4 ms·
In retrospect, this gives me validation of why i always disliked to scan documents to PDF instead of to just JPEG. But large document archives are traditionall
by Arwill 5y ago
In retrospect, this gives me validation of why i always disliked to scan documents to PDF instead of to just JPEG.
But large document archives are traditionally done with TIFF, and should still be done like that.
- OneTimePetes 5y agoSo true, should store the unaltered raw-data-picture as scanned. Its actually nightmarish. A silent corruption of court-documents, stored plans and land-records, patent-filings with the originals often permanently gone. Contracts that can be nulled and voided by a hostile party on this basis by simply challenging the document on basis of the archiving process. A error so deep and systematic, it even mangled the birth certificate of the us-president when it was scanned. The whole affair is a huge advertisement for keeping written records and avoid digitization, same as voting machines.
- mindslight 5y agoA raster image in a PDF uses the same exact JPEG compression, most likely. I didn't like any of the existing Linux scanning solutions, so I built my own paperless management tool. I was evaluating different compression algorithms for keeping authoritative masters and was eyeing JPEG2000 (I hate JPEG artifacts). But in the end I decided to go with FLIF, which is lossless. Despite its lower amount of battle testing, being lossless allows me to run a sha256 on the decompressed image and know that it is exactly what I had scanned in.