From: legg@nospam.magma.ca   
      
   On Mon, 8 Dec 2025 01:24:13 -0000 (UTC), antispam@fricas.org (Waldek   
   Hebisch) wrote:   
      
   >Don Y  wrote:   
   >>   
   >> I've learned to become less "discriminating" in my collections.  As long as   
   >> I can *read* the content, it's good enough for me (given that the   
   >> alternative was *paper*!).   
   >   
   >Well, I can read low quality text, but I read faster if quality is   
   >better.  Sometimes it is hard to decide if there is a speck or   
   >a dot (or comma, apostrophe etc) on a page.  And if you scan   
   >at larger quantity you probably do not want to proofread each   
   >page, so either you have generous margin for possible disturbances   
   >or you risk badly scanned pages.   
   >   
   >Other thing is OCR: it seem to work quite well with actual   
   >text (as opposed to mixture containing also figures and formula)   
   >when scan quality is high enough.  OCR is valuable if only to do   
   >searches.  Scanning at low/medium quality throws out information   
   >that is hard or impossible to restore.   
      
   There's OCR, and there's OCR.   
      
   I was having the devil of a time getting pdf scans with searcheable   
    text. Blaming scanner and source - till I upgraded the scanner   
   software. Voila !   
      
   RL   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)