| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
OT: Does usable free OCR software exist?OT: Does usable free OCR software exist?Posted Aug 24, 2006 13:32 UTC (Thu) by debacle (subscriber, #7114)Parent article: Fighting image spam
I tried different OCR programs (not sure, but possibly everything available in Debian: clara, gocr, ocrad), but all of them produced at least one "typo" per word, often much more. Typing is faster and less error-prone.
(Log in to post comments)
OT: Does usable free OCR software exist? Posted Aug 24, 2006 17:27 UTC (Thu) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] It totally depends on your source images. High resolution scans of clean, printed text tend to do pretty well. Blurry or misregistered scans (i.e. from a book without first tearing out the page) are trouble. If any letters bleed together, you're sunk.
I agree that Linux OCR is nascent but, even so, one typo per word is way too high. I would guess that your source images are flawed somehow?
OT: Does usable free OCR software exist? Posted Aug 24, 2006 18:08 UTC (Thu) by debacle (subscriber, #7114) [Link] You are right, the input was not perfect: Google scans of a mid 18th centery book. Still, I had hoped, that the OCR software would do better.
OT: Does usable free OCR software exist? Posted Aug 25, 2006 19:25 UTC (Fri) by leoc (subscriber, #39773) [Link] One thing you might want to try is to "posterize" the image you are scanning. I wrote a perl script to use gocr to scan my satellite television source for channels that I do not receive (they are the ones that come up with a screen of text that says something to that effect), and I found that I had to posterize the output to 2 colours (black text on white background) before gocr could read any text off them.
|
|
||||||||||||