Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2017 January 31
Computing desk | ||
---|---|---|
< January 30 | << Dec | January | Feb >> | February 1 > |
Welcome to the Wikipedia Computing Reference Desk Archives |
---|
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
January 31
[edit]Looking for windows application similar to Autodesk 123d Catch
[edit]I have been searching for open source free applications that do the same thing as 123d Catch and can't find anything, mostly I need software where I can put a set of images into it and it spits out a 3d model. Can anyone point me in the right direction? 184.158.233.30 (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- https://alternativeto.net/software/123d-catch/?platform=windows
- http://wedidstuff.heavyimage.com/index.php/2013/07/12/open-source-photogrammetry-workflow/
- https://askubuntu.com/questions/639415/open-source-alternatives-to-123d-catch
- Comparison of photogrammetry software
Gif to pdf OR djvu
[edit]I got ticked off that The Intercept was keeping a bunch of recent FBI leaks in an obfuscated format that a person can scarcely use to read them at all, so I wrote a little python script to get all the page images. Now I have up to 600 PD gif files per folder, but I need to get them under a pdf or djvu umbrella to upload them to Commons. Looking this up ... well, the web is a barren wasteland of cheats and liars and I don't know who to trust. I have DjvuLibre but I don't see an obvious sign of which program can work with gifs, if any, to make djvu. I don't know how many people are even being allowed to make PDFs - I know OfficeLibre does it from the writer, but that's not exceptionally useful in this situation. So... what do I do here? Wnt (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Wnt: I would recommend ImageMagick (PythonMagick) or perhaps an intermediary step that is lossless. E.g. GIF to PNG to PDF. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 01:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- Not an answer, but I am 99% sure that "recent FBI leaks" should not be fully uploaded to Commons. I suggest checking at [1] before uploading. TigraanClick here to contact me 11:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Tigraan: Well, the big file is File:Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide.pdf; the others are File:Counterterrorism Policy Directive and Policy Guide (redacted).pdf, File:Confidential Human Source Policy Guide (redacted).pdf, File:Program Aids - CHS Assessing.pdf. They look like legit public domain documents to me. (There are also little things about National Security Letters and "Guidance on Guardian Assessments" that seem too obscure to bother with, unless I see something to convince me they are important for Commons to have) If you have a problem you can nominate for deletion, but I can't imagine what. Wnt (talk) 14:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think the problem is really copyright. If something is top secret, it might be "public domain" in the sense of no copyright restrictions, but it would still be a criminal offense (I suppose?) to publish them - that you pulled it from the Intercept does not make it less so.
- In that exact case though, the first two seem unclassified and I see zero problems; I am not so sure about the other two. I guess "leaking" an already-public document is a way to stroke journalist ego... TigraanClick here to contact me 19:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- The relevant case concerned the Pentagon Papers. It is not illegal even for the journalist who first releases the documents formerly known only to a few, provided he had no role in initially causing the leak. The Intercept is actually headquartered in New York, and presumably has "a few lawyers". And America never used to be the kind of country where you had to worry about going to jail for passing around the wrong newspaper, whether foreign or domestic -- I hope that is not changing. Wnt (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Tigraan: Well, the big file is File:Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide.pdf; the others are File:Counterterrorism Policy Directive and Policy Guide (redacted).pdf, File:Confidential Human Source Policy Guide (redacted).pdf, File:Program Aids - CHS Assessing.pdf. They look like legit public domain documents to me. (There are also little things about National Security Letters and "Guidance on Guardian Assessments" that seem too obscure to bother with, unless I see something to convince me they are important for Commons to have) If you have a problem you can nominate for deletion, but I can't imagine what. Wnt (talk) 14:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- For future reference I put the very simple-minded python script for acquiring multiple image files (or others) at User:Wnt/Python script to grab multiple files. I don't expect any coding awards - it's just the first version that worked. For imagemagick I found out of date examples, so I reinstalled it with "legacy modules", so that I had convert.exe in the folder - before that I had a "must specify a file system" error from the windows convert.exe. (I have a feeling having that no longer be the default when I command line convert something will eventually bite me in the butt, if the computer doesn't die first, but others online didn't seem to care; I have no idea what the windows thing does) Once I had that I could do convert beginning-of-filename-p*-end-of-filename.gif big-pdf-name.pdf . The catch was that none of the formats, like p* or p[1-74] or p[01-74] or p[0-1][0-9] were giving me all pages in the right order unless I added leading zeroes, which I was supposed to do with a script but I'm ashamed to say I just did it manually rather than get perl working on this machine to use the one I found or wonder if I'd foul up the script and rename all my files to the same thing or whatever. I found a setting for overall pdf quality by specifying resolution using -density XXX but could see no apparent improvement or even change in file size so just used the default. Wnt (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2017 (UTC)