Is there any preferred format or resolution for uploading scans to the wiki?
I have been meaning to scan old Wacci issues for absolutely ages (as Gryzor knows) but think I can get round to it this month. I uploaded an issue last night. But I don't want to do 20-30 issues (or whatever the number was) in one format then have to do it all again!
The standard scan on the photocopier is 200x200 PDF but it's not fantastic quality. 400x400 looks good. 600x600 is probably perfect, but massive. It is much easier for me to do it as one file as I tried with a file per page before and that was what put me off.
I normally make the scans at 300dpi, and in this kind of fanzine on Black and White.
And save the pages on tiff of Black and white.
When I have all the pages I make a pdf file with all the pages of the fanzine.
Like here :
http://cpcwiki.eu/index.php/CPC_Forever_(Ireland (http://cpcwiki.eu/index.php/CPC_Forever_(Ireland))
http://cpcwiki.eu/imgs/1/1f/CPC_Forever_1_%28Irish_Fanzine%29.pdf (http://cpcwiki.eu/imgs/1/1f/CPC_Forever_1_%28Irish_Fanzine%29.pdf)
If you like make it like this, but you can do like you want.
The most important thing is do it.
If you have the first 30 issues of Wacci, I have all the rest, and I cand help you to finish all of them.
I put all the covers of the issues I have here, and is not complete:
http://cpcwiki.eu/index.php/WACCI (http://cpcwiki.eu/index.php/WACCI)
If you can complete all the covers left it was a good begining.
Hi,
On my scanner it can do PDF files from multiple pages, which is easiest for me - I can copy the whole magazine then scan the pages from the document feeder. I think 200x200 and 400x400 are options. I'll do it 300x300 (as you suggest) if it's an option, otherwise should I choose 200 or 400? The one I uploaded (see WACCI page) is 200x200 - good enough?
I promised to do this a while back (on a website that's not there any more) but I like the Wiki format so it will make me want to do it this time!
I don't have any Waccis as early as 1-30, more like issue 80+ I'm afraid!
Best wishes
Jonathan
Heya mate!
I'm looking at http://www.cpcwiki.eu/imgs/a/a2/Wacci_103_Page_11.jpg right now, and it looks absolutely fine to me. The thing is, for archival purposes, it's probably a shame to do something and not go for the full result... I don't know. What size does 400dpi give?
Hi!
I don't know how big a jpg a 400x400 pdf scan would create - I just uploaded a pdf and someone kindly split it into jpg files.
I expect it would be double the size.
If you like I can upload a few pages of each resolution so a decision can be made.
I won't get the chance until next week but am determined to do it this time.
I have the a4 photocopies of issue 103 now, so it will be easy to run them through the scanner again.
Is there a better gallery viewer extension for mediawiki? I found that the jpg images were just the wrong size (either too small to read or too big for screen). Not complaining - just wondering.
Best wishes
Actually it would be 4 times the size (you double both sides, hence 2x2=4), so it's considerable... If you can post a couple of examples it'll be great indeed.
I just told Terje to make printer manual scans not bigger than 400Kbytes/page. For screen viewing that size seems to give pretty perfect quality to me. Btw. aside from the resolution (dpi) one could also alter the quality of lossy formats (like jpg).
Personally, I prefer small but legible files. Something that can be downloaded and viewed at reasonable time (without take too much hardware resources).
For preservation - yeah, better resolution wouldn't be bad. With future faster computers people may ask WHY the pages haven't been scanned - at least - at 100MB/page :-)
---
If I would scan something... I'd probably take highest resolution... save the separate pages with increasing numbers in filename... and then use tools like the batch-conversion in irfanview to convert all files (at once) to a smaller size and/or more lossy quality. And for books, I'd finally use another tool to make a pdf of it. For magazines single jpgs may be more comfortable than pdfs.
Haha of course it would be 4x the size - stupid me.
Is there any way of uploading multiple files to the wiki at once?
Best wishes
Quote from: Jonathan on 00:00, 20 August 10
Haha of course it would be 4x the size - stupid me.
Is there any way of uploading multiple files to the wiki at once?
Best wishes
Unfortunately, none that works flawlessly. But maybe it's time I took another look!!
Had a look, too. Could this help, http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual_talk:Configuring_file_uploads#Multiple_Uploads ?
This is an old text, unfortunately... and one of the comments is actually mine. I'll try installing the extensions once more and see if they finally work now!
Hi, I just noticed that cpcwiki seems to have some provisions for uploading multiple files.
When I go to the upload-file screen, and, for example, enter this as source name:
"C:\file1.jpg","C:\file2.jpg"
I get a "too many files" ... "maximum is 1 file" error message.
But, it seems to recognize multiple names separated by comma.
Is it possible that one could somewhere change the limit from 1 file to a bigger number?
Unfortunately, not readily. This has been discussed a few times before and some efforts were made, but no satisfactory solution has been found. Soon as I find some time I'll give it another try...
I've just uploaded Wacci issues 104 and 105 and added links to the Wacci page. They are scanned as single files per issue, 200x200 PDF. I've kept photocopies of the issues, so it will be easy to rescan them (using document feeder) into another format at a later stage.
Sorry to resurrect this thread but I've just uploaded scans of Wacci issues 82-85 inclusive: http://www.cpcwiki.eu/index.php/WACCI#Issues (http://www.cpcwiki.eu/index.php/WACCI#Issues)
Best wishes
Jonathan
Sorry to resurrect? You're kidding, right? :)
Thanks for resurrecting this thread!
I've always wanted to have a read of WACCI, and I'll be able to now.
Thanks for your efforts.
Excellent with the uploads :-)
More issues please!!
/Ygdrazil
Quote from: ervin on 12:21, 20 March 11
Thanks for resurrecting this thread!
I've always wanted to have a read of WACCI, and I'll be able to now.
Thanks for your efforts.
I've added the following issues:
* March 1995
* December 1996
Also, I changed the links from File: to Media: because (1) they go straight to the file rather than the File page, and (2) this makes the 'WACCI' wiki page appear in File's 'File Links' section. I made this change in one edit so it will be easy to undo if you have your reasons for using File:
Best wishes
Jonathan
I agree with the change - this is a detail that's always bothered me, to tell you the truth... :)
Quote from: Jonathan on 20:47, 28 March 11
I've added the following issues:
Thank you for scanning these in - I am enjoying reading them. :)
Yes thanks for scanning.. very nice read :-)
/Ygdrazil
Quote from: redbox on 10:16, 29 March 11
Thank you for scanning these in - I am enjoying reading them. :)
Indeed - a really great fanzine in every aspect...
Wacci 86 (February 1995) has been uploaded. Happy memories!
I think a basic 200x200 PDF scan is the best for Wacci - it wasn't exactly high-resolution to begin with, and it's good to be able to download and browse a whole issue at once.
Well, probably, but as I've mentioned before, I think it's a shame to do half a job while you're a it and not do a high-res scan for archival purposes... If nothing else, lots of people (thinking about myself here :) ) actually print these scans!
I've uploaded some other scans here: http://share.cpcwiki.eu/209225 (http://share.cpcwiki.eu/209225)
Let me know what you like and I'll see what I can do.
For the 200x200 PDFs I've been using a 2-stage process:
1. Photocopy the Wacci using 'Dual page copy' (i.e. it turns the A3 spread into 2 separate A4 copies).
2. Feed the resulting pages into the document feeder to produce a single PDF file.
Taking into account the imperfections of the photocopier (you will see a small blemish on every other page), the low resolution of the original, the inability to get the pages perfectly square-on (without removing the staples I suppose) and the law of diminishing returns (higher resolution=bigger files=scanning in small groups=longer time but for not much difference in result), I decided on the 200x200 option.
If you can think of some way round the factors above then please let me know :)
In the meantime, I hope people enjoy having access to them again.
Sorry to resurrect an old thread (again) - nearly a decade, which may be a record - but it's just to note that there is a newer topic on the same subject: https://www.cpcwiki.eu/forum/general-discussion/wacci-issues/
Awesome :D