| 1 |
On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 8:48 AM Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> should do it, you may need to play with the threshold setting. The file |
| 4 |
> command reports the output file as being "1-bit grayscale". |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> You can also use -monochrome but that will produce a dithered image, |
| 7 |
> that's probably not what you want judging by your description. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Keep in mind that your starting image might not be 1-bit. You might |
| 10 |
be scanning in greyscale, which is probably 8-bit. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Nothing wrong with converting to 1-bit, but in that case you would be |
| 13 |
throwing away detail. If you plan to do any processing of the file |
| 14 |
you might want to do that before throwing out the detail. You also |
| 15 |
may or may not want the threshold to be 50%. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Also, as some are starting to hit on, jpeg may or may not be an ideal |
| 18 |
format depending on what you're scanning. It was designed for |
| 19 |
photographs, and it doesn't really cope well with sharp edges unless |
| 20 |
you use very high quality levels. I don't want to offer too much |
| 21 |
advice beyond that as I don't really deal with document scanning at |
| 22 |
any kind of scale where I get concerned with this stuff - defaults are |
| 23 |
almost always fine for me. I'm sure the right format and process |
| 24 |
would depend a bit on what you intend to do with the files. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Rich |
Archives