26 Sep
2015
26 Sep
'15
6:41 p.m.
On 2015-09-26 5:51 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 2015-09-26 23:42, Toby Thain wrote:
I've seen plenty of technical books ruined by this technique, which is
why I beg anyone doing this to not divorce the bitmaps from the OCR'd
result.
I suppose some books might be relatively immune, but technical texts
seem to be quite sensitive to poor interpretation by OCR, logically enough.
--Toby
On 2015-09-26 4:28 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
Look at the results in the link I posted. I was more than happy with
that result. On 2015-09-26 12:16, Johnny Billquist wrote:
Imho, though I am sure I am not alone:
Software which "recreates" the typography of a document from OCR does
not produce an acceptable substitute, I've yet to see a book that wasn't
ruined by it.
Just worth mentioning for anyone who might be tempted - For this reason
and others, the bitmaps must NEVER be discarded (Although of course
bitmaps can be archived in a different file if people want to supply OCR
as well.) On 2015-09-25 22:35, Al Kossow wrote:
> I have been going back and applying OCR to the ones on bitsavers.
> Are there some in particular that you have a problem with?
Aha. I wasn't aware of that. I've downloaded copies many years ago that
I've been keeping locally. I'll check out the current versions on
bitsavers then.
Al, exactly how have they been OCRed? Looking at them, it would appear
that what you see is still the bitmaps of all the pages, but then you
have the basic text also available for selection/searching.
My issue with that is that the documents are huge, and the experience
just scrolling through them is pretty bad.
But sure, for those who like bitmaps, I'm certainly not going to take
them away. But for me, I'm actually interested in the content, and not
the pixels.
Johnny