Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just to make it clear, I'm not an engineer (I'd like to be good enough to be considered one, but that's a long way off). I'm more of an enthusiastic amateur who knows enough to badly break things. And the people who ask most frequently ask are ortho surgeons with a patient asleep on the table. Anyone who waits until that late in the piece then asked for a 1.5gig email becuase they weren't organised enough to sort out…
We developed an easy way to email and collaboratively view CT or MRI studies. http://www.claripacs.com .
Xerox scanners and photocopiers randomly alter numbers in scanned documents
91–100 of 118 posts
Re: Xerox scanners and photocopiers randomly alter numbers in scanned documents
#92Now to the important question: How can i easily assert that my scanner, or the next scanner i buy, does not have the same issue?
Re: Xerox scanners and photocopiers randomly alter numbers in scanned documents
#93Truly surprising. I would never have imagined this to be in the domain of possible problems one would expect to encounter scanning or photocopying a document. It is like taking a picture of my wife with a digital camera and her face being replaced with that of some other person.
Re: Xerox scanners and photocopiers randomly alter numbers in scanned documents
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are some pieces of content for which it's entirely impractical to "grant access via e-mail". On occasion people ask to be e-mailed extremely large blocks of data, where it would literally be faster to burn it to a pile of DVDs and then FedEx them than to upload-and-then-download the data. Depending on the size of the medical images mentioned in a previous post, that might actually be the case in that circumstan…
> But it's a failure of people when they don't recognize the possibility that some types of data (video, large numbers of images, scientific research data, whole databases) simply can't be sent quickly, yet they fail to plan ahead to gain access. (I've also entirely skirted the issue of "some data should have its access restricted physically"...) I disagree vehemently with that attitude, and I have to deal with it ev…
Incidentally, it's not just about transfer speed. Sometimes people ask if you can e-mail something that has never been put on a computer, and would take weeks or months to scan in. Or sometimes they ask for access to information when access is very slow to set up due to security or privacy considerations. Or sometimes they ask for access to something that the boss needs to physically sign off on, after the boss has gone home for the day. This is only a problem if they've decided it's urgent to have it, and simply haven't thought ahead about how it might not necessarily be possible to get instant access to every piece of information that ever existed.
We can change technology. But we also need to retain the mindset of arranging access beforehand. It's not about "blaming", it's simply about encouraging people to understand what they're asking for and to make sure they get the access they need before they need it.
[As an aside, DVDs are just an example of "sometimes it's really freaking slow to download data" that somebody like my mom would get. An alternative way to phrase it would be "downloading that would be so slow, it'd be better to just have your friend bring her laptop over." I certainly don't intend to suggest a new industry standard.]
Re: Xerox scanners and photocopiers randomly alter numbers in scanned documents
#95Re: Xerox scanners and photocopiers randomly alter numbers in scanned documents
#96Truly surprising. I would never have imagined this to be in the domain of possible problems one would expect to encounter scanning or photocopying a document. It is like taking a picture of my wife with a digital camera and her face being replaced with that of some other person.
With personal video recording (a la Google Glass and friends) it won't be long before we're subjected to this sort of thing. It's amazing how close we're getting to Ghost in the Shell and I'm sure it won't be long when live video feeds can be hacked in real time to show something contrary to what's actually happening.
and I'm sure it won't be long when live video feeds can be hacked in real time to show something contrary to what's actually happening
Done! Actually a few years ago. Even though I suspect that you have something more complex in mind then splicing in a TV signal:http://www.geek.com/news/czech-nuclear-webcam-hack-included-...
Re: Xerox scanners and photocopiers randomly alter numbers in scanned documents
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
This will make lawsuits a lot of fun in the future. Given the way the algorithm works, it would seem to me that "fine print" would be the most vulnerable to the bug (well not really a bug, it's the behavior of JBIG2). I wonder if there will be a clear dividing line, e.g. "smaller than 10pt type is subject to reasonable doubt if a Xerox copier was used"
The trouble is, there is no reasonable in doubt anymore. Copying and digital archiving both rely on the premise that there is no manipulation. Lossy compression always seemed to be OK because the image quality was reduced without changing the integrity and structure of the image. This will essentially destroy credibility of digital records. Every shyster and hack lawyer will pull this as defense in court. Also it's n…
I don't think it will be so trivial to use this defense. As somebody claimed, JBIG2 _reuses_ sufficiently similar blocks, so I guess it can be relatively easily determined whether the document has been messed up by lossy compression.
Re: Xerox scanners and photocopiers randomly alter numbers in scanned documents
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
How would one handle the case with the tiny boxes? It seems to me that these ought to be treated more like line drawings and not unify them as symbols at all if you can't properly decompose them into lines of Latin alphabet glyphs. JBIG2 of course cleverly doesn't tell you how to do the "smart" segmentation...
Yeah, and because the libraries are not open source, we'll never be able to check who failed big time.
The idea is actually very smart: given the infinite (and multidimensional) space of encoder solutions, fixing the bit encoding and the decompression process was very smart. It's like with PDF: it's well defined how to draw it into a bitmap but you're not constrained as to how you generate the layout, what line break algorithm you use etc.
Re: Xerox scanners and photocopiers randomly alter numbers in scanned documents
#99Minor correction: The article says that the JBIG2 patch size might be the size of the scanned text. JBIG2 actually has the capability to detect regions of text and compress them using a specialized technique that operates on individual symbols. I suspect Xerox is using this option and their implementation is getting confused (perhaps by the low resolution). Unless I'm greatly mistaken, the patch size for normal compr…
I was confused by that as well. From what I understood how JBIG2 worked, those symbols don't even have to have the same size everywhere (as would be quite common with proportional fonts anyway). So there is no "patch size" per se; just the low resolution confusing the classifier.
Re: Xerox scanners and photocopiers randomly alter numbers in scanned documents
#100This class of error is called (by me, at least) a "contoot" because, long ago, when I was writing the JBIG2 compressor for Google Books PDFs, the first example was on the contents page of book. The title, "Contents", was set in very heavy type which happened to be an unexpected edge case in the classifier and it matched the "o" with the "e" and "n" and output "Contoots". The classifier was adjusted and these errors m…
The title, "Contents", was set in very heavy type which happened to be an unexpected edge case in the classifier and it matched the "o" with the "e" and "n" and output "Contoots".
Wouldn't it be a good idea to perform OCR - using a language model, the works - before you start classifying the JBIG2 symbols? That way, you'd have additional contextual information to say "Aha, 'contoots' is probably not what it reads here" at least in some of the cases.
Although, I realize that on "Google scale", such a complex solution could be a problem.