On Dec 28, 5:10 am, Anthony Campbell <a...@acampbell.org.uk> wrote: > On 21 Dec 2008, Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote: > [snip]
> Yes, tesseract does work well. Here, xsane gives depth 24, but conversion > to depth 8 is neither possible nor necessary. Following the docs, I did There is an option at the top of the Preferences/Filetyple tab to save in 8-bit, but glad to know this isn't needed. > export TESSDATA_PREFIX="/usr/share/tesseract-ocr/" > > There was no need for "- l eng" since I only had the English version of > tesseract installed. So to scan a page saved at 300 dpi I just do: > > tesseract foo.dvi foo > > The result is excellent. I got pretty good results with ocrad but > tesseract is definitely better. I got poor results on a plain text sample, and much better using gocr with the same scan saved by xsane in pnm format. I see your input file is a DVI. Is that format yield better results than TIFF? If so, how did you convert to that from the formats that xsane will save to? Took me a while to figure out that tesseract will not read a TIFF if its file extension is 'tiff' instead of 'tif'. Hadn't quite noticed that in the previous poster's instructions. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
