[bksvol-discuss] Re: txt page breaks redux

  • From: Guido Corona <guidoc@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 09:45:10 -0600

Sara,  in the last book reco speed was approx 170 chars per second.  That 
would have meant approx  20 seconds of reco time per double page. Scanning 
takes about 7 seconds per double page, plus return time.
My machine has a mobile Pentium M running at 1.6Ghz with 1.5 GB of RAM. 
This is roughly equivalent to a 1.1Ghz Pentium 4 on a desktop. 
Not the fastest kid on the block.

Guido Dante Corona
IBM Accessibility Center,  Austin Tx.
Research Division,
Phone:  512. 838. 9735.
Email: guidoc@xxxxxxxxxxx
Web:  http://www.ibm.com/able




"Sarah Van Oosterwijck" <curiousentity@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
Sent by: bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
12/28/2004 11:26 PM
Please respond to
bksvol-discuss


To
<bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc

Subject
[bksvol-discuss] Re: txt page breaks redux






Just for my curiosity, how fast is your computer, and how many seconds 
does
each scan take?  Have you ever reset your recognition statistics when you
started a new book and did the math to figure out exactly how fast the
average character, or paperback page takes to recognize.  You seem to be
interested enough in statistics to have tried it.

Online you can find all kinds of benchmarks for processors, but the only
kind I would really be interested in would be an OCR benchmark. hehehe

BTW, I haven't done the math on the recognition statistics for my 
computer,
because I don't like math enough to do it just for the fun of it, and i 
had
no other computer to compare with.


Sarah Van Oosterwijck
http://home.earthlink.net/~netentity/

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Guido Corona" <guidoc@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2004 9:12 PM
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: txt page breaks redux


> Kelly,  if the scanner is the cause of the quality problem,  a minimal 
$45
> investment will get them a perfectly good EPSON 1650 at the EPSON refurb
> store.  If someone can't afford that,  I can't even see how they can't
> possibly afford a monthly Internet connection charge.
> A barely higher $124 will get them a modern refurb EPSON 3170 in the 
same
> place.  If Kurzweil or Openbook were too costly and rehab funding were 
not
> available,  the ABBY Fine Reader Professional 7.0 is a perfectly high
> quality solution, as the spottless submission from Donna Smith testify.
> As you said,  obsolete equipment is not a good excuse.  A little 
up-front
> work prior to submission typically ensures that a good part of the 
errors
> have been fixed.  A spotcheck can also detect bunch of missing words 
etc.
> . .
>
> Now,  think about time usage:  is it better to work 20 hours to salvage 
a
> single book,  or spend the same total amount of time and end with 3 to 4
> submissions at the end?  Let's not even think about the fact that our
> paying subscribers will find the collection grown by 4 instead of 1 at 
the
> end of your effort.  Let us think about our work benefitting other
> volunteers?  Your 20 hours can be spent giving credit to 1 sloppy
> submitter,  or give credit to 4 other good ones.  Now,  tell me where 
you
> will work,  if the greater good of the volunteer community is paramount 
to
> you.
> And if instead you think about your own credits, as a reviewer,  your 20
> hours can get you 1 credit, or can get you 4,  depending on what you 
work
> on.
>
> So,  as you can see,  whether you think about our customers, the 
volunteer
> community at large,  or your own interest,  the outcome seems to be the
> same.
>
> Unless we think of these files as orphan, hungry, sick children,  in 
need
> of comfort, and nurture. Which I am afraid they are not.
>
> Guido
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Guido Dante Corona
> IBM Accessibility Center,  Austin Tx.
> Research Division,
> Phone:  512. 838. 9735.
> Email: guidoc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Web:  http://www.ibm.com/able
>
>
>
>
> "Kellie Hartmann" <kellhart@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent by: bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 12/28/2004 08:19 PM
> Please respond to
> bksvol-discuss
>
>
> To
> <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> cc
>
> Subject
> [bksvol-discuss] Re: txt page breaks redux
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Oh Guido, great Lord High Rejecter of all, <grin>
> That's fantastic if you have access to a copy of the book. Oftentimes 
the
> volunteer may not, and a certain amount of error-correcting really isn't
> that onerous, especially if you're going to read the book anyway.
> I do think, though, that it's nice when people who, because of older
> equipment, can't get scans that live up to our modern high standards go
> through and do some work on their submissions before submitting. After
> all,
> there's a lot more credit for submitting than there is for validating.
> Kellie
>
>
>
>



Other related posts: