Personal computing discussed
Moderators: askfranklin, renee, emkubed, Captain Ned
“We have not seen any reported issues. From what the article states, this only occurs when both the lowest resolution settings and the highest compression settings are being used together. The JBIG2 compression is a standard being used throughout the copier industry, particularly with faxing. My personal thought on this is that some of the Xerox products (7845, for example) allow scan resolutions down to 72 dpi, and that at those lower resolutions, the compression algorithm does not have enough pixel data to make the correct conversions each and every time.
We almost always leave the default resolution at 200dpi, so I am not surprised that we have not heard of this issue. If customer’s are concerned, they need only stay away from the 72 dpi setting, and they will not have any problems.”
Voldenuit wrote:FWIW, I've tested our 7535 (one of the known affected models) on 'Normal' at 300 dpi and was unable to reproduce the error, although it is harder to prove a negative. Perhaps if I'd scanned it at 72 dpi (which sounds like a poor choice anyway).
We shipped it in a way that doesn't mess up, so that's YOUR problem. Also, we used INDUSTRY STANDARDS so don't blame us fer NUTHIN'.
Voldenuit wrote:
The Xerox design utilizes the recognized industry standard JBIG2 compressor which creates extremely small file sizes with good image quality, but with inherent tradeoffs under low resolution and quality settings.
The Xerox design utilizes the recognized industry standard JBIG2 compressor which creates extremely small file sizes with good image quality, but with inherent tradeoffs under low resolution and quality settings.
For data integrity purposes, we recommend the use of the factory defaults with a quality level set to “higher.” In cases where lower quality/higher compression is desired for smaller file sizes, we provide the following message to our customers next to the quality settings within the device web user interface: “The normal quality option produces small file sizes by using advanced compression techniques. Image quality is generally acceptable, however, text quality degradation and character substitution errors may occur with some originals.”
There is actually no identified “bad compression” setting on its own. If you keep your DPI default at 200dpi or greater with any compression setting, Xerox or other manufacturers aren’t experiencing any issues. Quality of the original scanned document isn’t really referenced in this material but I feel it is a very important factor. If the resolution is set at 72 with compression the quality of the scan is degraded and potentially isn’t able to read the document accurately. I have actually experienced this on other manufacturers devices over the years in both copy or scan mode. If the original has background, grayscale and/or poor quality the multifunction device in either copy or scan mode isn’t always able to read the original accurately. For example, if an organization is scanning documents as pdfs or tiffs and in the future wishes to OCRs these files, the minimum industry standard is 200 dpi. Most organizations use 300 dpi just to be safe. Anything lower than 200 dpi results in characters not being read accurately. This is not unique to Xerox but common in the industry with copy/scan technology.
Scrotos wrote:My main issue with this at this point is that Xerox doesn't have a list of affected models and how to mitigate this. Where in the web admin interface or control panel can I lock out certain known-bad settings? I don't want our users to accidentially select this stuff. And the presets don't really correlate to DPI. What the hell is "archival" quality? It says "smallest file size" whereas when I think of archives, I think of pristine replications of items for long-term storage. That doesn't jive with "smallest file size" in my mind.
just brew it! wrote:Producing an illegibly blurry scan at low settings is acceptable -- you will look at the scan, and increase the settings. Producing a silently altered (but still legible looking) scan is unacceptable, at ANY settings.
I received the following information today and will provide you with additional information as it is released by Xerox.
The following is a list of available information that I just received:
• Real Business blog site with the latest public updates (http://realbusinessatxerox.blogs.xerox.com/)
• A Q&A document which includes the solutions Xerox is providing and the impacted products
• A how to guide for checking and setting device defaults for scan settings
Please let me know if you have additional questions and/or would like to work with a Lewan/Xerox system engineer.
Here are the two solutions:
• Reset Scanning Defaults: Xerox is providing a guide demonstrating how to check the current device scan settings and how to return them to factory default.
• Apply a Software Patch: Xerox is developing a software patch that can be remotely downloaded to each device. The software patch will disable the highest compression mode thus completely eliminating the possibility for character substitution. Xerox will begin rolling out the patch within a few weeks.
It is important to know that Xerox® devices shipped from the factory are set with the compression level and resolution settings that produce scanned files appropriate for viewing or printing—while maintaining a reasonable file size. You will not see a character substitution issue when scanning with the factory default settings.
We apologize for any confusion and inconvenience this may have caused our customers. We are working closely with our partners and customer service teams across the globe to proactively inform customers as well as help them resolve the issue.
Scrotos wrote:I doubt it. From what I understand, it takes too much memory for that and you can't collate anything. It would take a few GB of RAM for only 5 or 6 pages from what someone wrote who claimed to work at Xerox many years ago.
Scrotos wrote:I doubt it. From what I understand, it takes too much memory for that and you can't collate anything. It would take a few GB of RAM for only 5 or 6 pages from what someone wrote who claimed to work at Xerox many years ago.
just brew it! wrote:Collation was done with mechanical sorters/stackers.