Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: butterdezillion

I’ve been lurking over at Fogblower and found a claim at a link posted there that Xerox has known for a long time that “character substitution” could result from using the lowest image quality setting. The machine even warns the user that this is possible! So this recent finding that an 8 was being replaced with 6, etc., didn’t pop up coincident with the CCP putting pressure on Barry.

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/08/confused-photocopiers-randomly-rewriting-scanned-documents/?comments=1

Posted by spicyjeff

I’ve contacted the researcher and pointed out on our affected device that I can replicate the problem with, that this only happens when the image quality is set to “Normal” (the lowest setting). When set to this level a specific warning does state that “character substitution” may occur. Why anyone at Xerox thought this was acceptable in any form for a scanner is beyond me.

But when the device is set to either of the next two higher levels, “High” and “Highest” respectively, the warning is not displayed and through testing we’ve confirmed the character substitution does not take place.

Last edited by spicyjeff on Mon Aug 05, 2013 6:46 pm


261 posted on 08/11/2013 6:16:55 PM PDT by Seizethecarp (Defend aircraft from "runway kill zone" mini-drone helicopter swarm attacks: www.runwaykillzone.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies ]


To: LucyT; null and void; Cold Case Posse Supporter; Flotsam_Jetsome; circumbendibus; Fantasywriter; ...

More confirmation from Xerox on compression errors that can result from industry standard JBIG2 compressor...

http://realbusinessatxerox.blogs.xerox.com/2013/08/06/always-listening-to-our-customers-clarification-on-scanning-issue/#.Ugg5f8XD_X4

Recently there have been articles about Xerox devices randomly altering numbers in scanned documents. We take this issue very seriously.

The problem stems from a combination of compression level and resolution setting. The devices mentioned are shipped from the factory with a compression level and resolution that produces scanned files which are optimized for viewing or printing while maintaining a reasonable file size. We do not normally see a character substitution issue with the factory default settings however, the defect may be seen at lower quality and resolution settings.

The Xerox design utilizes the recognized industry standard JBIG2 compressor which creates extremely small file sizes with good image quality, but with inherent tradeoffs under low resolution and quality settings.

For data integrity purposes, we recommend the use of the factory defaults with a quality level set to “higher.” In cases where lower quality/higher compression is desired for smaller file sizes, we provide the following message to our customers next to the quality settings within the device web user interface: “The normal quality option produces small file sizes by using advanced compression techniques. Image quality is generally acceptable, however, text quality degradation and character substitution errors may occur with some originals.”

Xerox is totally committed to customer satisfaction and with this feedback we will look for ways to help our customers better manage their scanning application needs.


265 posted on 08/11/2013 6:27:11 PM PDT by Seizethecarp (Defend aircraft from "runway kill zone" mini-drone helicopter swarm attacks: www.runwaykillzone.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies ]

To: Seizethecarp
I’ve been lurking over at Fogblower and found a claim at a link posted there that Xerox has known for a long time that “character substitution” could result from using the lowest image quality setting. The machine even warns the user that this is possible! So this recent finding that an 8 was being replaced with 6, etc., didn’t pop up coincident with the CCP putting pressure on Barry.

Aw big bummer for Fogbow DUmmies.

Hey, is it an "H" or is it an "X" that is the question!

3 out 4 isn't bad. :^)

266 posted on 08/11/2013 6:28:21 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies ]

To: Seizethecarp

I’d have to check again, and right now my desktop is having problems so it’ll be a hassle to do the checking (besides the fact that I’ve wasted way too much time on this already and have way too much I should be doing instead. GRRR), but IIRC the German researcher said they found that the problems exist on the higher-quality settings as well, and on a BUNCH of other versions of Xerox copiers - some of which had no warnings.

But just looking at the context that he gave - where a schematic was drawn to scale but the numbers listed right by a certain figure were obviously way off - I can’t see how this could have been happening on all these machines for almost 10 years and nobody raised heck with Xerox about it in all those years. How many tax audits have been done with these substitutions taking place and yet no auditor caught that the 6’s and 8’s were switched around randomly? I’d like to know what calculators they’ve been using, that the numbers all magically balance even when some of them are randomly switched out.

And another question - why was somebody scanning this important document on the lowest quality setting in the first place?

Also, why didn’t the short-form scan have the same stuff happen to it? Why was there no green background, layers, etc on that, when they “scanned” the COLB to show the world? For that matter, why aren’t the 6’s and 9’s substituted in the long-form, since the German researcher showed that this particular Xerox machine does that quite frequently ?

No, there are still WAY too many things that just don’t make sense.

It makes no difference to me whether the Xerox machine explains the digital anomalies because it’s still got the wrong security background AND Onaka still refused to verify that the White House image is a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file”. We’ve already got our legal answer. So this is really neither here nor there. But I’m interested in it because the way these claims came up smells fishy to me - including details involving some people I believe may have been involved in setting up the disinformation.

It’s actually the same situation as with the birth announcements. It really doesn’t matter whether the birth announcement was in the paper or not, but when I saw the signs of forgery and the now-proven disinformation about where the images really came from it showed how corrupted the entire system is and the desperate lengths to which they were willing to go to get ANYTHING credible to substantiate the fake birth story.

Next we’re going to find out that the computer switched out the 6’s and 3’s on Obama’s tax return’s SSN and it’s been doing that on all the tax returns filed and in all their fine-toothed audits the IRS just hasn’t noticed that wrong SSN’s have been used for the last 10 years...


270 posted on 08/11/2013 6:52:32 PM PDT by butterdezillion (,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson