[HN Gopher] Xerox scanners/photocopiers randomly alter numbers i...
___________________________________________________________________
Xerox scanners/photocopiers randomly alter numbers in scanned
documents (2013)
Author : SergeAx
Score : 455 points
Date : 2021-11-15 04:47 UTC (18 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.dkriesel.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.dkriesel.com)
| jl6 wrote:
| Interestingly, we have seen in the last week in the Rittenhouse
| trial an example of a judge taking a hyper-skeptic position on
| technology - namely, distrusting the zoom feature because it
| might add in extra information not present in the original image.
|
| It's easy to ridicule this, and I do think that particular
| judge's thought process was rooted in ignorance rather than
| plausible paranoia, but it's not hard to see how cases like this
| Xerox bug sow the seeds of distrust in the non-tech populace.
| There really isn't a lot of clear daylight between "the scanned
| copy might be different to the original" and "the zoomed version
| might be different to the original".
| megous wrote:
| Skype can replace your "background" in realtime, so why
| ignorance, when regular users are using these video
| modification features all the time?
| syshum wrote:
| IMO the Rittenhouse claim is not paranoia at all, Other
| analysis of that same video has definitely proved that what the
| prosecution is claiming is taking place is not taking place at
| all,
| ryanmonroe wrote:
| The discussion around zoom becomes a lot less ridiculous when
| you see the video still they wanted to zoom in on. The
| prosecution wanted to zoom in in this video for the jury and
| argue Kyle was raising his gun and not his arm at that point in
| time. With this resolution, and the importance of that question
| to the trial, it makes more sense that the judge was being very
| cautious about zooming in.
|
| https://i.imgur.com/pTY58LW.jpeg
| wodenokoto wrote:
| With AI up-ressing, zooming can definitely add new information,
| so the judge is not far off.
| 83457 wrote:
| Sounds like the reverse of ignorance.
| georgesw wrote:
| If you watched the trial, the reason the judge was skeptical is
| because the expert witness present to explain the process
| responded "I don't know" when asked to explain how the image
| enlargement works and admitted it adds additional unknown
| information.
|
| The judge further clarified by using an analogy, breathalyzers
| are often used by cops who dont know how they work, but the
| breathalyzers machine has already been judicially accepted as
| reliable evidence. This is not the case for upscale images.
| dinkelberg wrote:
| In my view, it has become necessary to place some distrust in
| digital images due to the ML video processing that is being
| applied nowadays. Artificial neural networks are being used to
| "upscale" video footage, that is, to create footage that
| appears to have a higher resolution than the source material.
| It is clear that these methods can introduce artifacts
| ("details") into images that were "dreamt up" by the artificial
| neural network.
|
| I do not know how this relates to this specific trial, but if I
| were a judge I would want to rule out that footage used as
| evidence was manipulated by "AI".
| anonu wrote:
| > was rooted in ignorance
|
| Not sure I follow. Someone questions a technical process
| because it might add extra information seems like a fairly
| cogent thought and awareness of tech. Even if it's not
| described or discussed in technical terms.
| kzrdude wrote:
| Yes I think it's good if the judge has a deep respect for
| "There might be things I don't know here" instead of jumping
| to judgment
| jl6 wrote:
| I just meant that I think the judge simply has no idea of how
| computers draw images to screens, and that he wasn't making a
| sophisticated argument about the risks of AI-based upscaling
| or unverified closed source software or some other kind of
| techno-trickery.
|
| And furthermore that this isn't a slight on him, given how
| hard it is for the public to divine exactly how technology
| works, as illustrated by Xerox.
| post_break wrote:
| Ignorance and skepticism are completely different things.
| jasode wrote:
| _> an example of a judge taking a hyper-skeptic position on
| technology - namely, distrusting the zoom feature because it
| might add in extra information not present in the original
| image._
|
| Some mocked the judge but here's an example where an AI
| upscaling algorithm added a human face that was never there:
|
| https://petapixel.com/2020/08/17/gigapixel-ai-accidentally-a...
|
| For terminology trivia, that algorithm seems to be doing a
| human version of _pareidolia_
| :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia
|
| EDIT: based on some replies I see, my cite isn't to claim that
| Apple iOS is using AI enhancement during zoom to add fake
| pixels. The point is to consider why the judge (who is not a
| computer programmer) is skeptical. Therefore, his request for
| _expert testimony_ to rule out that the zoom function doesn 't
| add false information is not that unreasonable.
|
| In other words, what's obvious to a HN tech audience doesn't
| always apply to judges who don't have the same technical
| knowledge of how zoom algorithms actually work. So considering
| the judge's state of mind, the "fact" that iOS zoom doesn't add
| false incriminating pixels isn't a _fact to his level of
| satisfaction_ unless the prosecutors bring in an expert to
| confirm it.
| croes wrote:
| Does the iPad zoom function any upscaling?
| ImprobableTruth wrote:
| You can't zoom without upscaling in some form. If you zoom
| in on an image in your browser, the image gets upscaled.
| It's going to be using a simple form of upscaling (default
| is bilinear), but it's still upscaling.
| _djo_ wrote:
| AI-driven upscaling which fills in pixels using data from
| other images is quite different to algorithmic
| interpolation that only uses the available information in
| the image being worked on.
| ImprobableTruth wrote:
| Both can introduce wrong information or cause artifacts.
| "It only uses the available information" is a red
| herring.
| gifnamething wrote:
| Then this is a problem inherent with digital photography.
| Any image you see is interpolated from Bayer data. There
| are multiple algorithms with different results, the
| colour needs to be adjusted, and the camera distortion
| needs to be reversed. All of this happens before you see
| anything on your screen.
| _djo_ wrote:
| A zooming or scaling algorithm that only uses available
| image data is deterministic, it should get the same
| result every time.
|
| One that relies on a neural network trained on other
| images is not, it might produce a subtly different image
| each time it's run and introduce artefacts from other
| images.
| numpad0 wrote:
| Neural network _is_ deterministic, in the same sense that
| bilinear interpolation is deterministic.
| ImprobableTruth wrote:
| What? Not only is this a bizarre argument (why would
| deterministically creating wrong information be okay?),
| it's not even correct. There's nothing that fundamentally
| prevents an image scaling NN from being deterministic and
| I doubt you think that deterministically adding someone's
| face would be fine, right?
| _djo_ wrote:
| 'Wrong' information, if it's expected, understood, and
| predictable, is still usable. Especially if we know it's
| not going to introduce completely alien artefacts into an
| image like Ryan Reynold's face.
|
| All of the standard zoom algorithms fall into that
| category. Whether bilinear, nearest neighbour, or
| similar, they're all going to produce similar outcomes
| with which, importantly, a teenaged witness on the stand
| will be familiar. Same with the way TVs upscale content.
|
| It's not like this is new evidence being introduced in
| its zoomed-in form. It's an iPad and footage or images
| being used in the same way prosecutors and defence
| attorneys have used them for years when cross-examining
| witnesses.
| jschwartzi wrote:
| The reason it's okay to be deterministic and wrong in
| engineering is because it's a lot easier to explain the
| conditions under which the wrong result will be produced
| and how you can identify those situations in the specific
| photo. The reason I think a simple resize that
| deterministically adds misinformation is better than a
| neural network is because I can calculate the bounds
| under which the algorithm produces wrong information and
| label the image. And I can do that without running the
| algorithm.
| andrepd wrote:
| What stops a neural network zoom to be just labelled as
| "zoom"? I think its a very pertinent question from the
| judge.
| _djo_ wrote:
| Asking a question is fine, accepting the defence's claim
| without further substantiation and the rest of the follow
| up is less so.
| jtbayly wrote:
| And how do you resolve conflicting technological claims
| from the defense and prosecution? By expert witness.
| Which is what the judge did. So what's the problem?
| _djo_ wrote:
| That's not what happened. The judge placed the burden of
| proving that zooming didn't do that on the prosecution,
| and only afforded them a few minutes to find an expert
| witness.
|
| In the end the iPad was not used.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| Untill iPad is open source, you can't trully know what
| they did to the image
| masklinn wrote:
| > You can't zoom without upscaling in some form.
|
| Of course you can, by having the image originally be
| displayed downscaled for instance. The back camera of
| your average phone has a much higher resolution than its
| display, or most computer displays for that matter.
| londons_explore wrote:
| While as far as I know no pinch-to-zoom software does this
| today, I can totally imagine that in just a few years it
| might be common for pinch-zoom in browsers and photo gallery
| apps to do AI upscaling.
|
| Remember, for most users, a photo only has to be as accurate
| as their own memories. If extra detail is added to make the
| photo look better, it doesn't matter as long as it isn't
| detail the user remembers differently.
| ben-schaaf wrote:
| Apple already uses AI to enhance photos with their Deep
| Fusion and Google makes even more use of AI in their Pixel
| 6. Added detail where it doesn't exist seems like a very
| reasonable concern.
| cm2187 wrote:
| And in a trial you only need to slightly modify a facial
| expression to affect the outcome. Imagine if some defendant
| appears to smile while a victim describes its ordeal.
| IshKebab wrote:
| Yes I point that out on this very recent submission where
| it actually does modify the expression of a tiger:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29202899#29213771
| _djo_ wrote:
| Anyone would be supportive of judges being cautious over
| upscaling, which we know has the potential to introduce false
| information because it's doing inference and interpolation.
|
| Zooming is another issue entirely.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| Last time we in UK court assumed that prosecution's claims
| about technology could be trusted, we sent 200 (!!)
| innocent people to jail
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Post_Office_scandal
| ImprobableTruth wrote:
| How do you think zooming works?
| Twisol wrote:
| If the pre-zoomed image was already downscaled (e.g. to
| fit a small display), then up to a point, zooming should
| simply downscale _less_ , i.e. remove fewer pixels.
| Beyond that point, yes, a zoom would have to perform some
| kind of interpolation.
|
| In the CSI "zoom and enhance", anything beyond the
| simplest forms of interpolation would be part of
| "enhance", which is to say, not part of "zoom".
| ImprobableTruth wrote:
| Even downscaling uses interpolation, but sure. The zoomed
| in part definitely wasn't shown at its native resolution
| though.
|
| And bilinear interpolation is as simple as you can get
| besides nearest neighbor, yet it still has the potential
| to introduce wrong information/cause artifacting. So even
| in the "CSI" sense, zooming can cause issues (unless you
| want to argue that only nearest neighbor is CSI
| 'zooming'? But then not even browsers do only CSI
| 'zooming').
| _djo_ wrote:
| As Twisol said, zooming doesn't inherently require
| interpolation. But when it does require interpolation,
| it's usually an extremely simple and well-understood form
| like nearest neighbour interpolation that's not going to
| result in things like faces being inserted.
|
| It also only uses the available data in the image itself
| on which to work.
|
| It's fundamentally different from neural network-driven
| inference and interpolation that attempts to fill in
| pixels using evidence from _other_ images that the
| network has been trained on.
| ImprobableTruth wrote:
| This is just pivoting. _In this case_ zooming uses
| interpolation which "has the potential to introduce
| false information" exactly as you mentioned. It using
| only the available data doesn't mean that interpolation
| can't go wrong. So what if it's not AI?
|
| And yes, it's so well understood that the prosecution had
| no idea of what's going on, claiming that it's "common
| sense" that it works just like a magnifying glass, which
| is simply wrong. Using bilinear (or bicubic)
| interpolation makes the edges of an image blurrier,
| especially when you're zooming in as much as they did on
| low-quality footage.
| _djo_ wrote:
| Come now, you're reaching. The defence attorney
| specifically claimed that "iPads, which are made by
| Apple, have artificial intelligence in them that allow
| things to be viewed through three dimensions and
| logarithms." and "[The iPad] uses artificial intelligence
| or their logarithms to create what they believe is
| happening. So this isn't actually enhanced video; this is
| Apple's iPad programming creating what it thinks is
| there, not what necessarily is there."
|
| Aside from the confusion about logarithms, where I
| presume he meant algorithms, and the false claim about
| 3D, the defence was making a claim about _artificial
| intelligence_ being used to upscale the footage. Which is
| inaccurate, and a specific claim being made that 's
| unsupported by any evidence.
|
| Funny enough, the same sort of question arose with regard
| to a crime scene image that was enlarged by the state's
| forensic lab, but a simple explanation of the mechanism
| used was deemed sufficient.
| ImprobableTruth wrote:
| I'm reaching? Like, why would the defense's wrong
| argument be relevant? You're not arguing with the defense
| here.
|
| Your claim was that the judge's call is wrong because
| zooming doesn't actually do interpolation and has thus no
| potential to introduce wrong information. I've told you
| that zooming in this case _does_ interpolate and that
| interpolation has the potential to go wrong.
| jschwartzi wrote:
| When interpolation goes wrong it's predictably wrong,
| which is not true of more complex algorithms using AI. If
| we can predict how it goes wrong we can extract the
| meaningful information from it.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > Aside from the confusion about logarithms, where I
| presume he meant algorithms, and the false claim about
| 3D, the defence was making a claim about artificial
| intelligence being used to upscale the footage. Which is
| inaccurate, and a specific claim being made that's
| unsupported by any evidence.
|
| With AI being used in ever more parts of technology, it
| is _not_ surprising that a layperson wants to clarify if
| such technology is being applied here.
|
| Apple has been advertising the usage of AI in dealing
| with photos ("Deep Fusion" of 2019 IIRC), so the
| suspicion is warranted.
| Kye wrote:
| And recently made a huge deal about applying it to video
| in newer phones.
| _djo_ wrote:
| I think you may want to read the transcript.
|
| Also, things like Deep Fusion are capture-time
| technologies, they don't alter the photo or video each
| time it's viewed. There's also already precedent in US
| courts for handling automatic enhancements applied to
| digital camera evidence.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > Also, things like Deep Fusion are capture-time
| technologies, they don't alter the photo or video each
| time it's viewed.
|
| _We_ know that. A random old judge? Any random you pick
| on the street for a survey? Probably not. All they heard
| is something about AI and photos.
| ectopod wrote:
| Great. So the zoom feature is showing information
| fabricated at capture time. How does that help?
| iainmerrick wrote:
| How is a non-expert, and somebody whose job specifically
| requires them to be sceptical and to question unstated
| assumptions, supposed to be _sure_ of that?
| _djo_ wrote:
| It's a simple enough thing to verify, or require the
| defence (in this case) to substantiate the claim without
| throwing out the method of showing evidence entirely.
|
| Courts have to deal with questions like this all the time
| and handle them well enough. Technology isn't magic, nor
| do we have to go down a rabbit hole on each point about
| what _might_ be there rather than what is there.
| trothamel wrote:
| This inverts the burden. The prosecution proposed the
| exhibit, and so the burden is on them to show that
| everything about it - that the chain of custody was
| valid, that the processing done on it was meaningful - is
| correct. It's not the defense's place to prove them
| wrong.
|
| All of the other evidence was processed through forensics
| software, and displayed on Windows laptops. Then, at the
| last minute, the prosecutor asks to show this late-
| discovered evidence on an iPad. Watching the trial, that
| felt suspicious - why should this one piece of evidence
| be shown in a novel way?
| _djo_ wrote:
| It's not a new exhibit being introduced, and the zoomed
| in form is not evidence. Therefore there's no chain of
| custody question.
|
| It was being used to show the footage to the witness on
| the stand, in order for them to explain what's shown on
| it. As has been done in American courts hundreds of times
| before.
|
| Now sure, the witness and prosecution or defence could
| argue that a witness doesn't need to make guesses about
| what they're seeing on zoomed in low-quality footage when
| under cross-examination. That happens all the time, too.
|
| What doesn't happen every time is for iPads to be
| rejected for this purpose because of magical AI
| 'logarithms' inventing imagery.
| trothamel wrote:
| I believe this was entered into evidence separately from
| the video as a whole:
|
| https://twitter.com/frostycharacter/status/14597224299498
| 782...
|
| That means the jury will be able to see this as its own
| exhibit. (It may have been assigned two exhibit numbers.)
|
| And I'd say it makes sense. Each additional processing
| step can change the image. For example, if one used the
| waifu2x algorithm to scale the image up, that would
| certainly be wrong.
| syshum wrote:
| >>and handle them well enough.
|
| I would argue they DO NOT handle them well enough at all,
| and I have a feeling that if the person on trial had a
| different political affiliation you would also be
| claiming they do not.
|
| Courts routinely get technology wrong, and use this the
| send innocent people to prison all the time. I would say
| the courts get technology related evidence wrong more
| than they do correct.
| _djo_ wrote:
| > I have a feeling that if the person on trial had a
| different political affiliation you would also be
| claiming they do not.
|
| That's an _ad hominem_ argument. In truth I don 't care
| who's on trial, as the outcome of this specific trial is
| at this point an American culture war & politics issue
| that I'm uninterested in.
|
| I am interested in how well courts handle technology and
| whether either prosecutors or defence attorneys can throw
| a wrench in proceedings with fanciful woo like "iPads,
| which are made by Apple, have artificial intelligence in
| them that allow things to be viewed through three
| dimensions and logarithms", and have that tolerated by
| judges who themselves are often technologically
| illiterate.
| syshum wrote:
| That is not a direct quote, further it is telling you are
| not pointing out all the ways the prosecutors are using
| technologically illiteracy to manipulate both the judge
| and the jury into a false narrative about what actually
| happened.
|
| Sure the defense in this case is fucking terrible, no
| arguments there, they are 100% technologically
| illiterate.
|
| That however does not excuse the complete and utter
| perversion of the truth the prosecution is attempting to
| claim as "evidence"
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| It is not magic, but, as other posters alluded, sometimes
| it can be merely an educated guess. It is hard to accept
| a life changing verdict based on a guess.. even if it is
| an educated one.
|
| So no, each time a given technique is used, the way it
| works has to be explained so that a decision based on
| facts of the case is made.
| _djo_ wrote:
| Nothing wrong with that, but a common sense explanation
| by an expert witness ought to be enough. Does Apple need
| to be dragged into each and every case to testify as to
| how pinch to zoom works, as was demanded here?
|
| Courts have established mechanisms for handling technical
| questions around evidence. It's not like any of this is
| new.
| jtbayly wrote:
| All that was required _was_ an expert witness, right? So
| what's the problem?
| _djo_ wrote:
| The judge did not give the prosecution time to find an
| expert witness, did not ask his clerks to search for
| similar usage of iPad zooming in previous cases, and did
| not require the defence to provide expert testimony of
| their own to substantiate their claim.
|
| In the end the iPad was not used. Instead a 4K TV was
| used, which ironically probably upscaled the image too.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| The judge does not provide clerks for research. The party
| introducing the evidence does that.
| _djo_ wrote:
| This wasn't a new evidence exhibit being introduced. Did
| you actually read the transcript, or are you reacting to
| this story based on what you've read elsewhere?
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| "In the end the iPad was not used. Instead a 4K TV was
| used"
|
| Okay, so what's the issue then?
| vidarh wrote:
| It's only fundamentally different until some image
| manipulation program chooses to label AI driven
| interpolation as zoom.
|
| Language is malleable, and so while it may be paranoid to
| question a feature labelled as zoom now, it's an open
| question how long that will last.
| _djo_ wrote:
| It was a claim made by the defence, which the judge
| insisted that the prosecution prove the absence of,
| rather than requiring the defence to substantiate.
|
| That's not how technical claims of that nature are
| normally handled.
| snickerbockers wrote:
| >That's not how technical claims of that nature are
| normally handled.
|
| That's because criminal law is purposefully biased in
| favor of the defense. If the prosecution wants to argue
| that they defendant appears to be pointing his gun at
| somebody when they zoom in on a photo with an ipad then
| they need to prove that the ipad's software can be
| trusted to do so reliably. If there are programs that can
| upscale images by creating new data then they need to
| prove that the photo app on their ipad is not one of
| those programs.
|
| This should have been done with a program that is open to
| scrutiny (and ideally one that's open-source) so that the
| algorithm used to upscale the image is known. It's not
| enough to just assume that the ipad uses bilinear
| interpolation when there's a reasonable doubt that it
| could be using another algorithm.
| ImprobableTruth wrote:
| The prosecution presented modified evidence, claiming
| that the modification doesn't change it, which the
| defense objected to. Why would the burden of proof not
| fall on the prosecution?
| _djo_ wrote:
| Zooming into a video using the built-in feature on a
| device is modified evidence now? We'd have to rerun a
| bunch of trials in that case.
|
| The fantastical claim was from the defence. Onus should
| be on them to prove it, rather than making the
| prosecution prove a negative.
| core-utility wrote:
| What does "built-in" have to do with anything? The entire
| point of the issue was that it _wasn 't_ just zoom in, it
| was enlargement (think upscaling). The software has to
| actively interpolate and add pixels where it thinks
| they're necessary in order to do so, and that changes the
| image. In most cases, it's probably not a big deal. But
| when it's from a nighttime camera of a person several
| hundred feet away that's only a few pixels in the
| original frame, there's a lot to go wrong there.
| stefan_ wrote:
| What do you think happened when they watched the video
| material on a screen? Are you by any chance caught up in
| some politics over this case to make such a ridiculous
| suggestion?
| _djo_ wrote:
| 'Built-in' matters it's not custom software used by the
| prosecution on which no expert could be consulted.
|
| It's also likely that precedent testimony exists on using
| an iPad to zoom into an image or video in other cases.
| ImprobableTruth wrote:
| So if in 5 years the iPad really uses AI when zooming,
| it's perfectly fine because it's a built-in feature? What
| an absurd argument.
|
| And both the prosecutions and defense's claims were
| fantastical, unsubstantiated (beyond some incorrect
| 'common sense' handwaving) and wrong - so since it's the
| prosecution that wants to enter new evidence, it's
| perfectly fine to ask them to back to it up. This isn't
| 'proving a negative', it's just asking them to prove that
| what they said (that zooming doesn't change the
| evidence).
| _djo_ wrote:
| This wasn't 'new evidence', it was an iPad being used to
| play a video for Rittenhouse during cross-examination, in
| which he was being asked to describe the events being
| shown.
|
| Both prosecutors and defence attorneys have used the same
| mechanism countless times in previous cases, without
| issue, because it is actually common sense that pinch to
| zoom is not going to substantively change what's shown in
| a video like that.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| There was not a question regarding visual facts
| previously. Much of the video usage was used to either
| establish timing or things someone said.
|
| In this case the prosecution wanted to significantly zoom
| into very grainy footage to ask about an object a few
| pixels wide, on footage so grainy the prosecution
| couldn't identify the face of their own lead witness.
|
| The defense raised the question regarding zooning
| altering or adding pixels and the judge said flatly he
| didn't know. All the prosecution had to do was bring in
| an expert on video to explain how zoom works - or have
| the expert do a non-fractional proportional zoom.
| snickerbockers wrote:
| I wonder how reliable even the source video is at pixel-
| scale? If it's encoded with something like MPEG then not
| every macroblock is updated every frame, and even if it
| was then there are still compression artifacts created by
| the discrete cosine tranform.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| "is actually common sense"
|
| Everything is common sence untill it isn't.
|
| Its common sence that you can't take over control of a
| car over the internet and kill everyone in it, that acess
| to a website that shows realtime location of half of US
| polulation would at least be properly protected, that a
| car's accelerator pedal doesn't cause random and
| unpredictable effect thanks to spagghetti code, that when
| Fujistsu charges a postman for theft, they are not just
| covering up bug in their tracking and accounting
| software.
| cobbal wrote:
| Most states use a form of common law, which is completely
| based on what is common practice and what is common
| sense. Or at least was in England hundreds of years
| ago...
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| That does not mean we ask Joe Blogs what his common sense
| tells him about highly technical subjects, whether that's
| effects of sniffing glue, bank interest accrual or image
| upscaling algorythms
| willis936 wrote:
| The issue is the expert who was brought it in was not an
| expert. They failed to answer even the simplest of questions
| related to upscaling and did nothing to inform the court of
| the nature of the upscaling used.
|
| https://www.usnews.com/news/technology/articles/2021-11-11/b.
| ..
| baryphonic wrote:
| Some important context I didn't see in the tech press: the
| previous day, the prosecution violated Rittenhouse's Fifth
| Amendment rights and various other due process rights while
| questioning him on the stand. At one point, the prosecution
| attempted to defend themselves by arguing to the visibly angry
| judge that they had a "good faith explanation." The judge
| responded, "I don't believe you."
|
| From what the judge has seen in this trial, the prosecution has
| shown it will stoop to any low to get prejudicial evidence in
| front of the jury. I don't blame him at all for not just taking
| the prosecution's word for the veracity, authenticity and
| provenance of the photo.
| ufmace wrote:
| Thanks. This is critical context for this case for why
| requesting this level of verification of evidence, which
| might be considered a stretch in normal circumstances, is
| much more justifiable in this case.
| djsbs wrote:
| I wouldnt be surprised if he declares a mistrial with
| prejudice. The 5th amendment stunt they pulled was jaw
| dropping.
| wongarsu wrote:
| There's a lot of work being done on deepfake-like video
| compression (e.g. Nvidia [1]). The judge might be unnecessarily
| distrustful today, but give it a year or two and his worry will
| be very warranted.
|
| 1: https://geekologie.com/2020/10/nvidia-creates-ai-video-
| compr...
| 14 wrote:
| Look at how easy it is to make a deepfake [0]. How can we
| effectively fact check in a world where visualization of the
| facts is the most dominant form of confirmation and now we can
| fake that? [0] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5uoKvSryN4o
| [deleted]
| thepasswordis wrote:
| The complaint about that video was completely valid, and it's
| shocking to me that technically literate people are mocking the
| judge's [and defense team's] apprehension about it.
|
| The prosecution was arguing about what essentially came down to
| the location of 1-2 _individual pixels_ that were present
| _after the image had been interpolated_. Basically: the pixels
| that the prosecution were trying to argue showed the pointing
| of a gun were:
|
| 1) Only apparent when the image was "zoomed" (interpolated) in
| exactly the manner they wanted to use.
|
| 2) Not apparent in any of the videos or photos which were taken
| closer to the place they were talking about.
|
| The prosecution is depending on the idea that a computer can
| see more than a human can, and "enhance" a photo in such a way
| that shows something that nothing else does. It is absolutely
| ridiculous. Here is the image (linked above) which was itself
| cropped from a much larger image, and taken from about 150
| meters away, at night, from the tiny sensor on a drone camera.
| zoomablemind wrote:
| Quite disturbing to learn about such "artifacts" from a big-name
| mfgr. More so, that this was a known to them issue at the release
| time to be mentioned in user manual!
|
| By the way, reading the blog post I stumbled on quite a few minor
| typos (like "arrors" for "errors" etc.). Should be easy to fix,
| but in a way this adds more emphasis and mood to the content...
| hanniabu wrote:
| I foresee many legal cases being reopened due to this
| czechdeveloper wrote:
| This article is about 8 years old, so I don't think it's going
| to happen.
| MiddleEndian wrote:
| So many software problems can be summarized with "All you had to
| do was nothing!"
| josefx wrote:
| Or implement the specification instead of just skimming it. As
| far as I remember they skipped several safeguards that would
| have prevented this problem when they implemented the
| compression algorithm.
| DonHopkins wrote:
| Yah, I've used some lame-assed JSON parsers whose authors
| thought they knew it well enough in their head that they
| didn't bother looking at the nice spec that laid it all out
| for them in black and while.
| megous wrote:
| Originally, many years ago, JSON didn't have a complete and
| unambiguous spec. It was just some webpage on some random
| website.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| OneTimePetes wrote:
| And destroyed the legal viability of several scanned document
| archives in the progress. If you have any contracts/legal binding
| documents that were archived with this technology, you may appeal
| them at any time.
| Arwill wrote:
| In retrospect, this gives me validation of why i always
| disliked to scan documents to PDF instead of to just JPEG.
|
| But large document archives are traditionally done with TIFF,
| and should still be done like that.
| OneTimePetes wrote:
| So true, should store the unaltered raw-data-picture as
| scanned.
|
| Its actually nightmarish.
|
| A silent corruption of court-documents, stored plans and
| land-records, patent-filings with the originals often
| permanently gone.
|
| Contracts that can be nulled and voided by a hostile party on
| this basis by simply challenging the document on basis of the
| archiving process.
|
| A error so deep and systematic, it even mangled the birth
| certificate of the us-president when it was scanned. The
| whole affair is a huge advertisement for keeping written
| records and avoid digitization, same as voting machines.
| mindslight wrote:
| A raster image in a PDF uses the same exact JPEG compression,
| most likely.
|
| I didn't like any of the existing Linux scanning solutions,
| so I built my own paperless management tool. I was evaluating
| different compression algorithms for keeping authoritative
| masters and was eyeing JPEG2000 (I hate JPEG artifacts). But
| in the end I decided to go with FLIF, which is lossless.
| Despite its lower amount of battle testing, being lossless
| allows me to run a sha256 on the decompressed image and know
| that it is exactly what I had scanned in.
| mindslight wrote:
| I believe I have actually been bitten by this bug, or something
| very similar. I had an IRA transfer go completely awry because
| the check was sent to the wrong PO Box. I typed out the
| transfer form with an address with the digit "5" (xournal is
| awesome). When I was tracking down the problem, the rep said
| that the digit on the transfer form was unquestionably a "6".
| Despite how farfetched it seems, it seems like their document
| management system perfectly changed that digit in this manner.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| Previous discussion:
|
| 8 years ago / 112 comments:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6156238
|
| 6 years ago / 22 comments:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9584172
| lixtra wrote:
| Also 2 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29206833
| djsbs wrote:
| I posted another one 2 days ago, vis a vis the Rittenhouse
| trial. I was in a rush but I wanted to post something
| demonstrating how the fidelity of digital tech can be
| misleading.
|
| In my post I just picked the first main stream media outlet
| (CBC in my post). today's post is much better.
| eesmith wrote:
| And another 2 days ago:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29207278
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| I wonder what caused so many people to link this 2013
| article all of a sudden?
| cheschire wrote:
| There's controversy currently regarding whether pinch-to-
| zoom alters images for a current ongoing court case.
|
| It's borderline gaslighting at this point. I imagine it's
| causing some people to do some extra deep digging while
| they try to reassure themselves that they do actually
| know a thing or two.
| nefitty wrote:
| Maybe there should be a tool that shows or aggregates
| related discussions onto one page...
| kergonath wrote:
| I am not sure whether you are being sarcastic but there
| is, in a way. If HN detects that you are posting a
| duplicate, it just brings you to the previous story. It
| seems easily confused, though.
|
| Otherwise, if you have a doubt after posting a story, you
| can click on the website name next to the title to see
| other stories from the same website, which is another way
| of seeing duplicates. Of course, this is easier with
| websites that don't get 20 stories a day.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| It's fairly hit-or-miss. I happened to see the story in
| the new queue, thought it sounded familiar, and checked
| on its age.
| nefitty wrote:
| I was being sincere. Sarcasm doesn't play well here,
| beyond even the standard problems of written
| communication.
|
| I thought maybe post deduplication "expires", and links
| are let through for discussion again x-weeks later. I
| also noticed dang posts these "previously discussed"
| links often, if not preempted by other users. I don't
| know whether to upvote or downvote those because it
| contributes to the convo but indirectly and with low-
| effort. Therefore I figure an automation might be worth
| the hassle.
| DonHopkins wrote:
| There are many people who believe that dang is an
| automated robot AI!
|
| Previously discussed:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25227906
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18865276
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29024525
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26308945
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19157839
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28355861
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24278472
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21897355
|
| Personally, I think of him more like Palmer Eldritch,
| with three stigmata of a robotic right hand, artificial
| eyes, and steel teeth, who has returned from an
| expedition to the Prox system, in possession of a new
| alien hallucinogen Chew-Z to compete with Can-D.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three_Stigmata_of_Palme
| r_E...
|
| Once you hear Jean-Michel Jarre's and Lauri Anderson's
| secret lyrics, you can't unhear them:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_x-v8KamefA
|
| Heed the Android Sisters' dire warning:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeerjrFjgT8
| dang wrote:
| Not a robot and definitely not a cop:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBE9TZP26FI.
| DonHopkins wrote:
| Definitely not a cop. Probably just a stripper! ;)
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Gp1qPsM6Os
| effingwewt wrote:
| Everything about this comment is _too good_! I 'd never
| heard either song before, but I'd definitely argue Dan is
| at _least_ half robot. I think one would have to be to
| keep a cool head while doing such a (mostly, 'cept for
| all the' thanks dang!'posts- also written by AI, I'm
| sure) thankless job.
|
| This is how our robot overlords begin the takeover-
| hiding in plain sight, pretending to be one of us, while
| secretly gaining more and more power over us.
|
| Do they pay him with silicon upgrades? Does he dream of
| electric sheep?
|
| Are _we_ the electric sheep?
|
| 'They Live' was a warning...when we put on the google
| glasses will we see their real metal skin?
| DonHopkins wrote:
| The Android Sisters answer questions about Androids and
| Electronic Sheep:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NP8bOqTAco0
|
| Album: Songs Of Electronic Despair (1984)
|
| THE AWESOME FUTURISTIC KITSCH OF THE ANDROID SISTERS:
|
| https://dangerousminds.net/comments/songs_of_electronic_d
| esp...
|
| >Since 1982, the ZBS Foundation (ZBS= "Zero Bullshit")
| has been producing a sci-fi/detective hybrid radio drama
| called Ruby, the ongoing adventures of Ruby the Galactic
| Gumshoe. The show is a fun listen, and since its history
| is documented elsewhere, we shan't dwell on it here, as
| the series itself doesn't concern us so much as does a
| pair of its supporting characters: The Android Sisters.
|
| >Exactly like it says on the box, the Android Sisters are
| robotic "siblings"--conceit and name both lifted from
| Philip K. Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?--
| whose role in the show is to deliver pointedly satiric
| songs, rendered in a unison speak-sing intonation by
| actresses Ruth Maleczech (sometimes credited as "Breuer"
| --married name?) and Valaria Wasilewski. Though it's a
| pretty one-dimensional schtick, their acutely '80s synth
| songs were sufficiently listenable to merit an album in
| 1984. Released on the typically more rootsy Vanguard
| label (it was the home of Joan Baez and Buddy Guy, among
| others), Songs of Electronic Despair contained eleven
| goofy examples of what people in the '80s thought the
| future sounded like, and many of the songs directly
| address the themes of mechanization and alienation with
| which a lot of the synth musicians of the era seemed
| obsessed. Really, much of this stuff is in the same zone
| as the work Laurie Anderson was up to back then--and
| Anderson was once an artist in residence at the ZBS
| Foundation.
|
| >A second album, Pull No Punches, was issued in 2003, but
| the most accessible music available from the Android
| Sisters is their 2004 best-of, which is still in print on
| CD.
|
| Android Sisters Playlist:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ab0vApijEBM&list=PLqc7dhQ
| XRc...
| dredmorbius wrote:
| Clearly, the DonHopkins bot needs to tune its "dang
| robot" filter as that list turns up several false
| positives.
|
| (One of which is by the dang robot itself ;-)
|
| This comment has been a service of the dredmorbious bot,
| a/k/a Robby.
| dang wrote:
| It indeed does that, but only if the previous submission
| got significant attention. Otherwise we allow dupes
| through. This is on purpose, to give good submissions
| multiple chances at getting attention and mitigate the
| randomness of what gets liftoff from /newest.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| Thanks I'd missed that.
|
| Ony 6 comments, though numerous updoots. I usually consider <
| 10 comments minor. HN does permit reposts after a seemly
| interval.
| andrefuchs wrote:
| He gave a great talk about it at CCC about the issue.
| https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7FeqF1-Z1g0
| underdeserver wrote:
| In German, unfortunately.
| MegaThorx wrote:
| There is a english version of it there https://media.ccc.de/v
| /froscon2015-1524-lies_damned_lies_and...
| ddtaylor wrote:
| YT link for anyone who cares
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0O6UXrOZJo
| tromp wrote:
| One thing that bugged me in this otherwise awesome talk, is
| that the setting with values normal, higher, and high is
| called Quality, but the speaker keeps calling it
| Compression. This is very confusing, since quality degrades
| with increasing compression.
| namibj wrote:
| The official source [0]'s video file has an en voicover that
| was captured from the live voicover translation provided by a
| skilled volunteer at the conference. Use VLC or mpv, if you
| can't find the audio track selection option in your player.
|
| [0]: https://media.ccc.de/v/31c3_-_6558_-_de_-
| _saal_g_-_201412282...
| PinguTS wrote:
| Sorry, but years ago we hadn't such great subtitles team as
| we have these days. Remind you, that the whole conference is
| run by volunteers.
| Farbklex wrote:
| One of my favourite talks. Very entertaining. I've watched it 3
| times already.
|
| He also has a talk about mining data from German Railway
| (Deutsche Bahn) which is good.
| PinguTS wrote:
| Please always use the official CCC source, which is
| media.ccc.de [1].
|
| The Youtube channel is there only, because people didn't
| respected the unwritten rules and put the content on Youtube
| anyway. But we like to distribute the content always from its
| original source, also with privacy in mind.
|
| [1] https://media.ccc.de/v/31c3_-_6558_-_de_-
| _saal_g_-_201412282...
| [deleted]
| orf wrote:
| 4.8 million people viewed the talk on that YouTube video
| alone, as opposed to 50k on ccc.de.
|
| The "unwritten" rules end up hugely restricting the
| dissemination of this, and other, awesome content on
| ideological grounds that not everyone feels as strongly about
| as you and the CCC.
|
| So do upload it to YouTube and anywhere else, spread the
| knowledge and link to whatever you please.
| TonyTrapp wrote:
| YouTube keeps recommending this video to me again... and
| again... and again... :-) But it's a really great talk! Worth
| re-watching every once in a while.
| lifeisstillgood wrote:
| I used to scan documents that I wanted to keep, but frankly now I
| just take a photo on my phone. It's easier usually (pace
| dropboxes terrible interface), there are robbaly loads of apps to
| help, but imo, that's a whole class of hardware that's has been
| disrupted.
|
| Who else used to use scanners?
| jhoechtl wrote:
| Scanners have the advantage not to distort the image what a
| photo inherently does. I do not know if today's phone cameras
| regard the spherical distortion, but I doubt as this would
| require to have several distance measures I guess those cameras
| don't have.
| Sayrus wrote:
| I used to use CamScanner. The scanning mode will take a
| distorted document, find the edges and output a "flattened"
| document. For me, this was usually more than enough to look
| like a scan.
| ydant wrote:
| > CamScanner
|
| And then it got bought and malware added.
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20818177
|
| These days on Android, Google Drive's scan functionality
| works just as well as CamScanner used to. I use it for a
| lot of cases where I'd previously use a proper scanner -
| it's good enough most of the time.
|
| Or even Google Lens / Google Camera does a decent job of
| scanning in the special scan document mode, although you
| have to rely on the software actually recognizing that's
| what you're trying to do to get the button to show up to
| start the process.
| watt wrote:
| It just doesn't matter - the only thing that matters is if
| the text (information) that's being imaged is readable for
| person receiving it.
|
| Apps like Office Lens will undistort the pic and it just
| looks good enough. (App knows you are taking a picture of A4
| page, so it knows how to make it look straight + white.)
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| Sometimes it does matter - a particularly small font, a
| colour document, watermarks, etc. Can render it unsuitable.
| cameronh90 wrote:
| I always have issues with lighting and reflections when using a
| camera. Scanners have the advantage of uniform controlled
| lighting.
| vidarh wrote:
| A cheap lightbox with an opening for the camera would be
| interesting.
| kiryin wrote:
| I used to use scanners, until I bought a new Brother laser
| printer and discovered that the scanner feature requires a
| proprietary driver on the computer end. It's sad as Brother
| printers tend to work really well with linux, for printing at
| least.
|
| Since then I've written an ImageMagick script that converts
| phone photographs of documents into reasonably convincing
| "scans."
| piquadrat wrote:
| I have a networked all-in-one HP printer that can scan to a
| network share on my NAS. On the NAS, I set up a watcher script
| that runs OCRMyPDF [1] on any incoming PDFs. That gives me a
| super easy workflow, just feed documents into the scanner and a
| minute or two later, I have a fully OCRd PDF in my network
| share.
|
| [1]: https://github.com/jbarlow83/OCRmyPDF
| lifeisstillgood wrote:
| oh - that sounds interesting - I could do similar for items
| hitting my dropbox thank you !
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| "YOU HAD 1 JOB, XEROX. 8 JOB."
| [deleted]
| skmurphy wrote:
| Related https://www.dkriesel.com/en/blog/2013/0909_xerox_money He
| acts with integrity and just wants the problem solved. He takes
| no money but he does accept non-monetary assistance from a number
| people interested in or affected by the bug.
| WalterBright wrote:
| I find compression algorithms to be frustratingly bad.
|
| For example, my scanner has an 8 color compression mode. Great!
| So I scan in a piece of paper printed in 3 colors - black, white,
| and, say, green. The green comes out as a dithering of multiple
| colors. Why can't the compression format figure out what are the
| dominant 8 colors in the scan, put out a table of the RGB values
| of those 8 colors, then compress to 8 colors? This would look and
| work great for an awful lot of scans.
|
| Another problem is b/w photos mixed with text. Setting the
| scanner to staic level black/white pixesl works great for text,
| but terrible for photos. Setting it to greyscale works great for
| photos, but terrible for text. Oh how I wish it would recognize
| greyscale areas and use greyscale for them, and black on white
| text areas and use static black/white pixels for them.
| kzrdude wrote:
| So what was Xerox's response? Was it really nothing, in public?
| PinguTS wrote:
| They issued a PR [1] after long talks with David acknowledging
| the problem. Then updated that article over time. The later
| released a bug fix.
|
| [1]
| https://web.archive.org/web/20130811004759/http://realbusine...
| svdr wrote:
| Also from Xerox: an encoding mechanism for a unique number
| represented by tiny dots spread over the entire print area.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_Identification_Code
| kiryin wrote:
| I've read about this so much, I wonder if B/W printers have
| anything similar? Is there a secret yellow cartridge somewhere
| in my printer that I don't know about?
| oldsecondhand wrote:
| This is for color printing only to track potential money
| counterfeiters.
| cromulent wrote:
| Modern printers refuse to print/copy money anyway, right?
| At least ours did when we went to print some money for a
| themed Christmas party.
| hyperman1 wrote:
| Can you counteract it with adding random yellow dots to a scan?
| And if you only print black/white, does it still print yellow
| dots?
| namibj wrote:
| For the latter: yes. Unless your printer doesn't have a
| yellow print head.
| FractalParadigm wrote:
| Given theres been controvery in the past regarding HP (and
| others, likely) printers refusing to print B/W when the
| colour ink is empty/missing[0], its highly likely that yes,
| they're still printing yellow dots on B/W stuff.
|
| [0]: https://support.hp.com/ca-en/document/c04331666
| michaelt wrote:
| The refusal to print without colour ink could just be the
| vendors shaking down their customers for cash.
|
| Just like there are printer-scanners that won't _scan_ if
| the ink is empty.
| DonHopkins wrote:
| The iSmell developers were hoping to make money the same
| way, by selling big smell combination pack cartridges
| that you have to entirely replace after any one of the
| smells ran out.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISmell
|
| >The iSmell Personal Scent Synthesizer developed by
| DigiScents Inc. is a small device that can be connected
| to a computer through a Universal serial bus (USB) port
| and powered using any ordinary electrical outlet. The
| appearance of the device is similar to that of a shark's
| fin, with many holes lining the "fin" to release the
| various scents. Using a cartridge similar to a printer's,
| it can synthesize and even create new smells from certain
| combinations of other scents. These newly created odors
| can be used to closely replicate common natural and
| manmade odors. The cartridges used also need to be
| swapped every so often once the scents inside are used
| up. Once partnered with websites and interactive media,
| the scents can be activated either automatically once a
| website is opened or manually. However, the product is no
| longer on the market and never generated substantial
| sales. Digiscent had plans for the iSmell to have several
| versions but did not progress past the prototype stage.
| The company did not last long and filed for bankruptcy a
| short time after.
|
| This Wired Magazine article is a classic Marc Canter
| interview. I'm surprised they could smell the output of
| the iSmell USB device over the pungent bouquet from all
| the joints he was smoking:
|
| You've Got Smell!
|
| https://www.wired.com/1999/11/digiscent/
|
| >DigiScent is here. If this technology takes off, it's
| gonna launch the next Web revolution. Joel Lloyd
| Bellenson places a little ceramic bowl in front of me and
| lifts its lid. "Before we begin," he says, "you need to
| clear your nasal palate." I peer into the bowl. "Coffee
| beans," explains Bellenson's partner, Dexster Smith.
| [...]
|
| >"You know, I don't think the transition from wood smoke
| to bananas worked very well." -Marc Canter
|
| The failed quest to bring smells to the internet
| (thehustle.co)
|
| https://thehustle.co/digiscents-ismell-fail
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17476460
|
| DigiScent had a booth at the 1999 Game Developers
| Conference, with scantily dressed young women in skunk
| costumes.
|
| I told them about a game called "The Sims" I had been
| working on for a long time, and was hoping to finish and
| release some time soon.
|
| They unsuccessfully tried to convince me to make The Sims
| support the iSmell, and even gave me a copy of the SDK
| documentation, because they thought it would enrich the
| player's experience of all those sweaty unwashed sims,
| blue puddles of piss on the floor, stopped up toilets in
| the bathroom, and plates of rotting food with flies
| buzzing around on the dining room table.
| noisy_boy wrote:
| > This is not an OCR problem (as we switched off OCR on purpose),
| it is a lot worse - patches of the pixel data are randomly
| replaced in a very subtle and dangerous way: The scanned images
| look correct at first glance, even though numbers may actually be
| incorrect.
|
| I have a habit of scanning invoices/statements/manuals etc to pdf
| and found the above quite alarming. Though I don't use Xerox (my
| scanner is Epson Perfection V39), I never considered the
| possibility that a scan of a document can result in altered
| numbers. How do I know if my scanner could also be affected in
| case it uses similar underlying software/setup?
| abrichr wrote:
| From the article:
|
| > In the next section, there is a a short manual for you to
| reproduce the error and see of you are affected.
| dinkelberg wrote:
| You should be safe if your scanner uses either JPEG, lossless
| JBIG2 or other lossless compression.
|
| If however it uses lossy JBIG2 compression, it is quite
| possible that it suffers from the same problem, due to how
| lossy JBIG2 compression works.
| dreamcompiler wrote:
| TFA suggests that Xerox was offering the option of lossless
| JBIG2 compression but they implemented it incorrectly -- they
| didn't include the delta blocks that described how individual
| image blocks differed from canonical patterns.
|
| Which brings up another point: How did Xerox's SW development
| process take place? Was it done in-house with frequent code
| reviews or was it outsourced to a low bidder and then thrown
| back over the wall with no real quality assurance process?
| kevinpet wrote:
| This isn't the kind of issue a code review would catch.
| Code review will find when the code isn't written to
| standards or doesn't look maintainable. It isn't going to
| catch a subtle misuse of a technique that should be valid.
| flatiron wrote:
| the review should also be reviewing the tests, and you
| should really have a test if you have a standard.
| tablespoon wrote:
| > the review should also be reviewing the tests, and you
| should really have a test if you have a standard.
|
| Codes reviews and unit tests aren't a substitute for QA
| or acceptance testing. It's great when code reviews do
| catch stuff like this, but that's not going to catch
| everything. To me this bug points to deficiencies in
| another part of the process.
| zoomablemind wrote:
| I wonder if this may be also a problem with Samsung MFPs, as
| some Xerox consumer models were apparently OEM'd by Samsung
| (e.g. Samsung SCX-4200 vs. Xerox 3119, or was it the other way
| around?). Not sure if there's a list which links the Xerox-
| Samsung similar models.
|
| I guess, if the scanner offers JBIG2 format option, it may need
| a test at least.
| TomMasz wrote:
| Xerox purchased a number of small desktop and larger machines
| from Samsung, including the one you mention.
| andi999 wrote:
| Keep the originals.
| superjan wrote:
| If you scan in color/grayscale, it can't use JBIG2 compression.
| The machine will likely use JPEG for lossy compression, could
| result in less crisp scans, but it eliminates this risk.
| askl wrote:
| Or you could use JBIG2 with reasonable settings.
| colinfinck wrote:
| From the original post: "numbers seem to be mangled
| independently from the compression mode, which makes the
| issue hard to avoid"
| ace2358 wrote:
| Reasonable settings meaning no compression setting which
| was mentioned to not have the issue
| texasbigdata wrote:
| Thanks would love a 45mb one page PDF
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| I would love not to send a scanned document with
| different numbers to my accountant, or to the IRS for
| that matter.
| dinkelberg wrote:
| What the author refers to are the three available
| compression modes on Xerox scanners, which are "normal",
| "higher", and "highest". It is not clear what that means
| exactly, but it is possible that all three of those are
| lossy compression modes.
|
| In my opinion, the only reasonable mode for JBIG2 is
| lossless, as the lossy mode of JBIG2 is, in general,
| prone to these character mangling issues. File sizes for
| lossless JBIG2 compression are already very low, so I
| would claim that using lossless is almost always worth
| it, unless character mangling is explicitly not a
| problem.
| m3at wrote:
| The author was using default settings, I think it's fair to
| call the defaults reasonable
| CodesInChaos wrote:
| These issues will become much prevalent due do AI based image
| enhancement/upscaling, which can invent details which aren't
| there in the original.
| aquanext wrote:
| I'm just absolutely dumbfounded that a bug like this could ever
| be allowed to ship.
| b8 wrote:
| I don't purchase Xerox printers due to their not so great
| history. [1][2]
|
| 1. https://gigazine.net/gsc_news/en/20200720-cia-spies-xerox-
| ma...
|
| 2. https://arstechnica.com/information-
| technology/2017/06/how-a...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-11-15 23:03 UTC)