Re: Compression, encoding, entropy

From: Alan Dechert <alan_at_openvotingconsortium_dot_org>
Date: Sun May 02 2004 - 14:44:50 CDT

Charlie,

> Alan I agree. If the information can be fit into a simple linear barcode
> it makes sense to keep it simple. I think a lot fo the discussion got off
> track resolving the distinction between not-wasting bits (optimal
> encoding) and compression (changing the average run-length).
>
Right. And while we're at it, we need to add printing to the list of
research questions. The testing we've done so far tends to indicate minimal
requirements for the printer when using 1-d Code128 barcodes. Although I
tend to think inkjet printers may not be the best way to go (lasers are much
faster and toner cartridges are better than inkjet), I was able to print
perfectly readable barcodes on my 6-year old HP Deskjet. The 1-d barcodes
came out fine on 300, 600, and 1200 DPI laser printers. We have not done
any testing printing 2-d barcodes so we just don't know enough. It seems
likely 2-d barcodes will have more demanding requirements for the printers.
So it might be that both the printers and the readers will be more
expensive. We just don't have enough information to make an informed
decision on this right now.

Alan D.
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Mon May 31 23:17:03 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon May 31 2004 - 23:18:15 CDT