Hermitian’s flawed 16 bit alignment

Our friend Hermitian insists that there is a 16×16 bit alignment rule even though his own data shows that 3 out of 9 layers, or only ~33% adhere to that rule. Not much of a rule. In fact, anyone who has studied the Xerox workflow would have realized that the alignment with the MCU (16×16 bit) was at 600 PPI, and therefore, a 8×8 bit at 300 dpi. This is why we see uniform adherence to a 8×8 bit alignment rule at 300 ppi but not a 16×16 bit. Why Hermitian believes that his ‘forger’ is so sloppy is beyond me as there is just nothing predictive in the dataset. One would expect about 9/4 or 2.25 layers to align randomly, we find 3 which is well within expectations.

Resolution = 300 PPI X 300 PPI / 16 X 16 Blocks Layer
N    (x,y)        (w,h)      (x+w,y)   ((x+w)/16,y/16)
1 (   0,   0)  (2552,3304) (2552,   0)  (159.5,  0)    Background
2 ( 373, 880)  (1819,1454) (2192, 880)  (137  , 55)    Mostly Text
3 (1270,2848)  ( 778, 199) (2048,2848)  (128  ,178)    Onaka Signature
4 ( 710,2928)  ( 274,  42) ( 984,2928)  ( 61.5,183)    Onaka Date
5 (1836,2160)  ( 228, 123) (2064,2160)  (129  ,135)    Reg. Gen. Date
6 ( 432,2240)  ( 216,  47) ( 648,2240)  ( 40.5,140)    Loc. Reg. Date
7 (1458,1960)  (  70,  34) (1528,1960)  ( 95.5,122.5)  Non
8 ( 735,2528)  ( 217, 243) ( 952,2528)  ( 59.5,158)    Bottom Speckle
9 (1050,  32)  ( 142, 132) (1192,  32)  ( 74.5,  2)    Top Speckle

48 thoughts on “Hermitian’s flawed 16 bit alignment

  1. Hermitian’s flawed 16 bit alignment

    “Posted on August 20, 2013 by NBC

    “Our friend Hermitian insists that there is a 16×16 bit alignment rule even though his own data shows that 3 out of 9 layers, or only ~33% adhere to that rule. Not much of a rule. In fact, anyone who has studied the Xerox workflow would have realized that the alignment with the MCU (16×16 bit) was at 600 PPI, and therefore, a 8×8 bit at 300 dpi. This is why we see uniform adherence to a 8×8 bit alignment rule at 300 ppi but not a 16×16 bit. Why Hermitian believes that his ‘forger’ is so sloppy is beyond me as there is just nothing predictive in the dataset. One would expect about 9/4 or 2.25 layers to align randomly, we find 3 which is well within expectations.”

    “Resolution = 300 PPI X 300 PPI / 16 X 16 Blocks Layer
    N (x,y) (w,h) (x+w,y) ((x+w)/16,y/16)
    1 ( 0, 0) (2552,3304) (2552, 0) (159.5, 0) Background
    2 ( 373, 880) (1819,1454) (2192, 880) (137 , 55) Mostly Text
    3 (1270,2848) ( 778, 199) (2048,2848) (128 ,178) Onaka Signature
    4 ( 710,2928) ( 274, 42) ( 984,2928) ( 61.5,183) Onaka Date
    5 (1836,2160) ( 228, 123) (2064,2160) (129 ,135) Reg. Gen. Date
    6 ( 432,2240) ( 216, 47) ( 648,2240) ( 40.5,140) Loc. Reg. Date
    7 (1458,1960) ( 70, 34) (1528,1960) ( 95.5,122.5) Non
    8 ( 735,2528) ( 217, 243) ( 952,2528) ( 59.5,158) Bottom Speckle
    9 (1050, 32) ( 142, 132) (1192, 32) ( 74.5, 2) Top Speckle”

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    Let’s see where NBC’s “train wreck” logic takes us…

    NBC still clings to the equivalence between DPI and PPI. We highlight this sentence of his.

    ” In fact, anyone who has studied the Xerox workflow would have realized that the alignment with the MCU (16×16 bit) was at 600 PPI, and therefore, a 8×8 bit at 300 dpi.”

    Notice that NBC uses “8 x 8 bit at 300 dpi” instead of 8 x 8 bit at 300 PPI. And we know that the non-background layers are 300 PPI.

    Thus again he mistakenly equates dpi and PPI. Evidently NBC lives in a Black & White world.

    So to test NBC’s warped logic he should be able to scan his LFCOLB copy at 1200 DPI and obtain MCU (32 x 32 bit) at 1200 PPI, and therefore, a 16 x 16 bit at 600 dpi image.

    NBC claims that 600 DPI –> 8 x 8 at 300 DPI = ? PPI.

    So NBC must also claims that 1200 DPI –> 16 x 16 at 600 DPI = ? PPI

    So let’s see the Xerox 7655 scan to PDF at 1200 DPI which should create 16 x 16 at 600 DPI.

    So put up or shut up.

  2. A typo I find myself correcting continuously. A very common imprecision of modern language, even found in product information.

  3. So let’s see the Xerox 7655 scan to PDF at 1200 DPI which should create 16 x 16 at 600 DPI.

    ROTFL. What if the max scanning resolution is 600? Poor Hermitian… He still does not get it. DPI, PPI, they are for the purpose of our conversation quite equivalent. If it is causing Hermitian problems, well… Those are the least of his worries..

    Hermitian knows that he is wrong about the 16 bit alignment at 300 ppi, there is no consistent evidence that suggests that Xerox or the WH LFBC have such an alignment.

    So Hermitian, what else do you have to raise against my workflow… I assume that you are saving the best for last

  4. NBC

    Not to worry about the scanning resolution NBC. The Xerox 7655 outputs up to 2400 DPI x 2400 DPI.

    So you are just one scan away from having egg all over your face.

    Let’s expand our trial matrix …

    NBC claims that 600 DPI –> 8 x 8 at 300 DPI = ? PPI.

    So NBC must also claims that 1200 DPI –> 16 x 16 at 600 DPI = ? PPI

    And then he must also believe that 2400 DPI –> 32 x 32 at 1200 DPI = ? PPI

    Oops! Make that two scans away from having egg on your face.

  5. Poor Hermitian, he still does not understand the concepts involved.

    He claimed that his data showed a 16×16 alignment at 300 ppi and yet, his data shows exactly what would be expected: about 1/4 of the edges will have an alignment at 16×16.

    Such confusion over such a simple issue, and now our friend is turning a small mistype into a strawman issue.

    I can safely conclude that our fearless warrior has run out of arrows.

    Fascinating behavior though. I had speculated as to how our friend would take the news, and so far it is following the classical patterns.

    I do thank you for your contributions to strengthening my workflow hypothesis.

  6. Yep… A diligent researcher could have found the specs, as I did, and would have formulated a coherent and consistent hypothesis.

  7. Reality Check says:

    August 21, 2013 at 18:04

    The WorkCentre 7655 specs are so difficult to find. It must have taken me a whole 20 seconds on Google.

    Scan resolution:

    600 x 600 dpi
    400 x 400 dpi
    300 x 300 dpi
    200 x 200 dpi
    100 x 100 dpi
    72 x 72 dp

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    An investment of only 20 seconds. That’s why you missed this Xerox 7655 spec.

    Duplex Automatic Document Handler (DADH) 250-sheet capacity
    Document Scanner
    Sides (input:output)
    1-1, 1-2, 2-2, 2-1
    Quantity
    1 to 9,999
    Resolution
    Scan at 600 x 600 dpi, output at 2400 x 2400 dpi

    That’s why my post referred to “output” at 2400 x 2400.

    But since I feel sorry for you lost souls, I’ll make this challenge reachable for the technically challenged.

    So how about a 600 DPI scan in B&W with no downsampling.

    Then if NBC knows his stuff then we will be able to comfirm his claim of (16 x 16 bit) MCU at 600 DPI.

  8. Scan at 600 x 600 dpi, output at 2400 x 2400 dpi

    That’s why my post referred to “output” at 2400 x 2400.

    Who cares about output my friend… Building strawmen again…

    Great to have you finally on-board…

  9. So how about a 600 DPI scan in B&W with no downsampling.

    Note that the MCU for 8-bit greyscale is 8×8, because there’s no downsampling from the chroma channels. This also holds for 1-bit B&W. Also note that a 16×16 MCU will still have internal 8×8 block boundaries. (This statement is made in regards to the JPEG standard, other standards may have different sampling block sizes)

  10. NBC

    I do when you equate DPI and PPI.

    The exact meaning of physical units are very important in the real world. You see Engineers have to get those right every time. Those who don’t worry about physical units tend to be sloppy investigators.

    See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter

    Encounter with Mars[edit source]

    Mars Climate Orbiter began the planned orbital insertion maneuver on September 23, 1999 at 09:00:46 UTC. Mars Climate Orbiter went out of radio contact when the spacecraft passed behind Mars at 09:04:52 UTC, 49 seconds earlier than expected, and communication was never reestablished. Due to complications arisen from human error, the spacecraft encountered Mars at a lower than anticipated altitude and disintegrated due to atmospheric stresses. Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter has since completed most of the intended objectives for this mission.

    Cause of failure[edit source]

    On November 10, 1999, the Mars Climate Orbiter Mishap Investigation Board released a Phase I report, detailing the suspected issues encountered with the loss of the spacecraft. Previously, on September 8, 1999, Trajectory Correction Maneuver-4 was computed and then executed on September 15, 1999. It was intended to place the spacecraft at an optimal position for an orbital insertion maneuver that would bring the spacecraft around Mars at an altitude of 226 kilometers on September 23, 1999. However, during the week between TCM-4 and the orbital insertion maneuver, the navigation team indicated the altitude may be much lower than intended at 150 to 170 kilometers. Twenty-four hours prior to orbital insertion, calculations placed the orbiter at an altitude of 110 kilometers; 80 kilometers is the minimum altitude that Mars Climate Orbiter was thought to be capable of surviving during this maneuver. Final calculations placed the spacecraft in a trajectory that would have taken the orbiter within 57 kilometers of the surface where the spacecraft likely disintegrated because of atmospheric stresses. The primary cause of this discrepancy was engineering error. Specifically, the flight system software on the Mars Climate Orbiter was written to take thrust instructions using the metric unit newtons (N), while the software on the ground that generated those instructions used the Imperial measure pound-force (lbf). This error has since been known as the “metric mixup” and has been carefully avoided in all missions since by NASA.[16]

    The discrepancy between calculated and measured position, resulting in the discrepancy between desired and actual orbit insertion altitude, had been noticed earlier by at least two navigators, whose concerns were dismissed. A meeting of trajectory software engineers, trajectory software operators (navigators), propulsion engineers, and managers, was convened to consider the possibility of executing Trajectory Correction Maneuver-5, which was in the schedule. Attendees of the meeting recall an agreement to conduct TCM-5, but it was ultimately not done.

    I have also observed that progressives tend to not live in reality.

  11. W. Kevin Vicklund says:

    August 21, 2013 at 19:38

    So how about a 600 DPI scan in B&W with no downsampling.

    Note that the MCU for 8-bit greyscale is 8×8, because there’s no downsampling from the chroma channels. This also holds for 1-bit B&W. Also note that a 16×16 MCU will still have internal 8×8 block boundaries. (This statement is made in regards to the JPEG standard, other standards may have different sampling block sizes)

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    My point exactly WKV. It’s how those 16 x 16 blocks align with the 8 x 8 blocks that I want to nail down. You see the WH LFCOLB mostly text layer aligns with both.

    But I don’t have a Xerox Workcenter.

    And you “scientists” have now resorted to scanning magazines and business letters. So my request should go right to the top.

  12. I do when you equate DPI and PPI.

    Since PPI is a subset of DPI, it’s like attacking someone for calling a canoe a boat.

    Also, “So how about a 600 DPI scan”? Tsk, tsk. Equating DPI with PPI, Hermie?

  13. If you scan at 600 PPI in B&W, it won’t do MRC. So no layers. So I’m not sure what the exercise will gain you. I guess it would tell us if the raw image dimensions are set to a 8×8 MCU, (I’ve speculated that the JBIG2 analysis is what causes the added rows of pixels in the background image), but it won’t give you any knowledge on alignments or 16×16 MCU.

  14. Also, “So how about a 600 DPI scan”? Tsk, tsk. Equating DPI with PPI, Hermie?

    I think I jut saw Hermie’s Orbiter crash.😆

    BTW the specs on the 7535 are

    Print (Output) Resolution up to 1200 x 2400 dpi
    Scan up to 600 x 600 dpi

    One of the test scans I sent to NBC was printed at the high resolution.

  15. RC

    “Also, “So how about a 600 DPI scan”? Tsk, tsk. Equating DPI with PPI, Hermie?”

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    Nope! NBC is the confused one on DPI vs PPI. I just echoed his claim and challenged him to back it up with a 600 DPI scan with no downsampling.

    Of course he won’t do that because he would then have to eat crow.

    I copied directly from the 7655 detailed specification.

    Duplex Automatic Document Handler (DADH) 250-sheet capacity
    Document Scanner
    Sides (input:output)
    1-1, 1-2, 2-2, 2-1
    Quantity
    1 to 9,999
    Resolution
    Scan at 600 x 600 dpi, output at 2400 x 2400 dpi

    Therefore the 2400 x 2400 output is from the scanner. One simply has to Print to PDF.

  16. Hint to Hermitian: there is no “Print to PDF” option on a WorkCentre. There is a scan to PDF on the network or email. Want to guess what the maximum resolution is? Could you explain to what you think the 2400 x 2400 refers?

  17. Therefore the 2400 x 2400 output is from the scanner. One simply has to Print to PDF.

    No, the output is from the printer. It is what gets put on the paper, not the electronic file. This is weapons-grade stupidity.

  18. Of course he won’t do that because he would then have to eat crow

    You still failed to understand what I was saying… Poor Hermitian, so lost in his own inability to understand.

  19. Hermitian has painted himself in yet another corner as he is unable to comprehend the workflow involved and how the maximum scanning resolution of 600×600 ppi sets the size of the MCU.

    He’s so funny.

  20. Actually, what Hermie cut&pasted is the specs for the copier, not the scanner.

    Such sloppy research… No wonder he has to be corrected so often.

  21. Therefore the 2400 x 2400 output is from the scanner. One simply has to Print to PDF.

    Wow, he really is quite clueless… So the maximum resolution for scanning is at 600×600 but you believe it can output 2400×2400?

    ROTFL… You are confusing scanning and printing…. Hilarious

  22. @ Kevin
    Hermitian thinks a Xerox can scan at 600 dpi then magically add the missing information and “print a PDF” at 2400 dpi. May I borrow your weapons-grade stupidity line? That was spot on.

    Sorry Hemitian but you do it to yourself. Are you the best the Birthers have? Can’t you send in Zullo or something?

  23. NBC

    Obviously you are wrong because the scanner outputs at 2400 x 2400 DPI not 1200 x 2400 DPI as RC claims.

    So if it can’t add useful information then why would Xerox do the 2400 x 2400 DPI output from the scanner software ?

    This kind of stuff has been done in the Television world for years. Sony has their DRC (Digital Reality Creation). Before Blu Ray most DVRs and DVD players could output at a higher resolution than the DVD media it was playing.

    And you call yourself an engineer ?

    Of course if NBC was correct about his “information theory for images” then every major manufacturer of TVs and DVD players would have just quietly folded their tents. Thank goodness they could tell a dot from a pixel. Maybe NBC should take a look at Sony’s technology including their unique CRTs.

  24. NBC

    You know it would be sooooo…. easy for you to prove your claims if you would just turn off the downsampling and scan your WH LFCOLB paper copy at 600 DPI. Then we could find out what the LFCOLB image would look like at 600 PPI X 600 PPI. Heck! I’ll give you a leg’s up. You can even do the scan in B&W.

    RC claims he supplied you a printout at 600 DPI. So we know for sure that your Xerox guy can do it. You just have to print to PDF.

  25. The DPI measurement of a printer often needs to be considerably higher than the pixels per inch (PPI) measurement of a video display in order to produce similar-quality output. This is due to the limited range of colors for each dot typically available on a printer. At each dot position, the simplest type of color printer can either print no dot, or print a dot consisting of a fixed volume of ink in each of four color channels (typically CMYK with cyan, magenta, yellow and black ink) or 24 = 16 colors on laser, wax and most inkjet printers.

    Higher-end inkjet printers can offer 5, 6 or 7 ink colors giving 32, 64 or 128 possible tones per dot location. Contrast this to a standard sRGB monitor where each pixel produces 256 intensities of light in each of three channels (RGB).

    While some color printers can produce variable drop volumes at each dot position, and may use additional ink-color channels, the number of colors is still typically less than on a monitor. Most printers must therefore produce additional colors through a halftone or dithering process. The exception to this rule is a dye-sublimation printer that utilizes a printing method more akin to pixels per inch.

    The printing process could require a region of four to six dots (measured across each side) in order to faithfully reproduce the color contained in a single pixel. An image that is 100 pixels wide may need to be 400 to 600 dots in width in the printed output; if a 100×100-pixel image is to be printed inside a one-inch square, the printer must be capable of 400 to 600 dots per inch in order to accurately reproduce the image.

    So to faithfully reproduce a scan at 600 x 600 dpi (and you can hardly blame NBC for using dpi instead of ppi when the Xerox literature uses dpi), the output of the printer needs to be at least 600*4 x 600*4 = 2400 x 2400 dpi.

  26. Hermitian wrote

    Obviously you are wrong because the scanner outputs at 2400 x 2400 DPI not 1200 x 2400 DPI as RC claims.

    Again your reading skills are poor. The printer output spec for the 7535 is 2400 x 1200 dpi. The same spec on the 7655 is 2400 x 2400 dpi.

  27. W. Kevin Vicklund says:

    “August 22, 2013 at 12:16

    “The DPI measurement of a printer often needs to be considerably higher than the pixels per inch (PPI) measurement of a video display in order to produce similar-quality output. This is due to the limited range of colors for each dot typically available on a printer. At each dot position, the simplest type of color printer can either print no dot, or print a dot consisting of a fixed volume of ink in each of four color channels (typically CMYK with cyan, magenta, yellow and black ink) or 24 = 16 colors on laser, wax and most inkjet printers.

    “Higher-end inkjet printers can offer 5, 6 or 7 ink colors giving 32, 64 or 128 possible tones per dot location. Contrast this to a standard sRGB monitor where each pixel produces 256 intensities of light in each of three channels (RGB).

    “While some color printers can produce variable drop volumes at each dot position, and may use additional ink-color channels, the number of colors is still typically less than on a monitor. Most printers must therefore produce additional colors through a halftone or dithering process. The exception to this rule is a dye-sublimation printer that utilizes a printing method more akin to pixels per inch.

    “The printing process could require a region of four to six dots (measured across each side) in order to faithfully reproduce the color contained in a single pixel. An image that is 100 pixels wide may need to be 400 to 600 dots in width in the printed output; if a 100×100-pixel image is to be printed inside a one-inch square, the printer must be capable of 400 to 600 dots per inch in order to accurately reproduce the image.

    “So to faithfully reproduce a scan at 600 x 600 dpi (and you can hardly blame NBC for using dpi instead of ppi when the Xerox literature uses dpi), the output of the printer needs to be at least 600*4 x 600*4 = 2400 x 2400 dpi.”

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    WKV I don’t know where you copied all of this from but some of it is correct. But in posting this you’ve pulled an NBC because you include inkjet and probably laser jet in addition to dry copy. So it’s way past time for you and NBC to stop waffling on your workflow and post the final version. The workflow must include the method used to print the copy to be scanned. To some extent, one can read the dot patterns and reverse engineer this step. I don’t recall that NBC ever mentioned the method used to print the paper copy that he scanned. For instance, was the copy printed on the same Xerox workcenter? There is much to be learned from this information and detailed examination of the printed copy and the scanned bitmap image. So this post of yours moves the ball in the wrong direction. You have added degrees of freedom when you should be removing them.

    Once the printing method has been specified then the next variable is the scanning resolution of the scanner and the selected pixel resolution for the scan to PDF image.

    Also, you should have posted this under NBC’s handle because he’s the one who doesn’t know a dot from a pixel.

  28. I checked HP’s high end multifunction machine specs. They are similar. They highest scan resolution is 600 dpi. The print resolution is 1200 x 1200. This is how they describe their ProRes 1200 printing:

    ProRes 1200 is a 1200 dpi technology employing 1200 dpi in both the vertical and horizontal axis. Because ProRes 1200 is used in printers specifically designed to provide 1200 dpi, the printer quality is superior to typical 1200 dpi printers in the market. ProRes 1200 also takes full advantage of the smaller toner particle size delivering superb image quality.
    ProRes 1200 uses four times as many dots as dpi. This means that the printer may require more memory to print a job. The print files generated by ProRes 1200 are usually larger, as much as two to four times larger than 600 dpi or FastRes 1200.

  29. NBC

    I guess I’ll just have to start re-posting all the earlier posts where you never answered my questions.

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

    “Hermitian: Following the Xerox Workflow”

    “Posted on July 30, 2013 by NBC
    [NBC: Introduction

    “Hermitian’s hypothesis is competing with the following.
    •The original long form birth certificate was scanned in, upside down, on a Xerox Work Centre, most likely 7655 because it has been shown that the White House owns such a device which produces the same finger prints as found in the WH LFBC PDF”

    “”Have you examined the color fringes in relation to the scan direction and diode sensors to verify that the image was scanned in upside down ? This would prove (or disprove) your upside-down theory.””

    “NBC: Interesting point. However I have done two experiments and compared the structure of the documents. If you can do a Diode analysis, you could perhaps put to rest my hypothesis… Just an idea..”

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    NBC has never compared his Preview generated image with the WH LFCOLB image to address my question regarding the color fringes. So he has never correlated the color fringes to his purported scan direction. So this is one important question that was never answered by NBC.
    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

    “”Also it’s not clear why you need to go there. Below you claim the the image is also upside-down when opened in Preview. Why am I not shocked that the image from scanning an upside-down document would be upside down?””

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    No answer for this very basic question.as yet.
    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

    “”NBC: Yes, this is essential to my hypothesis as someone had to save the document in Preview and this provides the rationale AND is supported by all evidence.””

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    What evidence? Why did someone have to save the document PDF in Preview?

    So you still maintain that the Xerox scan to PDF file is not device independent with respect to Adobe Illustrator ?

    I thought that you claimed that the image was portrait in Preview when the print to PDF file was written? Then why is the image landscape in Illustrator ? So you must be claiming that Preview is not device independent with respect to Adobe Illustrator?

    You are aware, I am sure, that the Xerox “Rotate 270″ command is not found in the PDF “wh-lfcb-scanned-xerox-7535-wcpreview.pdf” ? Nor is this Zerox “Rotate 270″ command found in the PDF “birth-certificate-long-form WayBack Machine 04-27-2011_17-11-11.pdf”?

    In fact the “Rotate 270″ command is only found in the PDF file “wh-lfbc-scanned-xerox-7535-wc.pdf”.

    Consequently, because Preview is purported to have removed the Rotate 270 (and replaced it with equivalent cm rotations to all layers) then it’s obvious that the problem (that the image opens in landscape orientation in Illustrator) is caused by Preview and not by the Xerox.

    However, the WH LFCOLB image does correctly open in the portrait orientation in Adobe Illustrator. And that PDF file does not contain the Xerox “Rotate 270” command.

    These findings proves that the Xerox / Preview combo just doesn’t have the right stuff.

    You claim that the image must have been scanned in upside down. Next you claim that the Preview operator saw that the image was upside down and then rotated it 180 degrees to right-side-up.

    However, if the document had been scanned right-side-up originally, then the Preview operator would have found that the image was also right-side-up. So if the original had been placed right-side-up, then a rotation of 180 degrees by the Preview operator would not have been required.

    I’m sure this “right-side-up” scan would have been the first trial scan that you made. So what did this “right-side-up” image look like when you opened the Preview print to PDF file in Adobe Illustrator?
    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

    “”Of course if you are correct, then that would be evidence that the Xerox 7655 is device independent with respect to MAC OS Preview. So why am I not shocked that a Cadillac Xerox Workcenter would be device independent with respect to MAC OS Preview “”

    “NBC: For the same reason I was shocked that you suggested otherwise..”

    “”After all probably millions of world citizens would have long ago brought any scanned image orientation problems in Preview to the attention of Xerox engineers.”“

    “NBC: Wow… that did take you a bit of time…”

    “”And it also seems logical that if the scanned image of a document placed upside-down on the glass produces an upside-down image in MAC OS Preview then a document placed right-side-up on the glass should then produce a scanned image that displays right-side-up in Preview.”“

    “”So What am missing here?”“

    “NBC: The step that the document was rotated and saved by the person who opened it and found it to be upside down.

    “•The Xerox Work Centre was instructed to use the standard profile for constructing a document and email itThe email was opened in Preview and it was found that the scan was upside down •This results in: •Initial scan of 600 DPI”

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    This last statement makes no sense.
    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

    “”I don’t know about you but when I scan a paper document with my Canon MFP I walk over to the MFP and place the Document right-side-up on the glass and push the scan button. The MFP automatically goes into standby so that I can walk back to my computer to activate the Scan with whatever software I happen to be scanning to.”“

    “NBC: You may not be too familiar with enterprise scanners/printers and copiers. They support an email workflow.”

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    So why would one use E-mail to transfer a PDF file to a networked computer on the White House LAN ?
    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

    “”Now if I notice that the image is upside down on the screen I make a mental note to never do that again and then use my editor to rotate the image to right-side-up and re-save the file.”“

    “NBC: Good for you but you have your scanner in your room.”

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    What difference does that make ? Didn’t you just claim that the Xerox operator and the Preview operator are one and the same person?
    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH


    •Separation into a jpeg background and multiple monochrome foregrounds
    •Alignment of two boundaries with 8×8 bit offsets
    •Alignment of two boundaries with internal object
    •Downsampling the background to 150 DPI
    •Downsampling the foregrounds to 300 DPI
    •Saving the JPEG with a quality factor of 47.48% with specific Quantization Matrix
    •Embedding a YCbCr comment into the generated JPEG
    •JBIG2 compression
    •Images are all in landscape direction”

    “”I thought you said that they were upside-down. Do you mean both landscape AND upside-down. So we’re back to the drunk paralegal ?”“

    “NBC: Internally these objects are stored in landscape form.. Sigh… Have you still not understood this?”

    “•The PDF was rotated in preview 180 degrees “

    “”I’m pulling up the digital compass on my cell phone.”“

    “NBC: 180 degrees means it is turned right side up, for those directionally inclined.”

    “•The PDF was printed to PDF (possibly with scale to fit set) •This results in: •PDF version is changed from 1.x to 1.3″

    “”NBC: You mean you didn’t first extract all the JPEGS from the PDF ?”“

    “Why should they? No evidence to support this.”


    •JBIG2 objects are now encoded as FlateDecode monochrome bitmaps
    •ObjStm objects are decomposed into multiple XObjects
    •/Rotate tag is replaced with cm level rotations
    •Metadata shows Preview creator/producer information
    •A clipping mask is added

    “”Can you prove that Preview added a clipping mask ? I thought that Preview did a crop operation.”“

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    Ditto — Can you prove that Preview adds the right number of cm rotations ?
    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

    “”I provided you with the PDF code that shows this. PS a clipping mas looks like a b c d re W n just in case you have not figured that out… If you have any questions about this, let me know”“


    •This PDF was made available electronically

    “Whew !!!”

    “”Time to charge the cell phone…”“

    “NBC: So far nothing to contradict my workflow. But it was a good opportunity for me to educate you as to the finer details…”

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    NBC is running out of time. He needs to post his workflow and Xerox and PDF files ASAP.
    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

  30. WKV I don’t know where you copied all of this from but some of it is correct. But in posting this you’ve pulled an NBC because you include inkjet and probably laser jet in addition to dry copy.

    “Probably” laser jet? Try “definitely” laser jet – that is the technology being used by the 7655. And dry copy doesn’t even enter the picture, though it’s possible that the 7535 scan was first printed on an inkjet. I’m not sure who provided that scan originally – it wasn’t NBC.

    To some extent, one can read the dot patterns and reverse engineer this step. I don’t recall that NBC ever mentioned the method used to print the paper copy that he scanned. For instance, was the copy printed on the same Xerox workcenter? There is much to be learned from this information and detailed examination of the printed copy and the scanned bitmap image.

    Of course, if the printer resolution is higher than 600 dpi, then little information will be gained on a 600 dpi scan, and even less if that scan is in B&W (and talking about degrees of freedom, is that true b&W or greyscale that you’re contemplating using?)

  31. I provided the WorkCentre 7535 scans. One was printed on an HP multifuntion machine at 600 dpi. Another was printed on the 7535 at 2400 x 1200 (highest resolution setting). While the scans were slightly different and had a different number of objects the differences were not substantive on the main objects.

  32. I don’t know how Hermitian expects anyone to read that gibberish he posted above and figure out which part is quoted and which is his. I am certainly not going to take the time.

  33. NBC

    ““Probably” laser jet? Try “definitely”” laser jet – that is the technology being used by the 7655.

    So the original that NBC is scanning was created by printing out the WH LFCOLB PDF image on a Xerox 7655 Workcenter ?

    Was this the White House 7655 WC ?

  34. Hell, Hermie can’t even keep track of his own arguments. Why do we expect him to be able to follow ours?

  35. I find it both depressing and amusing that Hermie thinks that a copier output of 2400 dpi means that you can save a 600dpi scan as a pdf at 2400 dpi (with matching level of detail).

  36. I provided the WorkCentre 7535 scans. One was printed on an HP multifuntion machine at 600 dpi. Another was printed on the 7535 at 2400 x 1200 (highest resolution setting). While the scans were slightly different and had a different number of objects the differences were not substantive on the main objects.

    Do you happen to know which one NBC used for the 7535 comparison?

  37. Also, you should have posted this under NBC’s handle because he’s the one who doesn’t know a dot from a pixel.

    ROTFL.. Poor Hermitian, he has nothing left to object to other than a minor mistyping on my part. That’s good… These are the final steps of denial…

  38. NBC has never compared his Preview generated image with the WH LFCOLB image to address my question regarding the color fringes.

    And neither has Hermitian done this. It’s a fool’s quest anyway since there was a much better way to determine the scanning direction. I am not sure why Hermitian is repeating some of his earlier and irrelevant postings but if these are examples of questions I have no addressed, then things look again quite good for my proposed workflow.

    If Hermitian believed that the color fringes could be used for something to debunk my position, surely he would have done the work and reported on it.

  39. WKV

    Do you happen to know which one NBC used for the 7535 comparison?

    I looked at the meta data and it appears the HP printed document was used since that was the first one I sent him. It was scanned in portrait orientation RSU using the document feeder.

  40. Hermitian: NBC is running out of time. He needs to post his workflow and Xerox and PDF files ASAP.

    I have posted my workflow and supporting PDF’s, and they all continue to support that a Xerox WorkCentre can create almost a dozen or so artifacts that were once seen as evidence of forgery.

    Hermitian’s incoherent attempt to raise issues has once again failed to address the workflow, and the evidence.

    I continue to appreciate his contributions, as they continue to help me strengthen my arguments.

  41. RC

    Let me help you out RC.

    The double quotes are my original comments that NBC copied.

    The single quotes are NBC’s

    The unquoted entries are my comments entered today.

    Happy Reading. It would be worth your time.

  42. Reality Check says:

    “August 22, 2013 at 15:55

    “I provided the WorkCentre 7535 scans. One was printed on an HP multifuntion machine at 600 dpi. Another was printed on the 7535 at 2400 x 1200 (highest resolution setting). While the scans were slightly different and had a different number of objects the differences were not substantive on the main objects.”

    Thanks for the feedback RC.

  43. Reality Check says:

    August 22, 2013 at 16:28

    WKV

    Do you happen to know which one NBC used for the 7535 comparison?

    I looked at the meta data and it appears the HP printed document was used since that was the first one I sent him. It was scanned in portrait orientation RSU using the document feeder.

    Thanks WKV ! That’s solid information.

  44. Happy Reading. It would be worth your time.

    Translation: A total waste of time as nothing relevant is raised.

Comments are closed.