combine two jpegs?

[Dale]

combine two jpegs?

Windows default program? Photos or Paint?

Adobe Creative Cloud Express leaves messy text. The jpegs are from a PDF
exported from Adobe Acrobat Pro DC

PDF is fine, and look fine in Adobe Acrobat Pro DC

Photoshop Express or plain Photoshop? Creative Cloud?

--
Mystery? -> https://www.dalekelly.org/

[Nobody]

On Fri, 11 Mar 2022 21:21:22 -0500, Dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:

>combine two jpegs?
>
>Windows default program? Photos or Paint?
>
>Adobe Creative Cloud Express leaves messy text. The jpegs are from a PDF
>exported from Adobe Acrobat Pro DC
>
>PDF is fine, and look fine in Adobe Acrobat Pro DC
>
>Photoshop Express or plain Photoshop? Creative Cloud?

Or "stitch" using Irfanview...

[Mayayana]

"Dale" <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote

| combine two jpegs?
|

You want a graphic editor with a mulltiple document
interface, so that you can create an image, paste other
images into it, resize, etc. You can get Paint Shop Pro
for free here:

http://www.oldversion.com/windows/paint-shop-pro/

I still use v. 5.01, which I paid $100 for, but now it's
free. I also have PSP 16, but rarely use that. Corel
bought it and made a bloated mess of it. The old version
is simple and does most things.

Paint.Net might still be around. There's also GIMP
for Windows. There are probably lots of others, but I
haven't looked around for a long time. Unless you're
doing commercial graphics, these programs are probably
all you need. Raster graphics is not all that complex.

Irfan View is a beautiful program that does many things,
but the one thing it lacks is an MDI window. So it's
awkard when you want to select, copy, paste, work
with levels, etc.

[T]

On 3/11/22 18:21, Dale wrote:
> combine two jpegs?
>
> Windows default program? Photos or Paint?
>
> Adobe Creative Cloud Express leaves messy text. The jpegs are from a PDF
> exported from Adobe Acrobat Pro DC
>
> PDF is fine, and look fine in Adobe Acrobat Pro DC
>
> Photoshop Express or plain Photoshop? Creative Cloud?
>

I use Inkscape.

https://inkscape.org

[Paul]

On 3/11/2022 9:21 PM, Dale wrote:
> combine two jpegs?
>
> Windows default program? Photos or Paint?
>
> Adobe Creative Cloud Express leaves messy text. The jpegs are from a PDF exported from Adobe Acrobat Pro DC
>
> PDF is fine, and look fine in Adobe Acrobat Pro DC
>
> Photoshop Express or plain Photoshop? Creative Cloud?
>

It depends on whether the images are at exactly the same scale.

Take, for example, map panels in an art book.
Each panel is 8.5x11 , and when the panels are placed
next to one another, they make a wall map.

The problem is, as paper ages (in the art book), it stretches
or shrinks different amounts in X and Y. This causes problems
when scanning the book and placing all the images next to one
another in Photoshop. The images don't line up then.

That's when a tool like Microsoft ICE can help.

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/product/computational-photography-applications/image-composite-editor/?from=http%3A%2F%2Fresearch.microsoft.com%2Fen-us%2Fum%2Fredmond%2Fprojects%2Fice%2F

So what it would do, is shrink or stretch or transform the
images, based on the knowledge that at one time, they formed
a cohesive larger image.

This is the "stitching" that poster Nobody refers to.

One problem with Microsoft ICE, is that the transform set
is not that nice. There are things like Mercator Projections,
things that might apply to certain map types. But perhaps for
other purposes, it doesn't have just the right transform
for the job.

*******

In cases where the source JPGs were "meant" to be joined,
a simple editor application can copy and paste two panes
into a new image pane. I use version 2.6.8 on this machine.

https://web.archive.org/web/20160529035634/https://download.gimp.org/mirror/pub/gimp/v2.6/windows/

But there are more modern versions, each gets a little closer
to Photoshop, but not being even remotely close to as functional
as Photoshop. (Photoshop has macros. Photoshop supports math
on images such as A+B/2 for averaging. And Photoshop has special
functions for erasing people from images, PhotoChopping.)

https://www.gimp.org

But when it comes to stitching, it's very hard to get all
the best features and maths in the one tool. There are cameras
that rotate on a pedestal and take panoramic pictures, and
you can stitch those together to make much larger images.
Stitching really large image sets, can take a 2TB scratch
drive and a week of computation. So start small, with two
images first, so that the stitch won't take more than ten
minutes.

I have copies of Microsoft ICE here, and have used it
a bit in the past.

Paul

[Piet]

Dale wrote:
> combine two jpegs?
>
> Windows default program? Photos or Paint?
>
> Adobe Creative Cloud Express leaves messy text. The jpegs
> are from a PDF exported from Adobe Acrobat Pro DC
>
> PDF is fine, and look fine in Adobe Acrobat Pro DC
>
> Photoshop Express or plain Photoshop? Creative Cloud?

Irfanview.
Combine two jpg's using your suggested solutions and
with Irfanview, then look at the resulting file sizes.
("Save quality 80" yields excellent results)

-p

[Savageduck]

On Mar 11, 2022, Dale wrote
(in article <t0h032$liq$1...@dont-email.me>):

> combine two jpegs?

My first question is: What do you mean by “combine two jpegs”?
Do you mean compositing?
Do you mean overlay, and blend?
Do you mean stitch, as a mosaic?
Do you mean place one jpeg as an insert?
...or something else entirely?

>
>
> Windows default program? Photos or Paint?

Sorry, the last time I used a Windows machine for anything was in 2009. All my graphics & image editing is done with macOS software.

>
> Adobe Creative Cloud Express leaves messy text. The jpegs are from a PDF
> exported from Adobe Acrobat Pro DC

There is your first problem. Sourcing the JPEGs from a PDF is never going to deliver good results. You should always work from first generation JPEGs, or RAW.

>
> PDF is fine, and look fine in Adobe Acrobat Pro DC

It should, after all it is a PDF in software intended for PDF creation, editing, and rendering.

>
> Photoshop Express or plain Photoshop? Creative Cloud?

For most of this level of editing Photoshop is the go to tool. However, your results are always going to be marginal trying to reverse engineer from a PDF.

If for some reason you are reluctant to use Adobe stuff there is Affinity Photo, and Affinity Designer, both are available for Windows & macOS.
<https://affinity.serif.com/en-us/photo/>
<https://affinity.serif.com/en-us/designer/>

--
Regards,
Savageduck

[Dale]

On 3/12/2022 10:31 AM, Savageduck wrote:
> Do you mean compositing?

yes

[Dale]

On 3/12/2022 10:31 AM, Savageduck wrote:

> ... Sourcing the JPEGs from a PDF ...

I have edited my own PDf files into HTML. Not just conversions.

Just need to work with PDF files from others.

Amazon Silk Browser doesn't yet show PDF files. I use this on my FireTV.

PDF files look too small on iPhone.

Good HTML or an image file is fine. Other options?

Asked some of the same conversion questions on HTML/CSS groups also.

comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html
alt.html
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets

I may be stuck with some PDFs ...

[mike]

On 12-03-2022 07:51 Dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:

> combine two jpegs?

Do you mean put them next to each other as in being tiled?
Or do you mean melded on top of one another, as in morphing?

Anything can tile, even Irfanviewer which isn't even an editor.

These can morph.
http://www.facemorpher.com
http://www.effectmatrix.com/morphing
http://www.fantamorph.com
http://www.xiberpix.net/SqirlzMorph.html
http://www.morpheussoftware.net
http://www.morphthing.com/
http://www.stoik.com/products/old/stoik-morphman.php

[Dale]

On 3/12/2022 12:15 PM, mike wrote:
> ... Do you mean put them next to each other ...

side by side

or top and bottom

top and bottom would be better for printing

[nospam]

In article <t0iko6$8f2$1...@dont-email.me>, Dale <da...@dalekelly.org>
wrote:

>
> side by side
>
> or top and bottom
>
> top and bottom would be better for printing

earlier, you said compositing:
In article <t0ij0b$pnr$1...@dont-email.me>, Dale <da...@dalekelly.org>
wrote:

> On 3/12/2022 10:31 AM, Savageduck wrote:

> > Do you mean compositing?
>
> yes

now you say tiling.

as usual, this is nothing more than a troll.

[Herbert Kleebauer]

On 12.03.2022 03:21, Dale wrote:
> combine two jpegs?
>
> Windows default program? Photos or Paint?

Here 3 examples which doesn't modify the quality of
the pictures. They are just copied into the output
file without any modification.


==============================================================

The simplest way:

copy /b pict1.jpg + pict2.jpg both.jpg

Display a multi-picture jpeg file for example with
http://ikomi.de/pub/jpeg/pfp.zip

==============================================================

Or convert the 2 jpg to a single html file with this
batch and display them with any web browser:

@echo off
:: select jpg files and drop them onto this batch
:: generates all_jpg.html with jpg's included

>all_jpg.html echo ^<html^>^<head^>^</head^>^<body^>

:chk
if "%~1" == "" goto :end
>>all_jpg.html echo ^<img src="data:image/jpg;base64,
certutil -f -encode %1 _._
>>all_jpg.html find /v "----" <_._
>>all_jpg.html echo.
>>all_jpg.html echo " width=100%% border=0><br>%1<br>&nbsp;<br>
shift
goto chk

:end
>>all_jpg.html echo ^</body^>^</html^>
del _._
start all_jpg.html

==============================================================

Or use this batch to generate a pdf file with the pictures:

@echo off
:: generates a pdf picture show from the jpeg files

:: copy all jpgs, this batch and makepdf2.exe (http://ikomi.de/jpg2pdf.zip)
:: into a folder and start this batch

:: Size of the photo book in cm
set x=32
set y=18

:: background color rot/gruen/blau (0..1)
::set color=.333 .333 .333
set color=.2 .1 0

:: Anzeigedauer pro Bild, 0 fuer unendlich
set dur=2

set /a x=x*7200/254
set /a y=y*7200/254

set /a x2=x/2
set /a y2=y/2

set n=0
set nl=
set k=1

>tmp.pex echo ^<paper %x% %y% fullscreen %dur%

for /f "tokens=*" %%i in ('dir /b *.jpg') do (
set /a n=n+1
>>tmp.pex call echo jpg+ %%n%% %%i)
>>tmp.pex echo ^>


for /l %%i in (1,1,%n%) do call :sub %%i

if exist tmp.pdf del tmp.pdf

:: documentation and source code for makepdf2.exe:
:: http://ikomi.de/pub/pdf/makepdf.zip

makepdf2 tmp.pex tmp.pdf

if exist tmp.pex del tmp.pex
start tmp.pdf

goto :eof


:sub
set /a j=%k%-(!(%1 %% 10))
>>tmp.pex echo %nl%{%color% rg 0 0 m %x% 0 l %x% %y% l 0 %y% l h f}
>>tmp.pex echo ^<outline %j% [Seite %1] pict+ %1 -%x2% -%y2% -%x% -%y%^>
set nl=\f
set k=2

[Dale]

On 3/12/2022 12:23 PM, Herbert Kleebauer wrote:
> convert the 2 jpg to a single html

it has just come to me, for this application, that I could composite the
two jpegs in HTML

[Dale]

On 3/12/2022 11:50 AM, Dale wrote:
> On 3/12/2022 10:31 AM, Savageduck wrote:
>> Do you mean compositing?
>
> yes
>

it has just come to me, for this application, that I could composite the
two jpegs in HTML

[Dale]

On 3/12/2022 12:23 PM, Herbert Kleebauer wrote:

Thanks Much!!!!!!!!!!

[Dale]

On 3/12/2022 12:22 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <t0iko6$8f2$1...@dont-email.me>, Dale <da...@dalekelly.org>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> side by side
>>
>> or top and bottom
>>
>> top and bottom would be better for printing
>
> earlier, you said compositing:
> In article <t0ij0b$pnr$1...@dont-email.me>, Dale <da...@dalekelly.org>
> wrote:
>> On 3/12/2022 10:31 AM, Savageduck wrote:
>>> Do you mean compositing?
>>
>> yes
>
> now you say tiling.
>

ok, both are layout?

> as usual, this is nothing more than a troll.

?

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

On Fri, 11 Mar 2022 at 22:07:21, Mayayana <maya...@invalid.nospam>
wrote (my responses usually FOLLOW):

>"Dale" <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote
>
>| combine two jpegs?
>|

(Wasn't clear what he meant by "combine". When Savageduck asked, giving
a list that included both compositing and stitching, he chose the
former, but subsequent posts and his replies suggested he _did_ mean
stitching.)

>
> You want a graphic editor with a mulltiple document
>interface, so that you can create an image, paste other
>images into it, resize, etc. You can get Paint Shop Pro
>for free here:
>
>http://www.oldversion.com/windows/paint-shop-pro/
>
> I still use v. 5.01, which I paid $100 for, but now it's

I used to have 5, which I used because IrfanView didn't have what PSP
called a "Clone Brush" for touch-up; I also had 7, which I used when I
had an image that was too big for 5. (I think less than five times!) I
find I have the installer for 7 on this machine - don't think I've ever
installed it. I subsequently discovered IrfanView does have that feature
anyway - not sure when it was added, as it's part of the "paint toolbox"
which I didn't discover had been added until some versions after it was!

>free. I also have PSP 16, but rarely use that. Corel
>bought it and made a bloated mess of it. The old version
>is simple and does most things.

[]

> Irfan View is a beautiful program that does many things,
>but the one thing it lacks is an MDI window. So it's
>awkard when you want to select, copy, paste, work
>with levels, etc.
>

Yes, it doesn't do layers (is that what levels means?). You _can_ have
multiple copies of IV open, though - I was using that a few hours ago,
when I wanted to put a segment from one image into another; alt-tabbing
between them _might_ be less convenient than MDI software, but I've got
so much "muscle memory" for IV that I CBA to learn another software.
There is a setting somewhere in IV called something like "allow multiple
copies" - if that's turned off, you might not be able to, er, run
multiple copies. I can't remember what its default setting is.
>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

It is complete loose-stool-water, it is arse-gravy of the worst kind
- Stephen Fry on "The Da Vinci Code"

[Bill W]

On Mar 12, 2022, nospam wrote
(in article<120320221222134794%nos...@nospam.invalid>):

I’m pretty sure it’s not him, but there is something oh so Arlenesque
about all of this guy’s posts.

[Mayayana]

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6...@255soft.uk> wrote

| Yes, it doesn't do layers (is that what levels means?).

I guess. I don't know. If you do something like paste
an image in an image, that's a new layer until you merge
them. As good as IV is, I don't see any reason to struggle
with that when a workspace editor is available for free.

I sometimes use Aftershot Pro for RAW camera images,
but I use PSP5 almost daily, to alter an image fror emailing,
web design, etc. To do simple drawings for customers. It's
so simple to use. I even have Open With PSP on context
menu for all files.

[nospam]

In article <0001HW.27DD3A0A0...@news-us.newsgroup.ninja>,

Bill W <not...@nowhere.com> wrote:

> > In article<t0iko6$8f2$1...@dont-email.me>, Dale<da...@dalekelly.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > side by side
> > >
> > > or top and bottom
> > >
> > > top and bottom would be better for printing
> >
> > earlier, you said compositing:
> > In article <t0ij0b$pnr$1...@dont-email.me>, Dale<da...@dalekelly.org>
> > wrote:
> > > On 3/12/2022 10:31 AM, Savageduck wrote:
> > > > Do you mean compositing?
> > >
> > > yes
> >
> > now you say tiling.
> >
> > as usual, this is nothing more than a troll.
>

> I雋 pretty sure it零 not him, but there is something oh so Arlenesque
> about all of this guy零 posts.

it's not arlen, but yes, he is a well known troll of a different sort.

[mike]

On 12-03-2022 22:50 Dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:

> side by side
>
> or top and bottom
>
> top and bottom would be better for printing

For PDFs, best to consult comp.text.pdf for better answers.

I'd use PDFsam or PDFtk or PDFShaper to merge PDFs
PDF Exchange Viewer & PDFShaper can extract images (as will most PDF
editors).

Once you have images arranging them is something they all do.

Seeing a.c.o.w-10 in the ng list, I'd recommend
Side by side images = Irfanview + many others
Top and bottom images = Irfanview + many others
Printing images = Irfanview + many others
Viewing images = Irfanview + many others
Scanning images = Irfanview + many others

[Dale]

Thank You!!!!

[Dale]

On 3/11/2022 9:21 PM, Dale wrote:

> combine two jpegs?
>
> Windows default program? Photos or Paint?
>
> Adobe Creative Cloud Express leaves messy text. The jpegs are from a PDF
> exported from Adobe Acrobat Pro DC
>
> PDF is fine, and look fine in Adobe Acrobat Pro DC
>
> Photoshop Express or plain Photoshop? Creative Cloud?
>

got it pretty much done

https://www.dalekelly.org/



Used Adobe Creative Cloud Express to turn PDF's into jpegs
one example ...

https://www.dalekelly.org/images/DaleRKelly122717.pdf
https://www.dalekelly.org/UMS1.jpg
https://www.dalekelly.org/UMS2.jpg



coded HTML to combine jpegs, one example ...

https://www.dalekelly.org/UMS.html


coded one HTML from scratch and used Adobe Acrobat Pro DC to make one
PDF from it

https://www.dalekelly.org/resume.html
https://www.dalekelly.org/resume.pdf

[Paul]

I suspect you could have done some of this for $0 using LibreOffice.

https://www.libreoffice.org/download/download/

Since that's the same as a Microsoft suite, it will fight to register
some of the same document types as are already in use. If you don't
have any paid Microsoft tools on there, then LibreOffice would be
a clearer advantage.

As for picking images out of PDF, LibreOffice Draw offers to
present a PDF as an image. Which may or may not be good enough.

Another tool is here. This is a tool for dealing with PDF.

https://www.mupdf.com/releases/index.html

Instructions here.

https://www.mupdf.com/docs/mutool.html

"mutool extract [options] file.pdf [object numbers]

Options:

-p password
Use the specified password if the file is encrypted.
-r
Convert images to RGB when extracting them.

If no object numbers are given on the command line, all images and fonts will be extracted.
"

cd /d C:\users\dale\Downloads
mutool extract fileofimages.pdf

and that should give a folder with image materials
in it. Those materials could then be used in LibreOffice
Writer, to create a new document and save as PDF when done.

*******

By extracting your "DaleRKelly122717.pdf", I can see you've
solved the problem with jaggies :-) Normally when you copy text in
an image format, it tends to have jaggies on the letters. Using
super-high resolution, then squeezing the images into an 8.5x11 page
gives nice smooth font edges.

File Name : image-0005.png
File Size : 376 kB
Image Width : 5088
Image Height : 6688
Bit Depth : 8
Color Type : Grayscale
Megapixels : 34.0

File Name : image-0009.png
File Size : 252 kB
Image Width : 5090
Image Height : 6672
Bit Depth : 8
Color Type : Grayscale
Megapixels : 34.0

That's just to show I was able to get the images in the PDF,
back out again.

Paul

[Dale]

On 3/13/2022 5:36 AM, Paul wrote:
> I suspect you could have done some of this for $0 using LibreOffice.

Some of the PDF files I exported were from LibreOffice *.odt files I edited.

LibreOffice doesn't save a good HTML so I have to open the *.odt file in
Microsoft Word and save-as HTML there.

But I really wanted original HTML files. My CSS too.

[Dale]

On 3/13/2022 5:36 AM, Paul wrote:

Thank You for the expert response Paul!!!!

[Mayayana]

"Dale" <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote

| got it pretty much done
|
| https://www.dalekelly.org/
|
|
|
| Used Adobe Creative Cloud Express to turn PDF's into jpegs
| one example ...
|

Not to be a wet towel, but it's not news that you can do
these things if you spend an arm and a leg on rental software,
especially when all of it could have been done well and easily
with free software.

One note: You should add a META tag for UTF-8 to your
webpages, or else remove the unnecessary UTF-8 characters.
It's rendering in ANSI. (At least in my browsers. I don't know
if there's a browser that might default to UTF-8 when there's
not text encoding tag, but certainly not all browsers do.)

Apparently Adobe's editor writes UTF-8
without telling you but then doesn't add the tag. It's especially
dumb on their part because in the English language, UTF-8
is rarely needed. It's mostly used just for spaces and quotes.
So using it in English-language webpages is more about a diversity
fad than about legibility, because without those extra characters,
English ANSI is identicial to ASCII and UTF-8, so all people with
all character encoding settings will see the text uncorrupted.
Even if they're in Turkey using a Turkish codepage, your page
will render in perfect English.

As it's written now, the UTF-8
characters, using multiple bytes over 127, will render according
to a viewer's codepage. For example, for the UTF-8 apostrophe
in "Jehovah's" I see "a" with a caret, a Euro sign, and a trademark
sign. Jehovah–s. Someone in Turkey will see 3 Turkish
characters. In Russia they'll see 3 of their characters. And so on.
But if you had just used an ASCII/ANSI apostrophe, the
whole world would see an apostrophe.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

On Sun, 13 Mar 2022 at 03:35:37, Dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote (my
responses usually FOLLOW):
[]

>Used Adobe Creative Cloud Express to turn PDF's into jpegs
>one example ...
>
>https://www.dalekelly.org/images/DaleRKelly122717.pdf
>https://www.dalekelly.org/UMS1.jpg
>https://www.dalekelly.org/UMS2.jpg
>

There's something _very_ odd about those two .jpg files - or the server.
I can _view_ them by entering the URL into Chrome [Version 92.0.4515.159
(Official Build) (32-bit)], but as soon as I, say, try to copy them (to
paste into IrfanView or similar to examine them), the tab crashes.
Repeatably.

>
>
>coded HTML to combine jpegs, one example ...
>
>https://www.dalekelly.org/UMS.html

[]
Again, I can _open_ that in Chrome, when I see the menu and top of the
first image, but as soon as I press page down (for some reason I don't
get a scroll bar), the tab crashes.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Actors are fairly modest...A lot of us have quite a lot to be modest about. -
Simon Greenall (voice of Aleksandr the "Simples!" Meerkat), RT 11-17 Dec 2010

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

On Sun, 13 Mar 2022 at 08:51:26, Dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote (my
responses usually FOLLOW):

>On 3/13/2022 5:36 AM, Paul wrote:
>> I suspect you could have done some of this for $0 using LibreOffice.
>
>
>Some of the PDF files I exported were from LibreOffice *.odt files I edited.
>
>LibreOffice doesn't save a good HTML so I have to open the *.odt file
>in Microsoft Word and save-as HTML there.
>
>But I really wanted original HTML files. My CSS too.
>

Wow, if the HTML produced by Word is _better_ than something, that
something must be _really_ bad. (Unless Word's HTML has vastly improved
in recent versions, which I doubt!)

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

On Sun, 13 Mar 2022 at 05:36:30, Paul <nos...@needed.invalid> wrote (my
responses usually FOLLOW):
[]

>As for picking images out of PDF, LibreOffice Draw offers to
>present a PDF as an image. Which may or may not be good enough.
>
>Another tool is here. This is a tool for dealing with PDF.
>
>https://www.mupdf.com/releases/index.html

[]
Looks a bit github-like (-:

For a *GUI* tool to extract images from PDFs, I use
https://www.rlvision.com/pdfwiz/about.php - though I normally use
https://www.extractpdf.com/ as I find it easier. (OK, it's an online
tool - but I don't have privacy concerns; since most of the PDFs I'm
working on are to do with genealogy, they're usually [a] about people
who've been dead for centuries [b] easily-obtained documents anyway!)

[Apd]

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:

> On Sun, 13 Mar 2022 at 03:35:37, Dale wrote:
>>https://www.dalekelly.org/UMS.html
> []
> Again, I can _open_ that in Chrome, when I see the menu and top of the
> first image, but as soon as I press page down (for some reason I don't
> get a scroll bar), the tab crashes.

UMS1.jpg 1,762,770 bytes, 5088 x 6688 Pixels, 256 colours (8 BPP)
UMS2.jpg 1,238,072 bytes, 5090 x 6672 Pixels, 256 colours (8 BPP)

They are unnecessarily large in MB and dimensions for B/W textual
images. They could be reduced to 20% of their width & height and to
16 colours (4 bits per pixel) with no loss of information and appear
the same as they do on the web page. Saved as a PNG file, the first
is only 112 KB.

[Chris]

J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6...@255soft.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2022 at 03:35:37, Dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote (my
> responses usually FOLLOW):
> []
>> Used Adobe Creative Cloud Express to turn PDF's into jpegs
>> one example ...
>>
>> https://www.dalekelly.org/images/DaleRKelly122717.pdf
>> https://www.dalekelly.org/UMS1.jpg
>> https://www.dalekelly.org/UMS2.jpg
>>
> There's something _very_ odd about those two .jpg files - or the server.
> I can _view_ them by entering the URL into Chrome [Version 92.0.4515.159
> (Official Build) (32-bit)], but as soon as I, say, try to copy them (to
> paste into IrfanView or similar to examine them), the tab crashes.
> Repeatably.
>>
>>
>> coded HTML to combine jpegs, one example ...
>>
>> https://www.dalekelly.org/UMS.html
> []
> Again, I can _open_ that in Chrome, when I see the menu and top of the
> first image, but as soon as I press page down (for some reason I don't
> get a scroll bar), the tab crashes.

What's most odd is the contents of those images. Any institution that gives
out degrees (incl. Masters and PhDs) in only 4 months is bullshit.

[Andy Burns]

Chris wrote:

> Any institution that gives
> out degrees (incl. Masters and PhDs) in only 4 months is bullshit.

The clue might be in the name of the institution?

[nospam]

In article <t0lakv$vjs$1...@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithi...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> What's most odd is the contents of those images. Any institution that gives
> out degrees (incl. Masters and PhDs) in only 4 months is bullshit.

true. all it takes is a few photos of some books, as 'arlen' has shown,
something which should take no more than 4 minutes.

[Dale]

the original transcripts were PDF format

https://www.dalekelly.org/images/DaleRKelly122717.pdf

you get about 90 courses

each course has around 25-to-75 8.5x11 pages

many of them have 15-30 minute guided meditations

the designs of the courses are excellent

you can repeat the courses as many times as you need to pass

great support along the way

up to a first doctorate only costs $900 now

https://metaphysicsuniversity.com/

added tremendously to my spiritual progression

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

On Sun, 13 Mar 2022 at 14:54:29, Apd <n...@all.invalid> wrote (my
responses usually FOLLOW):

I agree, they're far too big and deep for the purpose they serve
(arguably 1 BPP would do at the full resolution, or as you say no more
than 4 at a reduced one). But even at 5k by 7k pixels (35M), I wouldn't
have expected them to crash Chrome. (In my old Firefox, the HTML file
wouldn't scroll down, either.) At least, not in the way they did: it
displayed them, but wouldn't let me "copy image"; if they were going to
crash it, I'd have thought they'd do so on opening; for it to be able to
display them, it must have loaded them.

>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The Daily Mail has led the campaign to limit pornography - "it demeans and
belittles women," they explain, "and that's our job." (Sandi Toksvig
[scripted], News Quiz 2013-7-26.)

[Chris]

What do you need to do to pass? Is it possible to fail?

> great support along the way
>
> up to a first doctorate only costs $900 now

Not a doctorate.

[Dale]

80% test grade

approval of experience reported on guided meditations

approval on dissertations and creative projects

yes, you can fail, but you can repeat at no extra cost, if you fail
three times in a row you have to have a support discussion to move on

>
>> great support along the way
>>
>> up to a first doctorate only costs $900 now


>
> Not a doctorate.
>

I have a Philosopher of Metaphysics PhD, that is a doctorate

I am working on a second doctorate, Doctor of Divinity in Spiritual
Counseling D.D.

[Dale]

On 3/13/2022 5:01 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2022 at 14:54:29, Apd <n...@all.invalid> wrote (my
> responses usually FOLLOW):
>> "J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:
>>> On Sun, 13 Mar 2022 at 03:35:37, Dale wrote:
>>>> https://www.dalekelly.org/UMS.html
>>> []
>>> Again, I can _open_ that in Chrome, when I see the menu and top of the
>>> first image, but as soon as I press page down (for some reason I don't
>>> get a scroll bar), the tab crashes.
>>
>> UMS1.jpg 1,762,770 bytes, 5088 x 6688 Pixels, 256 colours (8 BPP)
>> UMS2.jpg 1,238,072 bytes, 5090 x 6672 Pixels, 256 colours (8 BPP)
>>
>> They are unnecessarily large in MB and dimensions for B/W textual
>> images. They could be reduced to 20% of their width & height and to
>> 16 colours (4 bits per pixel) with no loss of information and appear
>> the same as they do on the web page. Saved as a PNG file, the first
>> is only 112 KB.
>>
> I agree, they're far too big and deep for the purpose they serve
> (arguably 1 BPP would do at the full resolution, or as you say no more
> than 4 at a reduced one). But even at 5k by 7k pixels (35M), I wouldn't
> have expected them to crash Chrome. (In my old Firefox, the HTML file
> wouldn't scroll down, either.) At least, not in the way they did: it
> displayed them, but wouldn't let me "copy image"; if they were going to
> crash it, I'd have thought they'd do so on opening; for it to be able to
> display them, it must have loaded them.
>>

okay, I will work on that

[Chris]

What are the tests?

> approval of experience reported on guided meditations
>
> approval on dissertations and creative projects
>
> yes, you can fail, but you can repeat at no extra cost, if you fail
> three times in a row you have to have a support discussion to move on

So you really can't fail. Got it.

>
>>
>>> great support along the way
>>>
>>> up to a first doctorate only costs $900 now
>
>
>>
>> Not a doctorate.
>>
>
> I have a Philosopher of Metaphysics PhD, that is a doctorate

Nope. If all you did is pay $900 and spent four months on it then it's not
a recognisable doctorate or PhD or whatever.

What's the title of your thesis?

> I am working on a second doctorate, Doctor of Divinity in Spiritual
> Counseling D.D.

Sure.

[RJH]

I'd doubt it has much currency for, say, academic work.

An infamous Irish politician bought something similar from the US - constant
source of embarrassment while he insisted on being referred to as 'doctor'.

In any event, the 'modules' you've passed don't look like metaphysics to me -
'folklore and fantasy' perhaps?

> I am working on a second doctorate, Doctor of Divinity in Spiritual
> Counseling D.D.

Good grief.

--
Cheers, Rob

[Mayayana]

"RJH" <patch...@gmx.com> wrote

| > I am working on a second doctorate, Doctor of Divinity in Spiritual
| > Counseling D.D.
|
| Good grief.
|

On the other hand, why should any school be able to
offer a degree in spiritual counseling? What if he got it
from Harvard? (They offer such degrees. I know people
personally who have got similar degrees from Harvard
and Yale.) Would you want a 35-year-old academic
advising you on life decisions, just because they bought
the most expensive level of official authorization by reading
lots of books and theories?

Then there's the for-profit university trend. You can get
a degree online from an accredited school if you have a HS
diploma or GED.

And look at the psychotherapy industry. Lots of official
education, but they're turning out people on happy pills who
complain about not feeling "safe" if they're expected to
act like adults. The main expertise among psychotherapists
seems to be in keeping their customers coming back... And
they're getting better at it.

So... who knows... maybe Dale has a big heart. At least
he won't be running around telling people they have "ADHD"
and need to be taking speed. :)

[Herbert Kleebauer]

On 14.03.2022 01:53, Dale wrote:



>>> https://www.dalekelly.org/images/DaleRKelly122717.pdf (165 kB)

The pdf contains both pages already as images (and not as text).

<</Subtype/Image/Length 102826/Filter/CCITTFaxDecode/Name/X/BitsPerComponent 1
/ColorSpace/DeviceGray/Width 5088/DecodeParms<</K -1
/Columns 5088/Rows 6688>>/Height 6688/Type/XObject>>stream

102826 bytes, 5088 x 6688 Pixels for the picture of the first page
which you convert to:

>>> UMS1.jpg 1,762,770 bytes, 5088 x 6688 Pixels, 256 colours (8 BPP)

<</Subtype/Image/Length 62500/Filter/CCITTFaxDecode/Name/X/BitsPerComponent 1
/ColorSpace/DeviceGray/Width 5090/DecodeParms<</K -1/
Columns 5090/Rows 6672>>/Height 6672/Type/XObject>>stream

102826 bytes, 5090 x 6672 Pixels for the picture of the second page
which you convert to:

>>> UMS2.jpg 1,238,072 bytes, 5090 x 6672 Pixels, 256 colours (8 BPP)

> okay, I will work on that

You should not recompress the pictures as jpeg (a bad format for
text) but just store them as gif or png. This retains the original
quality of the pdf and the size of both pictures together shouldn't be
more than the size of the pdf (165 kB).

[Bucky Breeder]

Dale <da...@dalekelly.org> posted this:

> I have a Philosopher of Metaphysics PhD, that is a doctorate
>
> I am working on a second doctorate, Doctor of Divinity in Spiritual
> Counseling D.D.

FYI, the real ones say "I am a Ph.D." not "I have a Ph.D."... in order to not
get shot by the FBI because you gave them probable cause to think you're a
kidnapper.

--

I AM Bucky Breeder, (*(^;

And *NO*, that is *NOT* a Jedi Light Saber I have in my pocket!

But that doesn't necessarily mean I'm happy to see you either.

[Dale]

On 3/14/2022 7:11 AM, Chris wrote:
> spent four months

spent a year

second doctorate on and off the backburner for 4 years

[Chris]

Dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:
> On 3/14/2022 7:11 AM, Chris wrote:
>> spent four months
>
> spent a year
>
> second doctorate on and off the backburner for 4 years

"Masters" August 2017. "PhD" Feb 2018. OK 6 months at best. Still nowhere
near enough for a real PhD which in the US is easily 4-7 years.

[Paul]

On 3/14/2022 9:57 AM, Herbert Kleebauer wrote:

> You should not recompress the pictures as jpeg (a bad format for
> text) but just store them as gif or png. This retains the original
> quality of the pdf and the size of both pictures together shouldn't be
> more than the size of the pdf (165 kB).

We could make a contest out of it :-)

But I don't think that's what Dale had in mind.

This turned out to be harder than expected, due to what looks
like a lot of bodgery in the TIF domain. It's like people threw
away a lot of functionality, rather then harden the library and
keep all of it.

It doesn't matter that the intermediate files are "fat" as long
as the final result is good.

UMS1.jpg 1,762,770 bytes
Gimp 2.6 Save as PBM UMS1.pbm 34,514,718 bytes # Save as ASCII, examine in Notepad :-)
# This is just a way to get color reduction to B/W

Windows 10
bash # Installing bash/ubuntu is harder than it needs to be
sudo apt install netpbm
pnmtotif UMS1.pbm > UMS1.tif 4,257,139 bytes # Uncompressed but is 1 bit B/W

Gimp 2.6 Open UMS1.tif
Save As UMS1a.tif, CCITT4 113,414 bytes # Gimp would not offer CCITT4 unless you
# open a B/W TIF and then just try to save it.

Thanks to busted tools (compared to how this stuff used to work),
this was harder to navigate than I expected.
It looks like someone ripped the guts out of netpbm.

CCITT4 is two-dimensional compression. If UMS1.tif was placed
into Adobe Acrobat Distiller, it should produce the 113K sized output
as well. I selected TIF because I knew it had CCITT4 and could
be used standalone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_4_compression

I can't upload the TIF to PostImage, because it converts it
to PNG which is twice as big.

It's like "everybody hates TIF day" or something :-)

That's the best I could do, without buying anything. Just the
Win10 that happens to be on the machine right now. I could do
all those steps in Ubuntu or Linux Mint.

The PDF compression method is better than my attempt, which
means there must be an even better way of doing this (contest) :-)
Adobe seems to be 2x better than me at this game :-) Hmmm.

Doing OCR on it, it would be hard to match that font, whatever
that font is. OCR would use something awful like Times-Roman
or the like. But OCR (Optical Character Recognition)
would perform "the best compression of all".

Paul

[Dale]

Thank You !!!!

I didn't want to buy Photoshop.

I might install GIMP again ...

[Andy Burns]

Paul wrote:

> CCITT4 is two-dimensional compression.

CCITT T.4 (as used in group 3 fax) is just one dimensional,
CCITT T.6 (as used in group 4 fax) is two dimensional ...

[Paul]

On 3/14/2022 9:40 PM, Dale wrote:

>
> Thank You !!!!
>
> I didn't want to buy Photoshop.
>
> I might install GIMP again ...
>

This is an analysis of the PDF file. Using this package for Windows.

https://www.mupdf.com/releases/index.html

mupdf-1.19.0-windows.zip # The Tesseract version includes OCR.

The first command, removes more compression than necessary, and does not
expose the secrets of Adobe well. But this command still comes in handy.
Even this command does not remove all the compression inside some documents,
but it's a start.

C:\TEMP> mutool convert -F pdf -O decompress,clean -o output.pdf DaleRKelly122717.pdf

This command converts some of the structure of the PDF, into text that Notepad
can read. We can use this one for a look at the structure of the PDF.

C:\TEMP> mutool convert -F pdf -O clean -o output.pdf DaleRKelly122717.pdf

Next, change the file extension on the file, by adding .txt to the end with
the File Explorer rename capability. It helps if the OS and its File Explorer
are set to display the file extension (PDF in this case) so that in the
GUI you can see what is going on.

ren output.pdf output.pdf.txt

notepad output.pdf.txt

You can tack extensions on like that, and it's a way of keeping
track what transformations you have performed.

******

Object number 3 is a raw picture.
Object number 7 is a raw picture.

The pictures need a transform matrix, to position
the picture on the page properly.

When you ask a tool to extract the picture, it calls
the pictures image-0005 and image-0009 because at that
point, they have been instantiated on the paper surface.

And what we came here for, was to verify it uses CCITTFaxDecode as
the compressor. It's their CCITT4 compressor of long ago. All I
wanted to see was "CCITT" to verify a quality compression.

3 0 obj <=== this object stores a picture, byte length 102826
<</DecodeParms<</Columns 5088/Rows 6688/K -1/EndOfBlock true>>/Type/XObject/Subtype/Image/Filter/
CCITTFaxDecode/BitsPerComponent 1/Width 5088/Height 6688/ColorSpace/DeviceGray/Length 102826>>
stream ...

5 0 obj <=== image-0005
<</Length 61>>
stream
1 0 0 -1 0 802.56 cm <=== some sort of transform matrix
-610.56 0 0 802.56 610.56 0 cm
/Img3 Do

endstream
endobj

7 0 obj <=== this object stores a picture, byte length 62500
<</DecodeParms<</Columns 5090/Rows 6672/K -1/EndOfBlock true>>/Type/XObject/Subtype/Image/Filter/
CCITTFaxDecode/BitsPerComponent 1/Width 5090/Height 6672/ColorSpace/DeviceGray/Length 62500>>
stream

9 0 obj <=== image-0009
<</Length 59>>
stream
1 0 0 -1 0 800.64 cm <=== some sort of transform matrix
-610.8 0 0 800.64 610.8 0 cm
/Img7 Do

endstream
endobj

Raw PDF is usually a "binary-looking" format. Using mutool converts
portions of it to readable text, so you can see the commands. PDF files
are hard to edit manually (for a human), because like a banker, the length
of every structure is recorded in a ledger. You can't change the length of
objects, without upsetting some ledger entry.

Paul

[Chris]

Mayayana <maya...@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> "RJH" <patch...@gmx.com> wrote
>
> | > I am working on a second doctorate, Doctor of Divinity in Spiritual
> | > Counseling D.D.
> |
> | Good grief.
> |
> On the other hand, why should any school be able to
> offer a degree in spiritual counseling? What if he got it
> from Harvard? (They offer such degrees. I know people
> personally who have got similar degrees from Harvard
> and Yale.) Would you want a 35-year-old academic
> advising you on life decisions, just because they bought
> the most expensive level of official authorization by reading
> lots of books and theories?

Well, yes. It's called an education. I'd certainly hope and expect that my
GP has read lots of books and be taught theories.

> Then there's the for-profit university trend. You can get
> a degree online from an accredited school if you have a HS
> diploma or GED.

During the pandemic most degrees were run online. Nothing wrong with that
as long as courses are properly run and accredited. Not by some made up
organisations that don't comply with minimum standards.

[Paul]

What I found interesting, is 7ZIP ultra compression could not
match or beat the two dimensional compression, so there is
some benefit from a compression point of view to being 2D.
I thought that maybe the arithmetic encoder could beat
the older compressor, but it didn't quite make it.

My copy of Adobe Distiller 4 for Windows had the CCITT option in it.
And that allowed at least one scanned document (scanned and directed
to PDF) to hit about 50KB per page or so (limited to black and white).

Paul

[occam]

On 12/03/2022 03:47, Nobody wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2022 21:21:22 -0500, Dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:
>
>> combine two jpegs?
>>
>> Windows default program? Photos or Paint?
>>
>> Adobe Creative Cloud Express leaves messy text. The jpegs are from a PDF
>> exported from Adobe Acrobat Pro DC
>>
>> PDF is fine, and look fine in Adobe Acrobat Pro DC
>>
>> Photoshop Express or plain Photoshop? Creative Cloud?
>
> Or "stitch" using Irfanview...

There also used to be a program called ICE, MS's own Image Composite
Editor. However I see:

"Please note that the Image Composite Editor download is no longer
available. This project has been retired."

Leave your Hallmark cards - on the passing of ICE - here:

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/product/computational-photography-applications/image-composite-editor/

[Dale]

here are some other things

you get to keep the *.pdf courses and *.mp3 guided meditations that go
along with the courses

you don't have to go for the degrees online, you can get the courses
printed and the meditations on CDs

I decided to buy the offline courses too

and to give it more credit, the curriculum is tremendous

https://metaphysicsuniversity.com/ums-curriculum/

[RJH]

On 14 Mar 2022 at 13:07:45 GMT, ""Mayayana"" <maya...@invalid.nospam> wrote:

> "RJH" <patch...@gmx.com> wrote
>
> | > I am working on a second doctorate, Doctor of Divinity in Spiritual
> | > Counseling D.D.
> |
> | Good grief.
> |
> On the other hand, why should any school be able to
> offer a degree in spiritual counseling? What if he got it
> from Harvard? (They offer such degrees. I know people
> personally who have got similar degrees from Harvard
> and Yale.)

My comment was more in the spirit of 'more of the same type of learning',
rather than the subject being covered. So long as it's bound by a level of
rigour and properly overseen, pretty much no topic is out of bounds so far as
I'm concerned.

snip

>
> So... who knows... maybe Dale has a big heart. At least
> he won't be running around telling people they have "ADHD"
> and need to be taking speed. :)
>

Well of course, and least they're not hurting anyone :-)


--
Cheers, Rob

[Apd]

"Paul" wrote:
> On 3/14/2022 9:57 AM, Herbert Kleebauer wrote:
>
>> You should not recompress the pictures as jpeg (a bad format for
>> text) but just store them as gif or png. This retains the original
>> quality of the pdf and the size of both pictures together shouldn't be
>> more than the size of the pdf (165 kB).
>
> We could make a contest out of it :-)

[...]

> Gimp 2.6 Open UMS1.tif
> Save As UMS1a.tif, CCITT4 113,414 bytes
> # Gimp would not offer CCITT4 unless you
> # open a B/W TIF and then just try to save it.

Open the jpegs in Irfanview and save as TIFs, checking "CCITTT Fax 4"
in the save options. That converts to B/W with a bit depth of 1 and
with no loss of info. It's then the same as specified in the PDF:

"/BitsPerComponent 1" and "/K -1"

K less than 0 means "Pure two-dimensional encoding (Group 4)"

UMS1.tif - 102,842 bytes
UMS2.tif - 62,492 bytes

This is the best compression with full size images. I don't think
browsers handle TIFs, so convert to PNG to display in a web page. The
byte count will more than double (more for gif). Better to resize in
Irfanview which will increase the bit depth to preserve appearance.
The byte count will then be about what I said in my earlier post
(resize to 20% gives 112 KB for UMS1).

[Herbert Kleebauer]

On 15.03.2022 01:19, Paul wrote:
> On 3/14/2022 9:57 AM, Herbert Kleebauer wrote:
>
>> You should not recompress the pictures as jpeg (a bad format for
>> text) but just store them as gif or png. This retains the original
>> quality of the pdf and the size of both pictures together shouldn't be
>> more than the size of the pdf (165 kB).
>
> We could make a contest out of it :-)

Tried to extract the images without using an external tool
to extract images from pdf files.

1. open the pdf file with Acrobat Reader.

2. Print the 2 pages using the Windows provided printer
"Microsoft XPS Document Writer"
in properties selcet paper size A2 and PNG lossless compression
select custom scale 200%
select "print to file"
print using the file name a.zip

3. Use Windows Explorer to copy the the 32 tif files
a.zip\Documents\1\Resources\Images\ into an empty directory

4. Now you need a program to concatenate the 32 pieces to one
picture. I used convert.exe from ImageMagick:
https://download.imagemagick.org/ImageMagick/download/binaries/ImageMagick-7.1.0-portable-Q16-x64.zip
This is a 150 MB zip file, but all you need is the file convert.exe
stored in the zip file. Copy convert.exe into the directory with
the 32 tif files.

5. Save this batch code as a.bat in the same directory and start it:

@echo off
for /l %%i in (1,1,32) do call set x=%%x%% %%i.tif
.\convert.exe -append -depth 1 -compress group4 %x% all.tif


As a result you will get the file all.tif (162 kB, 4962x13392 pixel)
which contains both pages in a single picture (as the OP wanted) and
it is not larger than the original pdf.

But for sure, a tool to directly extract the images from the
pdf would be preferable. convert.exe should be able to do this
if GhostScript is installed.

[Herbert Kleebauer]

On 15.03.2022 13:36, Apd wrote:
> "Paul" wrote:
>> On 3/14/2022 9:57 AM, Herbert Kleebauer wrote:
>>
>>> You should not recompress the pictures as jpeg (a bad format for
>>> text) but just store them as gif or png. This retains the original
>>> quality of the pdf and the size of both pictures together shouldn't be
>>> more than the size of the pdf (165 kB).
>>
>> We could make a contest out of it :-)
>
> [...]
>> Gimp 2.6 Open UMS1.tif
>> Save As UMS1a.tif, CCITT4 113,414 bytes
>> # Gimp would not offer CCITT4 unless you
>> # open a B/W TIF and then just try to save it.
>
> Open the jpegs in Irfanview and save as TIFs, checking "CCITTT Fax 4"
> in the save options. That converts to B/W with a bit depth of 1 and
> with no loss of info. It's then the same as specified in the PDF:

I think it is a real bad idea to start with a jpg (with all the
compression artifacts) and then save it in a lossless format.
When you extract the pictures you have to directly save it a
lossless format (gif, png, tiff).

[Apd]

"Herbert Kleebauer" wrote:
> On 15.03.2022 13:36, Apd wrote:

>> Open the jpegs in Irfanview and save as TIFs, checking "CCITT Fax 4"

>> in the save options. That converts to B/W with a bit depth of 1 and
>> with no loss of info. It's then the same as specified in the PDF:
>
> I think it is a real bad idea to start with a jpg (with all the
> compression artifacts) and then save it in a lossless format.
> When you extract the pictures you have to directly save it a
> lossless format (gif, png, tiff).

I would agree but in this case it makes no difference. The images are
so large (in pixels) that all it does is remove the compression
artifacts. You can also extract direct from the PDF using the free
version of PDF-XChange Viewer by doing "Export to image" and setting
the appropriate options for the format. It has all the necessary
settings for TIFF, PNG and others. Set the page zoom and/or DPI
resolution to get an appropriate size.

[Paul]

I think I can see in the PDF object definition, why an extractor
could behave in a non-intuitive way.

BitsPerComponent 1
ColorSpace/DeviceGray

That's how the JPG ended up with an 8 bit indexed palette, is the
DeviceGray specification. Even though we know from the BPP spec,
that a PBM output file would be more appropriate.

Perhaps if the Adobe tool had used a different "ColorSpace"
that would not have happened.

I didn't even know you could declare an 8-bit palette in a JPG.
I always thought they were 24-bit (or more). Especially given
the propensity for numerical roundoff "spraying" the palette
with fake colours.

*******

One problem with the PDF file, is the image consists of two
objects. The first object is the bitmap/pixmap, stripped of
most of the original filetype info, and in a sense "anonymized".

This makes it pretty hard for an extractor, to do something
sensible, especially if the declarations aren't particularly
hinting strongly in a consistent direction.

A human, upon seeing BitsPerComponent 1, wouldn't be quite as
quick to jump on JPG for that. While PNG is a natural match
(supports 1BPP with your choice of colour), I had a lot of
trouble getting the PNG tools to do that for me. I've done
it before, but I don't remember which PNG tool I used
for the job (things with names like PNGcrush and PNGreduce
and so on, there are a few of them to try).

I think if I was writing the code, I'd do an analysis from
first principles, and derate the header declaration. If the
image came with a palette declared as a discrete table
of colour values, I would use it. That way, I could have a
1BPP PNG where a value of 1 could have a red pixel and a value
of 0 could have a white pixel. But only if a palette was
part of the pixmap info.

Paul

[occam]

On 12/03/2022 21:28, Bill W wrote:
> On Mar 12, 2022, nospam wrote
> (in article<120320221222134794%nos...@nospam.invalid>):
>
>> In article<t0iko6$8f2$1...@dont-email.me>, Dale<da...@dalekelly.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> side by side
>>>
>>> or top and bottom
>>>
>>> top and bottom would be better for printing
>>
>> earlier, you said compositing:
>> In article <t0ij0b$pnr$1...@dont-email.me>, Dale<da...@dalekelly.org>
>> wrote:
>>> On 3/12/2022 10:31 AM, Savageduck wrote:
>>>> Do you mean compositing?
>>>
>>> yes
>>
>> now you say tiling.
>>
>> as usual, this is nothing more than a troll.
>
> I’m pretty sure it’s not him, but there is something oh so Arlenesque
> about all of this guy’s posts.
>

No there isn't. 'Arlene' posts faux 'research' links, and his questions
are complicated with pretentions to organise topics. Dale has a simple
question - he wants an image 'stiching' program, but maybe he does not
understand the terminology (tiling, compositing etc) very well. If you
don't know of a program which helps him, just look away rather than
throw accusations of trolling.

[Apd]

"Paul" wrote:
> On 3/15/2022 11:56 AM, Apd wrote:
>> "Herbert Kleebauer" wrote:
>>> I think it is a real bad idea to start with a jpg (with all the
>>> compression artifacts) and then save it in a lossless format.
>>> When you extract the pictures you have to directly save it a
>>> lossless format (gif, png, tiff).
>>
>> I would agree but in this case it makes no difference. The images are
>> so large (in pixels) that all it does is remove the compression
>> artifacts. You can also extract direct from the PDF using the free
>> version of PDF-XChange Viewer by doing "Export to image" and setting
>> the appropriate options for the format. It has all the necessary
>> settings for TIFF, PNG and others. Set the page zoom and/or DPI
>> resolution to get an appropriate size.
>
> I think I can see in the PDF object definition, why an extractor
> could behave in a non-intuitive way.

As I understand it, the jpegs were created from the PDFs so that
format would have been a user choice.

> BitsPerComponent 1
> ColorSpace/DeviceGray
>
> That's how the JPG ended up with an 8 bit indexed palette, is the
> DeviceGray specification. Even though we know from the BPP spec,
> that a PBM output file would be more appropriate.

Except PBM is not compressed. Given the encoding, TIFF would be
better as a default (but not suitable for web).

> Perhaps if the Adobe tool had used a different "ColorSpace"
> that would not have happened.

DeviceGray is stated to be on a scale from black to white but there is
no mention of how many intermediate values there might be, so "none"
must be valid.

> I didn't even know you could declare an 8-bit palette in a JPG.
> I always thought they were 24-bit (or more).

Me neither. It must be the minimum possible for jpeg.

> One problem with the PDF file, is the image consists of two
> objects. The first object is the bitmap/pixmap, stripped of
> most of the original filetype info, and in a sense "anonymized".
>
> This makes it pretty hard for an extractor, to do something
> sensible, especially if the declarations aren't particularly
> hinting strongly in a consistent direction.

The PDF spec should make it clear enough:

| BitsPerComponent
|
| If the image stream uses a filter, the value of BitsPerComponent
| shall be consistent with the size of the data samples that the
| filter delivers. In particular, a CCITTFaxDecode or JBIG2Decode
| filter shall always deliver 1-bit samples

So however the colour space is declared, if I'm reading that right,
the bit-depth is fixed for fax decode.

> A human, upon seeing BitsPerComponent 1, wouldn't be quite as
> quick to jump on JPG for that. While PNG is a natural match
> (supports 1BPP with your choice of colour), I had a lot of
> trouble getting the PNG tools to do that for me. I've done
> it before, but I don't remember which PNG tool I used
> for the job (things with names like PNGcrush and PNGreduce
> and so on, there are a few of them to try).

Both Irfanview and PDF-XChange Viewer can save as 1-BPP PNGs.

> I think if I was writing the code, I'd do an analysis from
> first principles, and derate the header declaration. If the
> image came with a palette declared as a discrete table
> of colour values, I would use it. That way, I could have a
> 1BPP PNG where a value of 1 could have a red pixel and a value
> of 0 could have a white pixel. But only if a palette was
> part of the pixmap info.

AS an experiment, I created a PDF with PDF-XChange Viewer using a
CCITT 4 encoded TIFF (which it encoded the same way). This was how it
specified the colour space:

/ColorSpace [/Indexed /DeviceRGB 1 (-values-)]

Where -values- is the two 3-byte RGB colors in binary (0xFFFFFF, 0).

In Irfanview you can edit the palette so I was also able to create
another CCITT 4 TIFF with red text on white background. For some
unknown reason, when I turned that into a PDF, it was encoded the
same but the colours were swapped to white on red.

[Dale]

On 3/11/2022 9:21 PM, Dale wrote:
> combine two jpegs?
>
> Windows default program? Photos or Paint?
>
> Adobe Creative Cloud Express leaves messy text. The jpegs are from a PDF
> exported from Adobe Acrobat Pro DC
>
> PDF is fine, and look fine in Adobe Acrobat Pro DC
>
> Photoshop Express or plain Photoshop? Creative Cloud?
>

okay, so I forgot somethings and wasn't all that familiar with specific
definitions ...

I used to tile images in Photoshop for bitmap output devices like film
recorders. Finding the bytes of the original images, create a big enough
new image for both, then copy/paste the original images into the new
one. All images were open.

I used composite images in Photoshop to form new layers. Like the K
layer to CMY that was converted from RGB. K and a new CMY were derived
by some means like UCR, GCR, etc.

I used to do "page layout" like Quark Express for output to proof, etc.
utilizing a RIP. This was for CMYK rosettes patterns some times.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raster_image_processor

I started page layout in HTML about 30 years ago.

The reason I wanted to combine (tile) the two images was to lay them out
in HTML as one image. Decided to lay the two images out in HTML without
tiling them. Don't know the difference on download speed of the two lay
outs. Good enough for now.

I don't do much image manipulation any more. So the free recommendations
might fit.

I was kind of thinking about the manipulation softwares that come with
Windows. "Photos" and "Paint".

I like GIMP on Linux better than on Windows.