[ale] Document Imaging under Linux

[John Wells]

Matthew,

Thanks for the reply.  So you just scanned the docs in as normal images
(i.e., not OCR) and saved as TIFF?   Any idea what sort of file size I can
expect there on, say, a standard 5 page doc?
 
Thanks!
John
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Matthew Brown [mailto:matthew.brown at cordata.com]
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 8:31 AM
To: Atlanta Linux Enthusiasts
Subject: RE: [ale] Document Imaging under Linux


I haven't looked at this in some time, and never on Linux, but when I did
this for a living, we always scanned into TIFF-CALS Group 4, Black and
White.  It offered reasonable compression, , multi-page capability, and
excellent portability.  I also know a lot of folks use PDF, but I was under
the impression it created much larger files... just an impression, don't
recall why.

My OCR experience is similar to Geoffrey's.




On Mon, 2003-09-15 at 07:21, John Wells wrote: 

My thoughts exactly.  So I wonder...if I'm not using OCR, is pdf the best

(and smallest file size) option?



Thanks,



John







-----Original Message-----

From: Geoffrey [  <mailto:esoteric at 3times25.net>
mailto:esoteric at 3times25.net]

Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 7:12 AM

To: Atlanta Linux Enthusiasts

Subject: Re: [ale] Document Imaging under Linux





James P. Kinney III wrote:

> xsane + ADF scanner + script-foo + database + webserver + time

> 

> Save the images as a pdf unless you plan on trying OCR, then scan using

> black and white and save as tiff.



All the free Linux OCR software is pretty green.  I've not been 

impressed.  Then again, I've never found anything that was perfect in 

any environment.  With the massive number of fonts and such out there, 

which continues to grow, it's a very difficult problem.




-- 

Best regards,



Matthew Brown

CorData, Inc.

Office:	770-795-0089

Fax:	404-806-4855

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...