Joe Pfeiffer wrote: > I used tesseract-ocr, mentioned previously, a couple of years ago with > very good success. Also, the problem he's trying to solve is much
what means very good success? You had to proof read it at the end - time spent. For me either something works or it doesn't none of them worked even close to good > simpler than the general OCR problem; he's got the actual correct pixels > (rather than a scan), and maybe even have knowledge of what fonts are > used. That makes a huge difference. > I doubt it - really! Let me know at the end. I am curious. regards
