Interesting concept. However there are a few issues that surface quickly (this is all assuming a feed through scanner and not a flatbed).
#1 - It rotates AND scales to fit. It's not obvious until you rotate a stupid amount, but pages don't shrink when scanned for real.
#2 - The scanning rotation is way too uniform. Most scans twist a bit, typically near the top when more of the page is in the scanner to straighten it out.
#3 - With #2 there should be some stretching/skewing that isn't uniform.
#4 - The noise is way too uniform as well. It looks like static. Typical scanned documents have noise that is much more variable. You also get other scanning artifacts like streaks for dirt on the scan head.
#5 - The page ends often aren't even and introduce artifacting as well.
#6 - Needs an option for chewed up staple corner and/or holepunch.
> The noise is way too uniform as well. It looks like static.
This was my first question whether the noise is absolutely random and inconsistent, otherwise it would be very easy to detect by "authorities" who is insisting on manual scans.
I just had to do this dumb dance with TD Ameritrade. I did a coin toss on print/scan v.s. learning to do this with ImageMagick. Since I had a bunch of other deadlines to hit I wasted paper so they would accept my electronic submission.
Personally, from a workflow standpoint I'd prefer a PDF Printer driver that would add the effect. I'm sure the website is better for Mobile.
My biggest concern with an online service is privacy (either bad actors or the web app getting hacked). I used an online mortgage service that was fully paperless with the exception of a single document. Just ran it through a few imagemagick commands to add rotation, noise, contrast, etc. My home printer wasn't working so it was either that or buy a whole new one.
> My biggest concern with an online service is privacy
In this case it's all run client-side. You're still trusting that the code you're served wasn't maliciously replaced, but if you want to be careful you could run it in an incognito tab and temporarily disable your internet connection.
That got weird fast (caution NSFW). It looks like an interesting project, but then it quickly devolved into a PDF filled with drawings of penises. Quite unexpected, glad I wasn't viewing it with my students in the room lol.
I still have to deal with bureaucracy that requires wet signatures. I've tried a few tools like this one, but no bueno. They could tell it was "digitally signed".
Very nice. On thing I would like to see a rotation range for multi page PDFs. A 10 page document won't all be identical rotation. One might be -0.2 and the next 0.3.
How is a web page app better than a shell script you can run yourself? Of course, any old port in a storm – if you can’t run a shell script, this is better. But if you can run things yourself, you should. A shell script will stay on your file system and not disappear in a couple of years when the original author either gets bored with it or decides to make it proprietary.
A friend of mine got a letter from his neighbor's attorney bitching about his tree or something stupid. So he literally wiped his ass with it and then took a picture of it and emailed it back with the body of the email saying thanks, I was running out of TP.
There's something extremely wrong with your implementation as it just takes too much to render every page.
I've done plenty of work in the past with both canvas and pdf.js (which is what you're using) and it shouldn't be that slow, at all. Perhaps you have a rogue loop that's calling a very expensive function on each pixel of every page, maybe?
Who knows, but for sure performance on that could be near real-time.
I wrote a similar program using PDF.js that renders near real-time (https://parepdf.com). You should be able to queue it up without too much trouble. If you’re doing pixel level manipulation, you want to make sure you’re finishing within the browsers frame budget.
Readit News
#1 - It rotates AND scales to fit. It's not obvious until you rotate a stupid amount, but pages don't shrink when scanned for real.
#2 - The scanning rotation is way too uniform. Most scans twist a bit, typically near the top when more of the page is in the scanner to straighten it out.
#3 - With #2 there should be some stretching/skewing that isn't uniform.
#4 - The noise is way too uniform as well. It looks like static. Typical scanned documents have noise that is much more variable. You also get other scanning artifacts like streaks for dirt on the scan head.
#5 - The page ends often aren't even and introduce artifacting as well.
#6 - Needs an option for chewed up staple corner and/or holepunch.
But sometimes they do when printed for real, to keep margins of content within the printable area.
This was my first question whether the noise is absolutely random and inconsistent, otherwise it would be very easy to detect by "authorities" who is insisting on manual scans.
https://twitter.com/patio11/status/1249630998788108288
Personally, from a workflow standpoint I'd prefer a PDF Printer driver that would add the effect. I'm sure the website is better for Mobile.
In this case it's all run client-side. You're still trusting that the code you're served wasn't maliciously replaced, but if you want to be careful you could run it in an incognito tab and temporarily disable your internet connection.
Some things are far too sensitive to ever touch a computer.
1. https://gist.github.com/andyrbell/25c8632e15d17c83a54602f6ac...
A friend of mine got a letter from his neighbor's attorney bitching about his tree or something stupid. So he literally wiped his ass with it and then took a picture of it and emailed it back with the body of the email saying thanks, I was running out of TP.
can you add that feature ?
I’m sure this letter made the rounds; clowns on this big brand; and gets free exposure for the underdog. Worth the $500 to write the letter.
Will consider similar tactics in the future.
From personal experience 99% of what attorneys are paid to do is send threatening letters that have nothing to back them up.
Deleted Comment
There's something extremely wrong with your implementation as it just takes too much to render every page.
I've done plenty of work in the past with both canvas and pdf.js (which is what you're using) and it shouldn't be that slow, at all. Perhaps you have a rogue loop that's calling a very expensive function on each pixel of every page, maybe?
Who knows, but for sure performance on that could be near real-time.