Hi Anne, OK, that's really bad. Actually I conciddered to buy Prizmo but now I'll think about it. ;-)
What I don't like on Finereader: - my scaner isn't recognized by Finereader - I'm not able to scan more than one page in a document - before I can read the text I have to save it as a document But maybe I'm wrong and it's just the wrong settings. What do you think about that? BTW: I'm not able to open settings in Finereader for Mac. My guess was it's just an express version and so there are no settings. Or do you know of a full version? All the best Jürgen Am 09.06.2013 um 19:15 schrieb Anne Robertson <[email protected]>: > Hello Jürgen, > > I've got the latest version of Prizmo. I had to delete the version that was > on my MBA as it wouldn't work any more and download the latest version. I > bought it quite a while back and, although it was usable then, it was messy. > I still think it's messy compared with ABBYY FineReader which I use on a > regular basis. I also use VueScan to capture multiple images before handing > over the file to FineReader if I have more than a couple of pages to scan. > > I really think Prizmo is messy. Oh, and the unlabelled buttons, perhaps you > have VoiceOver set to read the help tags - I don't. > > I've just done a direct comparison between Prizmo and FineReader on a double > page of a book. Prizmo produced no readable text, just a few odd letters and > symbols. I'm pasting the results below my Signature. > > Cheers, > > Anne > > Prizmo > 0 > > '~' I:I u > ~o .~o > 0 ~ 0 i > ~ > > 0 0 ~ ~ > /_ -~ > > ,,-, 0 N > 71~ i!i ~ > > I:~ > > 0 > > 0 > 0 "" > I=~ "1=1 > > 0 ~ > > 0 t~ > 0 > > : > > 0 : : U > > ,~0 IZI ~ ' : 0 ~ : : : > ~ : ~ 0 > > > > > > 0 > > > ABBYY FineReader > > ii i „/ > > I iiitned to CO,, .'ind walor via tho consumptiono! <>xy<|nn, tin:; indued > method (called indirect calorimetry) effectively measures a person's > total energy consumption. > In addition, the ratios of C02 produced relative to oxygen consumed > are different for these three major nutrients. This ratio, the volume of > C02 output divided by oxygen intake (VC02/V02) is 1.0 for carbohy- > drates, 0.70 for fat (triglyceride), and about 0.85 for protein. This ra- > tio is called the respiratory quotient (if corrected for protein oxidation) > or respiratory exchange ratio if we just use the raw number, ignoring > protein metabolism. But because protein burns at 0.85, right in the > middle, correcting for it tends to change the results little if at all. Thus > you'll often see RQ and RER used interchangeably. > A useful rule of thumb to remember is that a liter of oxygen consumed > produces about 5 kcal of metabolic energy. So a person sitting quietly > reading this chapter with an energy expenditure of 1 kcal/min is con- > suming about 200 cc of elemental oxygen per minute (1 liter t5). If > he or she had a bagel and orange juice for breakfast, most fuel being > burned is glucose, so the RQ would be -1 and C02 production would > be about the same - 200 cc/min. However, if that person were follow- > ing a very low carbohydrate ketogenic diet, 02 consumption would be > the same but C02 production would be a lot less, about 140 cc/min > (i.e., an RQ of 0.70 is indicative of virtually pure fat oxidation). > Weight, Weight Variation, and BMI > The other set of assessment tools deserving of comment are those used to > determine weight and body composition. Although modern scales are gen- > erally consistent and even pretty accurate, they suffer from not being able to > differentiate water from muscle from fat. This is particularly important for > the individual trying to chart her/his course on a weight loss diet because > humans do not regulate their body water content precisely. So if a 70 kg > adult typically contains an average of 42 liters of water, over the course of > a > 72 > , I In,n,in I Ml i'-: II, mill I in I PiirtltlOtllUR > ,i.iv that pet lon'i body does not care (fit contains 41 liters .is opposed > to 43 > liters <>i water, Above 4(liters, the kidneys speed their function and clear > the excess fluid, whereas below 11 liters, thirst prompts us to increase our > water intake. The result is that most people's weight varies randomly across > .i range equivalent to 2 liters of water - about 4 pounds. > When humans cut back in calories, they tend to lose weight quickly at > first. Some of this is water weight due to reduced glycogen reserves (the > body stores 3-4 grams of water along with each gram of glycogen). But > then if all subsequent weight loss comes from fat, and a 500 kcal per day > deficit results in a pound per week rate of loss (assuming a pound of adi- > pose tissue contains 3500 kcal), this weight variability within a 4 pound > range can lead to a great deal of frustration and misunderstanding for the > individual. This 4 pound range in weight variability could completely > mask four weeks of excellent diet adherence at 1 pound per week of body > fat loss. And any clinician who has worked with dieting subjects has seen > individuals who are clearly sticking to much more stringent diets plateau > for up to 2 weeks and then abruptly show a 5 lb weight loss. Obviously, > this can be explained by the unpredictable shifts in body water content. > Bottom line: the standard scale is a lousy short-term tool for monitoring > your diet progress (or somebody else's diet adherence). > A relatively recent tool is the scale or device that measures weight as well > as the person's electrical impedance. It is tempting to think that we can > be accurately informed about total weight and total body fat content in a > single measure. While these devices are useful for assessing changes in > the average body composition when a large group of subjects are studied, > the repetition variability for a given subject under differing conditions of > temperature, hydration, and even emotional stress make it questionable > for individuals as a clinical tool. > Summary > Adults can vary tremendously in body composition, ranging from 5% > body fat at one extreme to 50% at the other. Lean body mass (protein > 73 > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "MacVisionaries" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MacVisionaries" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
