CompuServe Thread

#Installing WB 3.0

7 messages in this thread
#185557From: Michael NicolaisenFeb 15, 1995 7:48 AM
Hank, how do you like your Migraph OCR? I have been thinking about buying one. Which version do you use? Greetings from Germany, Michael
#185569From: Hank DuckmanFeb 15, 1995 11:30 AM
Michael; I have version 1.4 which I believe is the latest. I am not thrilled with its fuctionality. I think much more work needs to be done on it to make it reliable. I find that when using the recommended scan resolution (with a flat bed scanner), I have to spend so much time "teaching" the program to recognise letters, that it's almost like typing out the whole text. That wouldn't be so bad if I were always going to scan text with identical font style and size, but the slightest change in the way the scanned text appears to the program causes it to act as if the text were in a completely new style…thus starting another tedious learning session. For now, I consider it as a "gimmick". Hank
#185875From: Nick CookFeb 18, 1995 1:48 PM
Hank: PMFJI – I've been using the Migraph OCR, maybe these "tips" will help: 1. Use different dictionaries! For example, I scanned a manual for work, and set up a Manual.ald. After a few passes, speed increased dramatically. 2. Make sure you've got a straight scan (even with a flatbed!) 3. Train _everything_ at first! I find that training letter combos (e.g., "th", "ae") helps. But, unless the image is junky, I train it! That speeds things up, even in my current project which has 3 fonts on the page. Nick
#185979From: Michael NicolaisenFeb 19, 1995 10:21 AM
Hank, thank you for your reply. You kept me from spending a lot of Deutschmarks as the software is quite expensive here in Germany. And I only have a handy-scanner – no flatbed! Is there any better OCR available for the AMIGA? Michael
#186042From: Hank DuckmanFeb 19, 1995 9:08 PM
Michael; I had occasion to try Migraph again after I sent you the message about my experience with it. I was using a flat bed scanner however. With scanning resolution of 400 dpi, I got a much better result very quickly. My previous experience was with the Golden Image hand scanner and with the flat bed scanner but at a lower resolution. The reason I tried Migraph again was because after I sent you the negative message, another forum member claimed much better results. I may have been premature with my response and I'm sorry. If I were you, I would try to find an Amiga dealer or another Amiga user who has Migraph OCR and try your scanner with the program. If you can get a steady, straight scan at at least 400 dpi, and you are scanning fairly good quality text, you may get a good result and be happy with the software. I'm not aware of any other OCR programs for the Amiga. Hank
#186128From: Michael NicolaisenFeb 20, 1995 5:32 PM
Hank, Thank you for your message; I also use the Golden Image hand scanner. I will see if I can get a look at Migraphs OCR before I consider buying it. Thanks again for your help Michael Michael Nicolaisen Greetings from Germany (where it`s raining all the time)
#186380From: paul spyrisonFeb 22, 1995 11:10 PM
I've had the MS1200 for a while. I must say that I've had quite a few bugs that have never been worked out (after many tech phone calls (at at my expense) and a replace rom chip. I've tried it on both the gvp 030 combo card and now it on the a2091. All I can seem to do is scan full 24 bit images, but when I try anything else, it locks up. Still does it with the A2091 and I have also upgraded to an 040. The last time the Tech people talket to me they were supposed to get back in touch with me.. Haven't heard from them since.