identical, no matter what settings you start with? I've gone back to doing my
optimization the old fashioned way, although I do periodically test my manually
derived settings with those obtained by the optimization
process just to see what happens. If somebody's not comfortable with messing
with settings manually, the optimization wizzard is certainly better than just
scanning willy-nilly with the default values in the default
settings file. but if you don't mind poking around with settings, I think the
best results are still obtained by manual adjustments.
mary
Other related posts:
