MobileRead Forums - View Single Post - Low budget scanner + OCR: Test and results

Madmanden · 09-13-2010, 01:37 AM

Just for fun I tried capturing the best picture I could with the same setup. I ran the picture through OCR (ABBYY FineReader 10 again). Tried Scan Tailor, Snapter and original photo + with and without FineReader adjustments.

My (very quick) findings were that Scan Tailor provided the worst result for OCR. Snapter was second, and the original photo was best. This time around using the FineReader adjustments didn't necessarily result in an improvement. Some times it fixed an error, other times it resulted in new errors.

There were very few errors in the OCR using the original image without any postprocessing. I didn't count, but I'd say <5 for the page. You could certainly use it out-of-box for non-archival purposes (say reading a novel on an ereader). Again, this is from a handheld mobile phone and no extra lighting. With just a real digital camera and a tripod I would expect near perfect OCR results out-of-box. It's a bit slower though, since you only capture one page at a time. But you could probably combine the speed with test 1 and the accuracy with test 2 by using a plate of glass or something (or even your fingers) to make sure the pages are flat and uniform.

09-13-2010, 01:37 AM	#5
Madmanden Enthusiast Posts: 36 Karma: 308 Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Denmark Device: Kindle 3	Just for fun I tried capturing the best picture I could with the same setup. I ran the picture through OCR (ABBYY FineReader 10 again). Tried Scan Tailor, Snapter and original photo + with and without FineReader adjustments. My (very quick) findings were that Scan Tailor provided the worst result for OCR. Snapter was second, and the original photo was best. This time around using the FineReader adjustments didn't necessarily result in an improvement. Some times it fixed an error, other times it resulted in new errors. There were very few errors in the OCR using the original image without any postprocessing. I didn't count, but I'd say <5 for the page. You could certainly use it out-of-box for non-archival purposes (say reading a novel on an ereader). Again, this is from a handheld mobile phone and no extra lighting. With just a real digital camera and a tripod I would expect near perfect OCR results out-of-box. It's a bit slower though, since you only capture one page at a time. But you could probably combine the speed with test 1 and the accuracy with test 2 by using a plate of glass or something (or even your fingers) to make sure the pages are flat and uniform.