4 ms·
From what I remember from the kerfuffle around JBIG a few years ago, it was specifically a single manufacturers bad implementation that regularly swapped number
by misnome 4y ago
From what I remember from the kerfuffle around JBIG a few years ago, it was specifically a single manufacturers bad implementation that regularly swapped numbers. I believe that correct implementations weren't found to exhibit this problem except on symbols that were hard to read already?
- mrguyorama 4y agoThe problem was that JBIG had multiple different option sets, including an option that was explicitly "lossy" which here means that it is apt to replace one portion of an image with another. For some unfathomable reason, Xerox set this option as the default on many of their products, instead of the lossless, nearly as well compressing option.