[bksvol-discuss] Re: txt page breaks redux

  • From: Guido Corona <guidoc@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 12:05:44 -0600

As I suspected,  your machine is faster than mine.  If you have multiple 
languages in the book you may want to consider activating reco for all the 
languages you need in recognition settings.

Guido


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
12/29/2004 11:52 AM
Please respond to
bksvol-discuss


To
<bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc

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






Mine isn't either.  It's a 1Ghz with 512 MB of slow RAM.  I can see the
difference scanning in grey scale causes.  I have about 320 characters 
being
recognized per second with static threshholding and 300 DPI.  I can't scan
at 400 DPI, but sometime I will scan in grey scale to see the difference. 
I
wouldn't count the book I did scan in grey scale as something normal to 
use
for comparison because it had to use multiple languages and the text was
pretty awful.

My scanner is slower, so I prefer to edit a little over rescanning pages
that aren't too bad, or even scanning using slower settings.  I'm sure 
there
are others that feel the same about that.  Besides, reading and fixing is 
a
good deal more stimulating to the brain than holding down a book while it
scans. ;-)


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

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Guido Corona" <guidoc@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 9:45 AM
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: txt page breaks redux


> 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: