PSN-L Email List Message

Subject: Re: PDFing KS36000 manuals
From: "Travis Farmer" travis5765@...........
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 13:36:01 -0400

PDF files can get pretty big even with straight text and a few images.
Perhaps if the PDF files were distributed via CD-R it would be better. a 
CD-R cost about $2 USD each and about another 2 or 3 bucks for shipping.
I have a cd burner. does anybody else have or access to a burner and can 
make PDF files?
If i got a copy of the manuals, i could type them out, PDF and burn them. 
then mail them for just the cost of the cd and shipping.
Maybe even send a copy to the Kind folk at the USGS station that gave away 
the sensors so they can copy and distribute for the other people that got a 


>From: "Charles R. Patton" 
>Reply-To: psn-l@..............
>To: psn-l@..............
>Subject: Re: PDFing KS36000 manuals
>Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 09:54:02 -0700
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Received: from [] by (3.2) with ESMTP id 
>MHotMailBCD689E7005E40042A09D864E08210510; Thu May 24 10:03:40 2001
>Received: from (unverified []) by 
> (Rockliffe SMTPRA 4.5.4) with ESMTP id 
> for ; Thu, 24 May 
>2001 09:54:47 -0700
>Received: from ( [])by 
>(8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f4OGrFu10249for ; Thu, 
>24 May 2001 09:53:15 -0700 (PDT)
>From larry_cochrane@.............. Thu May 24 10:05:17 2001
>Message-ID: <3B0D3CAA.5F000F25@........>
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; U)
>X-Accept-Language: en,pdf
>Sender: psn-l-request@..............
>Karl Cunningham wrote:
> > I think the major drawback is the number of bytes created and the labor
> > involved. ... I don't think putting them into a PDF
> > is practical.
>I can confirm this. If you PDF'd a scan without first converting to text
>it would be larger.  On a quick test I just did, a page from a technical
>journal with text and line drawings scanned at 200 dpi (marginally
>better than a fax), and PDF'd at 600 dpi, was 278 KB.  If I JPG'd the
>page at 90%, I got 1239 KB.  A Publisher page I had with text, boxes,
>and line drawings from PPT, took only 86 KB at 600 dpi.  The Publisher
>page looked perfect in the PDF while the scanned page had visible
>artifacts.  It took about  a minute just to scan the page.
>I use OCR (OmniPage Pro 10) all the time for a newsletter we do. The
>OmniPage software is fairly current state-of-the-art.  And unless the
>original copy is absolutely flawless -- i.e., not a third generation
>Xerox with broken letters, smeared background, out-of-focus sections,
>etc., it can be easier to just re-type the copy than go through and edit
>the OCR version.  For instance, much of the input we get comes as faxes,
>and about 50% of the time I just re-type rather than OCR due to the poor
>recognition and high error rate.  And I hasten to say, that even with
>perfect (originals) copy, it's still maybe only 98% correct.  That
>translates to a 100% certainty that you'll have to perform edits on
>every page.  As Karl mentioned, attempting to OCR with mixed text and
>pictures would be absolutely laborious.  Omnipage can pick up the
>indentatations, but then the pictures would have to be separately
>inserted in an editing program such as Word or Publisher.  I would not
>be up for converting the manuals.
>At best, scanning and direct conversion to PDF would take a huge amount
>of time and require lots of disk space.  I know I would not be up to it.
>Charles R. Patton
>Public Seismic Network Mailing List (PSN-L)
>To leave this list email PSN-L-REQUEST@.............. with
>the body of the message (first line only): unsubscribe
>See for more information.

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at


Public Seismic Network Mailing List (PSN-L)

[ Top ] [ Back ] [ Home Page ]

Larry Cochrane <cochrane@..............>