4 ms·
I see tesseract mentioned more and more. Myself I tried it probably 10-15 years ago on scanned scientific papers (decent scanning quality). The results were di
by usr1106 3y ago
I see tesseract mentioned more and more.
Myself I tried it probably 10-15 years ago on scanned scientific papers (decent scanning quality). The results were disappointing. The manual postprocessing required was not much less than typing it directly. So tesseract became a synonym of "not worth trying" to me.
Maybe things have improved over the years, so I should give it a new try. (No particular use case at the moment, but those tend to appear occasionally.)
- mellutussa 3y agoTry https://github.com/ocrmypdf/OCRmyPDF https://github.com/ocrmypdf/OCRmyPDF - it uses Tesseract behind the scenes and it absolutely brilliant.
- walteweiss 3y agoFirst time I used it 3 to 4 years ago, it was good.
- mkl 3y agoIt's way better now. I used it 15 years ago and had to do quite a bit of preprocessing to get not-entirely-terrible results, but now I use it with great success and no preprocessing.
- graynk 3y agoIt’s good now _if_ you OCR only scanned documents or otherwise have a lot of control over how you prepare the images before it’s OCR’ed. For more general purpose recognition with weird fonts and bad image quality EasyOCR gave me much better results
- sp332 3y agoThis project is including Tesseract 4.1.1 which is at least a couple years old.