In article , RJH
wrote:

I'd agree. To the point that I don't think they are scans - at least the
ones I looked at. I'm sent print proofs for some editing that I do, and
they look to be of that order of quality. Maybe Jim's looking at a
couple of rogue examples?

I looked at the earliest. This is a patchwork of bitmaps and overlaid OCR'd
text. I used pdfutils like pdfimages to examine the contents. The patchwork
images are jpegs.

So what you see with a PDF rendering program will depend on the rendering.

I guess this may vary from one of the files to another.

The main problem for future historians and academics is how to *know* the
results are always perfectly accurate when they may have no access to an
original or a plain scan. If they need to refer to a more 'reliable'
version then they may as well use that!

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html