+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ DISCUSSION * TIFF files constitute de facto standard * NARA's experience with image conversion software and text conversion * RFC 1314 * Considerable flux concerning available hardware and software solutions * NAL through-put rate during scanning * Window management questions * +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In the question-and-answer period that followed WATERS's presentation, the following points emerged:
* ZIDAR's statement about using TIFF files as a standard meant de facto standard. This is what most people use and typically exchange with other groups, across platforms, or even occasionally across display software.
* HOLMES commented on the unsuccessful experience of NARA in attempting to run image-conversion software or to exchange between applications: What are supposedly TIFF files go into other software that is supposed to be able to accept TIFF but cannot recognize the format and cannot deal with it, and thus renders the exchange useless. Re text conversion, he noted the different recognition rates obtained by substituting the make and model of scanners in NARA's recent test of an "intelligent" character-recognition product for a new company. In the selection of hardware and software, HOLMES argued, software no longer constitutes the overriding factor it did until about a year ago; rather it is perhaps important to look at both now.
* Danny Cohen and Alan Katz of the University of Southern California Information Sciences Institute began circulating as an Internet RFC (RFC 1314) about a month ago a standard for a TIFF interchange format for Internet distribution of monochrome bit-mapped images, which LYNCH said he believed would be used as a de facto standard.
* FLEISCHHAUER's impression from hearing these reports and thinking about AM's experience was that there is considerable flux concerning available hardware and software solutions. HOOTON agreed and commented at the same time on ZIDAR's statement that the equipment employed affects the results produced. One cannot draw a complete conclusion by saying it is difficult or impossible to perform OCR from scanning microfilm, for example, with that device, that set of parameters, and system requirements, because numerous other people are accomplishing just that, using other components, perhaps. HOOTON opined that both the hardware and the software were highly important. Most of the problems discussed today have been solved in numerous different ways by other people. Though it is good to be cognizant of various experiences, this is not to say that it will always be thus.
* At NAL, the through-put rate of the scanning process for paper, page by page, performing OCR, ranges from 300 to 600 pages per day; not performing OCR is considerably faster, although how much faster is not known. This is for scanning from bound books, which is much slower.
* WATERS commented on window management questions: DEC proposed an X-Windows solution which was problematical for two reasons. One was POB's requirement to be able to manipulate images on the workstation and bring them down to the workstation itself and the other was network usage.
******
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ THOMA * Illustration of deficiencies in scanning and storage process * Image quality in this process * Different costs entailed by better image quality * Techniques for overcoming various de-ficiencies: fixed thresholding, dynamic thresholding, dithering, image merge * Page edge effects * +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++