posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 07:25 AM
I honestly can't even believe this is still an issue, but then again, the group purporting it is one of the most hardheaded groups seen in America
over the past few decades.
I've used Photoshop, among other image & vector-based editors, since I was 12, and OCR-capable scanners for the past 5 years, on top of programming
being one of the fields I'm in.
Any "anomaly" claimed to have been observed can easily be reproduced, with enough repeats, by anybody with the same OCR-capable scanner (meaning the
same model, with the same software & firmware installed.)
It HAS to be the same, because any alteration to the software or firmware through an update can have either visible or hidden updates to the algorithm
of the method, completely throwing off the result you get. This could either be an improvement or not, depending on a number of factors.
We're getting off the point though. The algorithms used in both OCR & even basic image editing software are so far above most, if not almost all, of
the birthers' heads that it would give them nausea just trying to understand it.
The fact is, even with the thousands of hours spent coding & debugging, they're still far from perfect. They often throw up errors, show anomalies,
missing pixels, weird moires, etc, which differ with each scan.
Whining about obvious errors generated by the scanning software is like complaining when Content Aware doesn't give you the same result every time
you use it.
Not only does OCR-scanning to a .pdf cause problems, ripping that .pdf to any other form of container can also cause other issues, especially
artifacts & blended moires.
tl;dr: Use the exact same settings on your own birth certificate, & watch you get the exact same problems.
Can't believe this has gone on this long. I guess that's what happens when people can't understand & grasp concepts.
It's like the world is flat for all of you all over again.