I assume many of you host a DMS such as Paperless and use it to organise the dead trees you still receive in the snail mail for some reason in the year of the lord 2023.

How do you encode your scans? JPEG is pretty meh for text even at better quantisation levels (“dirty” artefacts everywhere) and PNGs are quite large. More modern formats don’t go into a PDF, which means multiple pages aren’t possible (at least not in Paperless).

Discussion on GH: https://github.com/paperless-ngx/paperless-ngx/discussions/3756

  • Saigonauticon@voltage.vn
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    I use JPEGs in a PDF. They can be mediocre quality. Using an OK scanner makes a big difference. It’s good enough!

    I’m required by law to keep physical paper copies for 35 years. So my parallel solution is a cursed filing cabinet, and several crates that describe the content of the filing cabinet. Its ugly, but saves me tons on data archiving, I guess?

    • loug@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Paperless has a tracking method for paper copies as well; i think the idea is you assign an archive number, then file it in the expected place (for example, 2023-01 to 2023-500 would be one of the 500 docs you get a year, then you put it in the filing cabinet in order from 1 to 500 under 2023). Then you can still search for document by name tag correspondent etc. in paperless and find the archive number.

    • AtemuOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Using an OK scanner makes a big difference.

      WDYM? The lossless scans SANE produces themselves subjectively look very good. My only issue is the transcoding to lossy formats I want to do in order to save >3/4 of the space.

      • Saigonauticon@voltage.vn
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oh, it’s common in my country to use a smartphone to ‘scan’ documents by actually just taking a lousy photo of them. It’s so prevalent that when you tell someone to do a scan they usually do this instead.

        I bought a cheap canon scanner for 50$ and it’s pretty perfect for legal documents. A little slow maybe. I use SANE, then do lossy compression too.

        In rare situations I’d then post process the PDF to even worse quality using ghostscript, for example when a foreign visa application form requires a scan of a really long document, but doesn’t accept sizes over 2MB.

        • AtemuOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I use SANE, then do lossy compression too.

          Well, what kind of lossy compression? JPEG?

          IME, JPEG looks quite terrible for text documents -even at q=95.

            • AtemuOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Hmm, I’m using grayscale PNGs as my baseline here. A 150dpi scan is about 1.3MiB.

              A (for the purpose of text documents) similar quality WEBP is about 1/4 of that.

              • kyle@infosec.pub
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                You could also try adjusting the contrast a bit. I use an app called Genius Scan, which increases the contrast of the scanned image to reduce the number of bits needed per pixel. This reduces the size of the file quite a bit, although it obviously isn’t a true representation of the scanned document. The TextCleaner imagemagick plugin looks like it’s doing something similar.

                • AtemuOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Yes, as I said.

                  As also mentioned in the post, I need a solution for multiple pages and an image (no matter what format) only represents a single page and WEBPs don’t go into PDFs.

  • kyle@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I’ve never used paperless but just checked it out and it looks pretty neat. My first thought would be to scan documents in a higher resolution, let the OCR happen, then convert the file to a JPEG or something smaller after you’ve extracted the text.

    I spent a few minutes looking at their wiki and it looks like it might be possible.

    Like I said though, no experience with this software so I’m not sure that’d actually work.

    • AtemuOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Interesting idea but I think I’d like to retain similar to original quality in case I wanted to redo OCR if/when Paperless’ OCR improves in the future.

  • flux
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    There is the DJVU format for this exact use case, but you’d need to convert them to, say, pdf for many use case. Its also a bit old and perhaps not maintained, soo…

    HEIF and other modern video encoders (HEIF=H265) should fare a lot better than JPEG, though.

    • AtemuOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Hm, DJVU seems like an ancient format and it also only supports JPEG and J2K as far as lossy formats go.

      I’d love to use more modern formats such as AVIF, HEIF or even WEBP but paperless doesn’t support some of them and images in general can only represent one page while many of my scans have multiple pages.

    • AtemuOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      And how do you encode the images of the scan contained in the PDF/A? That’s the crux here.

      • lemming007@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m not sure I understand. I just scan anything and let my software spit out PDF/A

        • AtemuOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          PDF/A is not an image format. As a document, it may contain images.

          • lemming007@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            My PDF/A documents contain all kinds of content, including text and images. To me, it doesn’t matter what format the encoded images are, as long as I can open them 20 years from now. Why would one care one way or another?

            • AtemuOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I care that the text remains readable (both to me and also software) and that I don’t balloon my storage out of control.

              JPEG (even at higher levels) subjectively degrades text in particular to a degree that I worry about the former and PNG makes me worry about the latter.

              My current plan is to go with the latter since storage is a relatively cheap issue to fix while data loss is pretty much permanent.