On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 8:08 AM, Antonio Diaz Diaz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Any good reason, why you tried scaling at a factor of 2? > > Well, it is the first thing I try when I find small or not well defined > letters, because many times improves things. Interesting, thanks. The scaling by 2 gives a number of better results. Unfortunately, the scaling done by ocrad has rendered a few 'l' (lower case L) into '}'. So I fell back to pbmpscale (N=2), which seems to do a good job. But scaling really *is* a great advantage! Does ocrad allow to set a 'dictionary' of valid characters? What I mean, is like valid characters are uppercase, lowercase, digits, punctuation, alphanumeric, or passing a string containing all valid characters? In some cases, this can be used to increase the accuracy as well. Like in our application, we use low resolution, but we only need alphanumeric, '.', '_','-'. Any ambiguity could fall back to one of these. > > And still another one: is there a chance to scale with different factors > > for x and y? I am asking, since we are doing OCR on faxes, and 'normal' > > at faxes means 204x98 dpi. > > Ocrad can't currently scale differently in both axes, and I can't > remember a case where this could help. But perhaps you could fin one. :) See above. I have now inserted pnmstretch -yscale=2, followed by pnmsmooth. It is still not optimal, but at least the ratio is correct. Uwe _______________________________________________ Bug-ocrad mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-ocrad
