26 Sep
2015
26 Sep
'15
2:51 p.m.
On 2015-09-26 23:42, Toby Thain wrote:
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.
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
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
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:
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. 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.