I am using pdf417gen to generate an AAMVA barcode. The generated barcode is perfectly readable and easy to read. But if I enter the original data and compare my barcode with the original, visually, they are different, but decoding gives the same result.
My Code
from pdf417gen import encode, render_image
# Some data to encode
text = '#\n\x1E\rANSI 636015080001DL00310290DLDCAC\nDDAF\nDDB10102016\nDCBA\nDCDNONE\nDBA04062025\nDCSPERELLA\nDDEN\nDACCODY\nDDFN\nDADGLENN\nDDGN\nDBD04192019\nDBB04061995\nDBC1\nDAYGRN\nDAZBLN\nDAU064 IN\nDAW125\nDCLW\nDAG6615 STICHTER AVE \nDAIDALLAS\nDAJTX\nDAK752300000 \nDCK34509203 20190419\nDAQ34509203\nDCF00619980045119245470\nDCGUSA\n\r'
codes = encode(text, columns=15, security_level=3)
# Generate barcode as image
image = render_image(codes, scale=2, ratio=2, padding=0) # Pillow Image object
image.save('barcode.jpg')
My barcode
enter image description here
Original barcode
enter image description here
Barcodes differ in the number of lines. They also have different left and right columns, which are responsible for the barcode data.
If you change the protection level and add spaces to the end of the data, you can get approximately the same result. But it's still not a complete repeat.
I think the original uses a fixed value of rows and columns, if there are not enough characters to fill, they are replaced with blanks or service characters, but there is no such information in documents and on the Internet.
I don't know what I'm missing, for a complete repetition of the original. I would be very grateful for any help
Related
I am trying to create a GS1-128 barcode using ZPL. The barcode should have parenthesis automatically filled in at the start of the human readable before and after the first two digits.
In other words, I would like to send a SSCC-18 string like this: "00206739780661776353", the human readable should show "(00)206739780661776353" and the barcode should read "00206739780661776353".
This is my code so far:
^XA
^FO360,630^BY2^A0N,30,30^BCN,100,Y,Y,N,D^FD00206739780661776353^FS
^XZ
If I manually input "^FD(00)206739780661776353^FS", the "(00)" shows in the human readable, but not in the barcode, which is what I want, but I am struggling to get the parenthesis around the first two digits automatically. Is there a way to do this in ZPL?
Any help or tips on where to look would be greatly appreciated!
I have a system currently set up that creates a barcode for a UPC on a label. This works for single items, but sometimes I have more than one item that tries to feed into that barcode, and when that happens it is set to have no value.
However, instead of there being no barcode, there is actually a small barcode that scans in as 0. How do I ensure that no barcode appears?
^FT350,698^BY2,,75
^BCN,75,N,N,N^FD$ItemBarCode$^FS
"$ItemBarCode$" is an item from a populated table that I do not control, and there can be as many items as needed. The customer requires no barcode when there are multiple items and requires a barcode when there is one. Their sample does not use a typical UPC style barcode.
You say you don't have control over the data in the table, but do you have control over the content/format of $ItemBarCode$?
Have the variable contain the ^FD prefix and ^FS suffix (and remove from the ZPL code). When the variable is blank/empty, nothing will print.
According to the software developer consultant, the solution is to create a customization in the system's code that allows for a logic line to fix this error. This is not something that can be fixed within ZPL itself, rather, there will be two separate labels. For instance,
if single item then print X
if multiple items then print Y
I have same situation. My solution is input barcode command in single line with its data and terminator ^FD and ^FS. So during parsing label file line by line, if data is zero or error than remove entire line. And its work for me
I am printing a code 128 barcode in ZPL, which must be 78mm. The following numeric barcode works as expected:
^XA^FO141,330^BY3,3,^BCR,243,Y,N,N,A^FD12001752107481808006410360011596^FS^XZ
But changing one number to 'X' near the end of the barcode, means the barcode is now printed as 91mm:
^XA^FO141,330^BY3,3,^BCR,243,Y,N,N,A^FD1200175210748180800641036001X596^FS^XZ
Changing the barcode module with from 3 to 2 with ^BY2 makes the barcode 60mm which is not acceptable.
Any suggestions?
Code 128 has different Subtypes. One of them can encode two numbers in one barcode-character. Your Zebra optimizes your barcode because you use the
^BCo,h,f,g,e,m
Command with Parameter m = mode set to
A = Automatic Mode
This analyzes the data sent and automatically
determines the best packing method. The full
ASCII character set can be used in the ^FD
statement — the printer determines when to shift
subsets. A string of four or more numeric digits
causes an automatic shift to Subset C.
Switching modes and printing alphanumeric makes your barcode longer.
I am trying to come to terms with how a barcode is decoded and generated by a scanner.
A note from the client says the following generated bar code consists of extra characters:
Generated Code: |2389299920014}
Extra Characters: Apparently the first two and last three characters are not part of the bar code.
Question
Are the extra characters attached by the bar code reader (therefore dependent on the scanner) or are they an intrinsic part of the barcode?
Here is a sample image of a barcode:
http://imageshack.us/a/img824/1862/dm6x.jpg
Thanks
[SOLVED] My apologies. This was just another one of those cases of 'shooting your mouth off' without doing proper research.
Solution The code is EAN13. The prefix and suffix are probably scanner dependent. The 13 digits in between are as follows (first digit from the left) Check Sum (Next 9 digits) Company Id + Item Id (Last 3 Digits ) GS1 prefix
It's hard to answer without understanding what format you are trying to encode, what the intended contents are, and what the purported contents are.
Some formats add extra information as part of the encoding process, but it does not become part of the content. When correctly encoded and decoded, the output should match the input exactly.
Barcodes encode what they encode and there is no data that is somehow part of the barcode but not somehow encoded in it.
EAN-13 has no scanner-dependent considerations, no. The encoding and decoding of a given number is the same everywhere. EAN-13 encodes 13 digits, so I am not sure what the 13 digits "in between" mean.
You mention GS1, which is something else. A family of barcodes in fact. You'd have to say what specifically you are using. The GS1 encodings are likewise not ambiguous or scanner-dependent. You know what you want to encode, you encode it exactly, it's read exactly.
I have to generate QRCodes using concatenated object properties. These strings might be long, that's why I'd like to know which compression algorithm to use knowing that my String's length is between 25 an 100+ characters
thanks in advance,
Jerec
I am assuming that since you are going to use compression before you store the strings that these QR codes will not be readable by any client, it would have to be an application that you wrote (b/c you are storing character with an unknown encoding, the client won't be able to decode).
Instead of compressing and storing the long string in the QR code, have your application create a URI (like a GUID or a URL) and when your application decodes that URI it looks up all the values (uncompressed) that you wanted to store in the QR code. Then your app can just look up the format in any way it wants.
For example, assuming your persistant storage is an xml file, but it could be anything:
<URI = "http://mydomain.com/790C9704-8C61-435F-991D-CDBB5767AA3D">
<MyElement>14523</MyElement>
<MyElement>67548</MyElement>
...
<MyElement>46167</MyElement>
</URI>
Encoded on QR code: "http://mydomain.com/790C9704-8C61-435F-991D-CDBB5767AA3D", values can then be looked up.
The algorithm used to encode QR codes is dependent on the type of data you encode. See http://www.swetake.com/qr/qr1_en.html.
If you know, for example, that you always have the same number of digits per id and therefor could just string them together without punctuation, you can encode them as purely numeric and you'll use 10 bits for every three characters.
If you need some kind of separator, if you use something in "0-9A-Z $%*+-./:", you'll stay alphanumeric and get 2 characters in 11 bits.
If you give it arbitrary data (note that this includes any lower case: the list above does not include lower case letters) you're going to be using 8 bits per characters.
So numeric only would end up being 60% smaller.