On Thu, 18 Jan 2018 13:11:32 -0400, Leon Fisk
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Jan 2018 10:18:52 -0500
Ed Huntress wrote:

snip
Of course, coming from the publishing business, I've been using
Acrobat from day one, for authoring and editing, and for print
production as well as for online readers. So I recognize what they
could be doing with Acrobat and my guess is that they just did a poor
job with the photos on that Acrobat copy of "Foundations."

Curious to know if the original scan material is better. I've mucked
through some smaller sets of raw data before. You will probably find
skewed pages and a few other warts. They show it was scanned at
300dpi. The better looking docs are usually done at 500dpi. Post a
little follow up about what you found if you get a chance

I looked at the JP2 images and they look the same as the PDF. It was
in the scanning, probably in the way the grayscale threshholds were
set. They look like photostats.

--
Ed Huntress