Scanning

Scanning

[Cheryl Homiak]

If anybody onlist does scanning with a flatbed scanner on linux, could you tell me what you are using. I have a Canon lide 110. I had scanning set up with my lide60 a few years ago but am not sure how to do it now. I know this sounds superfluous since I can do these things on my Mac with the gui but I don't like to have all my eggs in one basket. If something happens to my Mac, I want to not be left high and dry. I actually think I could run tesseract on my Mac in terminal as well as in linux but it looks like a lot of compiling and I recently decided to see if I could manage all right without extra package managers like homebrew and macports.


-- 
Cheryl

May the words of my mouth
and the meditation of my heart
be acceptable to You, Lord,
my rock and my Redeemer.
(Psalm 19:14 HCSB)

Re: Scanning

[Chris Brannon]

Cheryl Homiak <cah4110@icloud.com> writes:

> If anybody onlist does scanning with a flatbed scanner on linux, could
> you tell me what you are using.

Hi Cheryl,
I do scanning on Linux all the time.
My scanner is a CanoScan lide 100.  I use a tool named scanimage.  It is
part of the sane package, or maybe the sane-backends package.  I think
the package name may vary by distro.
In order to scan on Linux, you'll need to add your user to the scanner
group first.
I don't know what the differences are between the lide 100 and the lide
110, but sane's compatibility page claims that the lide 110 is fully
supported.
If you need any further help debugging, feel free to contact me
off-list, and I'll be happy to help.

-- Chris

Re: Scanning

[Cheryl Homiak]

Thank you so much, Chris! I will contact you. I have tried with the lide 110 and scanimage, which I think may be what I used a few years ago, but get errors when I pass the image on to tesseract and just a blank file. I probably am leaving something out of the command line but I would like to keep trying.

-- 
Cheryl

May the words of my mouth
and the meditation of my heart
be acceptable to You, Lord,
my rock and my Redeemer.
(Psalm 19:14 HCSB)





> On Nov 4, 2015, at 8:39 PM, Chris Brannon <chris@the-brannons.com> wrote:
> 
> Cheryl Homiak <cah4110@icloud.com> writes:
> 
>> If anybody onlist does scanning with a flatbed scanner on linux, could
>> you tell me what you are using.
> 
> Hi Cheryl,
> I do scanning on Linux all the time.
> My scanner is a CanoScan lide 100.  I use a tool named scanimage.  It is
> part of the sane package, or maybe the sane-backends package.  I think
> the package name may vary by distro.
> In order to scan on Linux, you'll need to add your user to the scanner
> group first.
> I don't know what the differences are between the lide 100 and the lide
> 110, but sane's compatibility page claims that the lide 110 is fully
> supported.
> If you need any further help debugging, feel free to contact me
> off-list, and I'll be happy to help.
> 
> -- Chris
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@linux-speakup.org
> http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup

Re: Scanning

[John G Heim]

Yeah, I use the sane scanimage command too. It was in the code segment 
and in the script I posted earlier this week. I didn't know there were 
other tools besides sane for operating a scanner in linux.
I did a lot of experimentation while scanning in the D&D manual. I found 
that I got best text recognition when I scanned in the page as line art. 
My scanner has a top resolution of 600 dots per inch. I don't know if 
that's good or bad. It's is a really ancient scanner. Someone just gave 
it to me because they were upgrading to Windows XP and it didn't have 
drivers. When would that have been, 2001? But it still works great in linux.



On 11/04/2015 10:08 PM, Cheryl Homiak wrote:
> Thank you so much, Chris! I will contact you. I have tried with the lide 110 and scanimage, which I think may be what I used a few years ago, but get errors when I pass the image on to tesseract and just a blank file. I probably am leaving something out of the command line but I would like to keep trying.
>

-- 
John Heim, jheim@math.wisc.edu, 608-263-4189, skype:john.g.heim, 
sip:jheim@sip.linphone.org

Re: Scanning

[Jude DaShiell]

I don't know the current status of socrates is but that earlier was put 
together to help with scanning and was on the speakup website earlier.

On Thu, 5 Nov 2015, John G Heim wrote:

> Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 10:30:41
> From: John G Heim <jheim@math.wisc.edu>
> Reply-To: Speakup is a screen review system for Linux.
>     <speakup@linux-speakup.org>
> To: Speakup is a screen review system for Linux. <speakup@linux-speakup.org>
> Subject: Re: Scanning
> 
>
> Yeah, I use the sane scanimage command too. It was in the code segment 
> and in the script I posted earlier this week. I didn't know there were 
> other tools besides sane for operating a scanner in linux.
> I did a lot of experimentation while scanning in the D&D manual. I found 
> that I got best text recognition when I scanned in the page as line art. 
> My scanner has a top resolution of 600 dots per inch. I don't know if 
> that's good or bad. It's is a really ancient scanner. Someone just gave 
> it to me because they were upgrading to Windows XP and it didn't have 
> drivers. When would that have been, 2001? But it still works great in linux.
>
>
>
> On 11/04/2015 10:08 PM, Cheryl Homiak wrote:
>> Thank you so much, Chris! I will contact you. I have tried with the lide 
> 110 and scanimage, which I think may be what I used a few years ago, but get 
> errors when I pass the image on to tesseract and just a blank file. I 
> probably am leaving something out of the command line but I would like to 
> keep trying.
>>
>
>

-- 

Re: Scanning

[Tony Baechler]

According to Project Gutenberg Distributed Proofreaders (pgdp.net if you're 
interested), they actually recommend not scanning at 600 DPI.  They 
recommend 300 DPI for most books and 400 DPI in rare cases.  I can confirm 
this to be the case in my experience.  When I scan at the highest 
resolution, I actually get worse text results.  Not only does 300 DPI scan 
faster, but seems to do a better job.  Of course I don't know about 
non-English text.  Maybe 400 DPI works better for other languages.

On 11/5/2015 7:30 AM, John G Heim wrote:
> I did a lot of experimentation while scanning in the D&D manual. I found
> that I got best text recognition when I scanned in the page as line art. My
> scanner has a top resolution of 600 dots per inch. I don't know if that's
> good or bad. It's is a really ancient scanner. Someone just gave it to me
> because they were upgrading to Windows XP and it didn't have drivers. When
> would that have been, 2001? But it still works great in linux.

Re: Scanning

[Willem van der Walt]

Hi,
I also read that 300 dpi is best as well as scanning in black and white as 
opposed to scanning in color.
HTH, Willem


On Fri, 6 Nov 2015, Tony Baechler wrote:

> According to Project Gutenberg Distributed Proofreaders (pgdp.net if you're 
> interested), they actually recommend not scanning at 600 DPI.  They 
> recommend 300 DPI for most books and 400 DPI in rare cases.  I can confirm 
> this to be the case in my experience.  When I scan at the highest 
> resolution, I actually get worse text results.  Not only does 300 DPI scan 
> faster, but seems to do a better job.  Of course I don't know about 
> non-English text.  Maybe 400 DPI works better for other languages.
>
> On 11/5/2015 7:30 AM, John G Heim wrote:
>> I did a lot of experimentation while scanning in the D&D manual. I found
>> that I got best text recognition when I scanned in the page as line art. My
>> scanner has a top resolution of 600 dots per inch. I don't know if that's
>> good or bad. It's is a really ancient scanner. Someone just gave it to me
>> because they were upgrading to Windows XP and it didn't have drivers. When
>> would that have been, 2001? But it still works great in linux.
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@linux-speakup.org
> http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
> -- 
> This message is subject to the CSIR's copyright terms and conditions, e-mail 
> legal notice, and implemented Open Document Format (ODF) standard. 
> The full disclaimer details can be found at 
> http://www.csir.co.za/disclaimer.html.
>
> This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by 
> MailScanner, 
> and is believed to be clean.
>
> Please consider the environment before printing this email.
>
>

Re: Scanning

[Glenn]

That may have to do with too much resolution picking up too many anomalies, 
like grains of the paper and smudges and the like.
Glenn
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tony Baechler" <tony@baechler.net>
To: <speakup@linux-speakup.org>
Sent: Friday, November 06, 2015 4:30 AM
Subject: Re: Scanning


According to Project Gutenberg Distributed Proofreaders (pgdp.net if you're
interested), they actually recommend not scanning at 600 DPI.  They
recommend 300 DPI for most books and 400 DPI in rare cases.  I can confirm
this to be the case in my experience.  When I scan at the highest
resolution, I actually get worse text results.  Not only does 300 DPI scan
faster, but seems to do a better job.  Of course I don't know about
non-English text.  Maybe 400 DPI works better for other languages.

On 11/5/2015 7:30 AM, John G Heim wrote:
> I did a lot of experimentation while scanning in the D&D manual. I found
> that I got best text recognition when I scanned in the page as line art. 
> My
> scanner has a top resolution of 600 dots per inch. I don't know if that's
> good or bad. It's is a really ancient scanner. Someone just gave it to me
> because they were upgrading to Windows XP and it didn't have drivers. When
> would that have been, 2001? But it still works great in linux.
_______________________________________________
Speakup mailing list
Speakup@linux-speakup.org
http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup

Re: Scanning

[Chris Brannon]

Cheryl Homiak <cah4110@icloud.com> writes:

> Thank you so much, Chris! I will contact you. I have tried with the
> lide 110 and scanimage, which I think may be what I used a few years
> ago, but get errors when I pass the image on to tesseract and just a
> blank file. I probably am leaving something out of the command line

It's possible that you may need to specify the height and width of your
scanned image.  I've had to do this in the past with the Canon scanners.
So the script I use for making scans passes the options -x 215mm -y
297mm along to scanimage.

-- Chris

Re: Scanning

[Cheryl Homiak]

Thanks for this tip. I haven't had time to work a lot more with it but it is still on my list of things to figure out so i'm keeping all these suggestions.

-- 
Cheryl

May the words of my mouth
and the meditation of my heart
be acceptable to You, Lord,
my rock and my Redeemer.
(Psalm 19:14 HCSB)





> On Nov 18, 2015, at 12:02 PM, Chris Brannon <chris@the-brannons.com> wrote:
> 
> Cheryl Homiak <cah4110@icloud.com> writes:
> 
>> Thank you so much, Chris! I will contact you. I have tried with the
>> lide 110 and scanimage, which I think may be what I used a few years
>> ago, but get errors when I pass the image on to tesseract and just a
>> blank file. I probably am leaving something out of the command line
> 
> It's possible that you may need to specify the height and width of your
> scanned image.  I've had to do this in the past with the Canon scanners.
> So the script I use for making scans passes the options -x 215mm -y
> 297mm along to scanimage.
> 
> -- Chris
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@linux-speakup.org
> http://linux-speakup.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/speakup