Most widely available lossless format for documents?

[Zarbol Tsar]

Which lossless graphics file format is most likely to be readable by
the majority of computers users? Which formats do XP PCs support
(assuming no extra third party applications?


WHAT HAPPENED THIS TIME

I recently had to email a scan of a 'typed' letter to someone. I
figured that GIF was a good choice because I figured it is almost
universally readable and it was lossless. However the recipient said
they could not open it!

(I don't know what software they were running. The recipient worked
as a local government employee and they did not know what software
they had got either.)


PREPARING FOR NEXT TIME

I want to be able to send graphics to minimize the chance that users
saying can't open my file. I can scan to pretty much any graphics
file format, so all I need to do is make an informed choice. Ha!

Very surprisingly, I found that (lossy) JPEG at 200 dpi gave me a
graphics file that was not too huge and was much more readable than I
had expected. For the sake of commonality and universality and
readablility, I re-sent my graphics using JPEG. But somehow JPEG
doesn't really feel right for typed documents.

Somewhere on the web I read that PNG was almost universally readable.
Is this really so? Would it be a good choice for all emailed scans?

Can someone please advise.
Thank you.

 

[Guest]

Have you considered using an OCR program?

 

[Jim Macklin]

Many programs can create a PDF file, either from your
scanner, office app or using something like CutePDF.

PDF are perhaps the universal format.


--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.



| Have you considered using an OCR program?
|
|
| "Zarbol Tsar" wrote:
|
| > Which lossless graphics file format is most likely to be
readable by
| > the majority of computers users? Which formats do XP
PCs support
| > (assuming no extra third party applications?
| >
| >
| > WHAT HAPPENED THIS TIME
| >
| > I recently had to email a scan of a 'typed' letter to
someone. I
| > figured that GIF was a good choice because I figured it
is almost
| > universally readable and it was lossless. However the
recipient said
| > they could not open it!
| >
| > (I don't know what software they were running. The
recipient worked
| > as a local government employee and they did not know
what software
| > they had got either.)
| >
| >
| > PREPARING FOR NEXT TIME
| >
| > I want to be able to send graphics to minimize the
chance that users
| > saying can't open my file. I can scan to pretty much
any graphics
| > file format, so all I need to do is make an informed
choice. Ha!
| >
| > Very surprisingly, I found that (lossy) JPEG at 200 dpi
gave me a
| > graphics file that was not too huge and was much more
readable than I
| > had expected. For the sake of commonality and
universality and
| > readablility, I re-sent my graphics using JPEG. But
somehow JPEG
| > doesn't really feel right for typed documents.
| >
| > Somewhere on the web I read that PNG was almost
universally readable.
| > Is this really so? Would it be a good choice for all
emailed scans?
| >
| > Can someone please advise.
| > Thank you.
| >

 

[Raymond J. Johnson Jr.]

| Have you considered using an OCR program?
|
|
| "Zarbol Tsar" wrote:
|
| > Which lossless graphics file format is most likely to be readable by
| > the majority of computers users? Which formats do XP PCs support
| > (assuming no extra third party applications?
| >
| >
| > WHAT HAPPENED THIS TIME
| >
| > I recently had to email a scan of a 'typed' letter to someone. I
| > figured that GIF was a good choice because I figured it is almost
| > universally readable and it was lossless. However the recipient said
| > they could not open it!
| >
| > (I don't know what software they were running. The recipient worked
| > as a local government employee and they did not know what software
| > they had got either.)
| >
| >
| > PREPARING FOR NEXT TIME
| >
| > I want to be able to send graphics to minimize the chance that users
| > saying can't open my file. I can scan to pretty much any graphics
| > file format, so all I need to do is make an informed choice. Ha!
| >
| > Very surprisingly, I found that (lossy) JPEG at 200 dpi gave me a
| > graphics file that was not too huge and was much more readable than I
| > had expected. For the sake of commonality and universality and
| > readablility, I re-sent my graphics using JPEG. But somehow JPEG
| > doesn't really feel right for typed documents.
| >
| > Somewhere on the web I read that PNG was almost universally readable.
| > Is this really so? Would it be a good choice for all emailed scans?
| >
| > Can someone please advise.
| > Thank you.

You say you've discovered that JPEG results in compact, readable files, but
it "doesn't really feel right"?? So whether your correspondents can readily
open and read the files isn't an issue after all? What are you trying to
accomplish?

 

[Zarbol Tsar]

You say you've discovered that JPEG results in compact, readable
files, but it "doesn't really feel right"?? So whether your
correspondents can readily open and read the files isn't an
issue after all? What are you trying to accomplish?

Raymond, I say that JPEG "doesn't feel right" because it is a lossy
format and the characters in my document may not always get resolved
properly.

I do not say that JPEGs always give me a compact readable file. In
fact that is my worry. I would imagine that I would not have
succeeeded with scanning a document with very small typeface in the
original into a jpeg which is of reasonable size.

Nor am I clear if JPEG is any more or less widely available than GIF.

Or if PNG is a better alternative.

 

[Raymond J. Johnson Jr.]

| On 27 Jan 2005, Raymond J. Johnson Jr. wrote:
|
| > You say you've discovered that JPEG results in compact, readable
| > files, but it "doesn't really feel right"?? So whether your
| > correspondents can readily open and read the files isn't an
| > issue after all? What are you trying to accomplish?
| >
|
| Raymond, I say that JPEG "doesn't feel right" because it is a lossy
| format and the characters in my document may not always get resolved
| properly.
|
| I do not say that JPEGs always give me a compact readable file. In
| fact that is my worry. I would imagine that I would not have
| succeeeded with scanning a document with very small typeface in the
| original into a jpeg which is of reasonable size.
|
| Nor am I clear if JPEG is any more or less widely available than GIF.
|
| Or if PNG is a better alternative.

When you're scanning, you should have control over resolution. JPEG
"lossiness" is not an issue until you start resaving files; with each save
some loss will occur. Whether or not the loss is discernible or not is
another question. PNG files are not as widely accessible as JPEG. My
advice to you is to do some experimentation with JPEG with different
documents. Find a scanning resolution that works, then stick with it. If
you're e-mailing files, just remember that file size increases along with
resolution, and if you have correspondents on dialup connections they might
not appreciate receiving large files.

 

[Bob I]

TIF G4 compression. (only B&W tho)