According to Irfanview, resolution of the png *was 72 dpi*. I checked with vietOCR after selecting *screenshot mode* under Image - result obtained appears to be in order vide attached txt file for ready reference VietOCR supports screenshot mode images also.
-sriranga(78yrs). On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 9:49 AM, Quan Nguyen <[email protected]> wrote: > I ran test_page.png through VietOCR 3.1 with Screenshot Mode enabled > and got acceptable results back. Since it's a Java program, it > certainly can run on OS X, provided that you build the Tess engine. > And if Ghostscript is installed, VietOCR can read PDF too. > > On Feb 18, 10:54 am, Bob Kuo <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks everyone! I tried it again, got a slightly different section > > from the original PDF and saved it as a PNG with 200 DPI. Then I ran > > convert with the following options: > > > > convert -density 200 -units PixelsPerInch -type Grayscale +compress > > test2.png test_input2.tif > > > > I had to put in the -density 200 because without it the output went to > > 59 DPI even though the original PNG was at 200. > > > > Yes, there are some minor errors but I'm quite happy with the output. > > > > Again, thanks for everybody's help! I'll be writing a blog post up > > about getting all this up and running on Mac OS X 10.6.6. > > > > Bob > > > > On Feb 18, 10:22 am, "Sriranga(78yrsold)" <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > I checked in FreeOCR(which has tess 3.01 alpha) and found to be in > order > > > with few minor mistakes. > > > With help of Irfanview - increased to 300dpi from 72dpi and saved as > tif > > > file(uncompressed) and tested. > > > What zdenko says is correct. > > > -sriranga(78yrs) > > > > > On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 9:27 PM, zdenko podobny <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > Just a quick reply: > > > > I tried it on Windows XP with tesseract 3.00 and it produced bad > result > > > > (nothing usefull). > > > > > > InfranView informations dialog showed that image has resolution 72x72 > DPI > > > > -> to low... > > > > So I resampled it (with Lanczos algorithm) from 100% to 300% size, > set DPI > > > > to 300 and decreased number of color to 16 (in InfranView because I > have no > > > > time to play with ImageMagick's options ;-) )... > > > > Than OCR result was much more better with several mistakes (just > quick > > > > check)... > > > > > > So with several image improvements you can get good OCR result. > > > > > > BR, > > > > > > Zd. > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Bob Kuo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> Hello all > > > > > >> Please forgive the newbie question. I've seen this posted several > > > >> times before, and I thought I had the right solution but apparently > > > >> not. Attached is a PNG that I'd like to run through tesseract. I > > > >> used ImageMagick's convert to change it into a tiff: > > > > > >> convert -density 200 -units PixelsPerInch test_page.png -type > > > >> Grayscale +compress test_input.tif > > > > > >> (I've also tried to do this at -density 300 with the same results) > > > > > >> The resulting TIF is attached. When I run it through tesseract I > get > > > >> an output file that is one byte and is basically blank. Command and > > > >> output below. > > > > > >> tesseract test_input.tif output -l eng > > > >> Tesseract Open Source OCR Engine > > > >> Image has 8 * 1 bits per pixel, and size (375,350) > > > >> Resolution=200 > > > > > >> I saw some other threads about a similar problem, but the solutions > > > >> were to scale it to 200 or 300 DPI, make sure it was in grayscale, > > > >> remove the alpha layer, and somewhere else it said it was fixed in > > > >> Tesseract 2.04. I'm using Tesseract 2.04 on Mac OS X 10.6.6 and > > > >> ImageMagick 6.6.7-1. Is my image just unsuitable for OCR-ing? > > > > > >> I appreciate any help. > > > > > >> Thanks, > > > > > >> Bob > > > > > >> -- > > > >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups > > > >> "tesseract-ocr" group. > > > >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > . > > > >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > >> [email protected]. > > > >> For more options, visit this group at > > > >>http://groups.google.com/group/tesseract-ocr?hl=en. > > > > > > -- > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups > > > > "tesseract-ocr" group. > > > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > > [email protected]. > > > > For more options, visit this group at > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/tesseract-ocr?hl=en. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "tesseract-ocr" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/tesseract-ocr?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "tesseract-ocr" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tesseract-ocr?hl=en.
"salvation comes through communities of memory in general" is socio- logically and theologically mistaken; it just isn't so, as Cyprian knew, andastheAynRandand Ku Klux Klancasesshowwellenough. Thesethoughtsremindoneoftherecent workoflohnlflilbank, whohas argued that modem sodal science in general is founded on theological pre- suppositions that historical Christianity has judged heretical or false. Thus the claim of social science to override Christian theology, ‘placing’ Christian faith and practice as it pleases, is itself misplaced, since social science typicaflybegsttequesfionbyasstmlingatdteoutsetthecontranesoffite Clu-istianviewsitrneamtooverride (Milbanlt. 19%; 199'/fiseethediscussionof Milbanl: in Murphy and Ellis, l996:ll1-14). Thus Milbank proposes in hisown way what I have said above. that when they discuss religion. social theory and theology inevitably show up on the same playing field, in position todefeat each other's concrete clairm. Certainly theology needs empirical facts and scientific theoretical imights. The social scientists offer help. Yet they do not accomplish what I must now attempt. My main question is where and how the church must stand to be the witnessing church; that is, what must be the relation between the culture that is the church (and the larger Christian and biblical metaculture the church represents) and those cultures the church indwells, evangelizes, serves? Amwering will require all the resources that Chfstian theology can bring to bear, and not a little help from such as Berger and Bellah as well. Already they have showed us. willy-nilly, that theology is required for the task: they make such ample (and often skillful) use of it, themselves!
