Yup, I sure do. It's disgusting correcting all the messed up characters from other languages, so that is something I would consider reject and rescan material. :-) Besides I don't usually know how to correct what is messed up, so scanning with the correct settings is much safer. Aaaaa I am being grabbed and viciously cleaned by a cat, and can hardly type! Sarah Van Oosterwijck http://home.earthlink.net/~netentity/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guido Corona" <guidoc@xxxxxxxxxx> To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 12:05 PM Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: txt page breaks redux > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >