<div class="gmail_quote">On 6 December 2010 20:18, Bruno Girin <<a href="mailto:brunogirin@gmail.com">brunogirin@gmail.com</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"> <div class="im">On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 16:55 +0000, Barry Drake wrote: > On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 16:07 +0000, Simon Greenwood wrote: > > > I had a need to do some OCR recently and came across a project called > > tesseract-ocr: <a href="http://code.google.com/p/tesseract-ocr/" target="_blank">http://code.google.com/p/tesseract-ocr/</a>. It's based on > > HP code that dates from the mid-90s. I've only used it to extract text > > from existing graphics but it seems to be very accurate. > > You're right - it is accurate - and it works with the neat gui frontend > that Danté mentioned - gscan2pdf. Makes a fantastic combination that's > amazingly easy to use. Tesseract and gscan2pdf really ought to get into > the normal Ubuntu release .... or at least be well promoted in the > 'Software Centre' and Synaptic so they are easy to find. The only one > that's really easy to find is gocr, and so far I'm not that impressed. </div>OCRFeeder is another option: it is in the Ubuntu repo, uses Tesseract as a default back-end and can be installed from the software centre. I haven't used it extensively so I have no idea how it compares to gscan2pdf. Cheers, Bruno <div><div></div><div class="h5"> -- <a href="mailto:ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com">ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com</a> <a href="https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk" target="_blank">https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk</a> <a href="https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/" target="_blank">https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/</a> </div></div></blockquote></div> OCRFeeder is still lacking in comparsion...also, far buggier. -- -Danté Ashton Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici Sent from Ubuntu