| 1 |
On Wednesday, November 30, 2016 05:34:25 PM J. Roeleveld wrote: |
| 2 |
> On November 30, 2016 6:03:36 PM GMT+01:00, Michael Mol <mikemol@×××××.com> |
| 3 |
wrote: |
| 4 |
> >On Wednesday, November 30, 2016 10:43:13 AM J. Roeleveld wrote: |
| 5 |
> >> On Tuesday, November 29, 2016 11:18:36 PM karl@××××××××.se wrote: |
| 6 |
> >> > Michael Mol: |
| 7 |
> >> > ... |
| 8 |
> >> > |
| 9 |
> >> > > xsane would have let me do it during the scan process if I'd |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> >thought of |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> >> > > it |
| 14 |
> >> > > then, but the scans are done, drives aren't there any more. |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> >Something |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> >> > ... |
| 19 |
> >> > |
| 20 |
> >> > If xsane solves your need why don't you just print your scans so |
| 21 |
> > |
| 22 |
> >xsane |
| 23 |
> > |
| 24 |
> >> > can do its job ? |
| 25 |
> >> |
| 26 |
> >> There has to be a way to do this without killing an entire forest... |
| 27 |
> > |
| 28 |
> >And big chunks of ink cartridges. The scans stretched the contrast so I |
| 29 |
> >can |
| 30 |
> >clearly read the drive labels through the translucent anti-static bags, |
| 31 |
> >which |
| 32 |
> >means a huge chunk of the image (what's outside the labels) is pure |
| 33 |
> >black. |
| 34 |
> > |
| 35 |
> >Which I could get around by spending fifteen minutes munging things in |
| 36 |
> >the Gimp |
| 37 |
> >before printing, but at that point, I may as well just transcribe |
| 38 |
> >things |
| 39 |
> >manually at that point. |
| 40 |
> > |
| 41 |
> >Looking for something reasonably simple to improve the general |
| 42 |
> >workflow. I'd |
| 43 |
> >have hoped something would have already been available on Linux; it'd |
| 44 |
> >be easy |
| 45 |
> >enough to copy the scans to my phone and feed them through Google |
| 46 |
> >Goggles for |
| 47 |
> >the desired output, but then I'm deliberately filtering company data |
| 48 |
> >through an |
| 49 |
> >outside entity. |
| 50 |
> |
| 51 |
> Did you manage to use that link I sent? |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
I did. tesseract almost worked, even separating the regions cleanly in its |
| 54 |
output, but it seems, sadly, that the 300dpi scans were insufficient to get a |
| 55 |
good read; lots of clear corruption of the text, so things like serial |
| 56 |
numbers, model numbers, version numbers--everything you'd care about--would be |
| 57 |
highly suspect. |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
The next tool that looked like it might work, gscan2pdf, wasn't in portage, |
| 60 |
and with the semi-garbled output from tesseract suggesting the scans were too |
| 61 |
poor quality, I didn't pursue further. |
| 62 |
|
| 63 |
-- |
| 64 |
:wq |
Archives