2016-11-30 16:28 GMT-02:00 Michael Mol <mike...@gmail.com>: > On Wednesday, November 30, 2016 05:34:25 PM J. Roeleveld wrote: > > On November 30, 2016 6:03:36 PM GMT+01:00, Michael Mol < > mike...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >On Wednesday, November 30, 2016 10:43:13 AM J. Roeleveld wrote: > > >> On Tuesday, November 29, 2016 11:18:36 PM k...@aspodata.se wrote: > > >> > Michael Mol: > > >> > ... > > >> > > > >> > > xsane would have let me do it during the scan process if I'd > > > > > >thought of > > > > > >> > > it > > >> > > then, but the scans are done, drives aren't there any more. > > > > > >Something > > > > > >> > ... > > >> > > > >> > If xsane solves your need why don't you just print your scans so > > > > > >xsane > > > > > >> > can do its job ? > > >> > > >> There has to be a way to do this without killing an entire forest... > > > > > >And big chunks of ink cartridges. The scans stretched the contrast so I > > >can > > >clearly read the drive labels through the translucent anti-static bags, > > >which > > >means a huge chunk of the image (what's outside the labels) is pure > > >black. > > > > > >Which I could get around by spending fifteen minutes munging things in > > >the Gimp > > >before printing, but at that point, I may as well just transcribe > > >things > > >manually at that point. > > > > > >Looking for something reasonably simple to improve the general > > >workflow. I'd > > >have hoped something would have already been available on Linux; it'd > > >be easy > > >enough to copy the scans to my phone and feed them through Google > > >Goggles for > > >the desired output, but then I'm deliberately filtering company data > > >through an > > >outside entity. > > > > Did you manage to use that link I sent? > > I did. tesseract almost worked, even separating the regions cleanly in its > output, but it seems, sadly, that the 300dpi scans were insufficient to > get a > good read; lots of clear corruption of the text, so things like serial > numbers, model numbers, version numbers--everything you'd care > about--would be > highly suspect. > > The next tool that looked like it might work, gscan2pdf, wasn't in portage, > and with the semi-garbled output from tesseract suggesting the scans were > too > poor quality, I didn't pursue further. > > -- > :wq
Well, I've had similar issue. I had gimp to resize the image to its double (width and height, of course), filtered it a bit (edge enhancement) and split the image in several ones for the regions of interest. Of course, there might be an easier way ;-) Francisco
