3 ms·
Last year I did some experimentation along these lines and I also found that no error correction was best, at least when 3d printing QR codes. I was trying to f
by RugnirViking 3y ago
Last year I did some experimentation along these lines and I also found that no error correction was best, at least when 3d printing QR codes. I was trying to find how small I could print it and still have it be detectable. Like the sibling comment, I suspect it is because of individually larger pixels.
- Aachen 3y agoThe problem with that, as I understand it, is that your 3d print (or any print or screen) cannot get damaged at all. The pixels being bigger makes it easier to scan ...when it's fully in view and fully intact. Any pixel fails, and you can never recover the original data (besides some guesses, e.g. if the protocol identifier gets damaged a la htwps://) Error correction doesn't seem to be for easier scanning, but for errors that might occur (... and stupid logo overlays) but this information is annoyingly hard to find. Hence my question about the mask xor overlay: does that actually help? Did anyone try it, or did it just sound like a good idea?
- RugnirViking 3y agothe idea that a single pixel of the design would get damaged absent the rest seems unlikely. What seems to be more common is that a direction of light/some flaw in the printing process causes many/all pixels to be flawed in the same way past some threshold.