🚀 go-pugleaf

David R. Hanson (drh4@midway.uchicago.edu) wrote:
: I'm considering purchase of either an HP3p or 3c scanner.  I can afford the
: 3c, but only want to pay the extra $ if the difference for my uses are
: significant.  Occasionally, I'll scan in pictures and art, but the bulk of my
: scanning work should be in OCR, document storage, (probably on Pagekeeper
: 2.0), "copying" with the photocopy utility, etc.  I'm using win 3.1, OS/2
: Warp's win-os2, and either Win95 or NT, moving increasingly to one of the
: latter as 32-bit win apps get released.

I work for SOlution Technology. Some of our corporate stuff deals with 
OCR or document/image processing. Most companies are using 200 DPI or 
even 300 DPI when scanning in bills of lading and such (with barcodes). 
As you go up in DPI, the image size gets larger and processing time it 
longer. If you are going to do any pictures and stuff having the extra 
DPI will help downthe road

We do have an os2 OCR product. Email solution@gate.net for more info.

Thanx leon

about HP 3c.

I just bought one and love it.  It works perfectly with win95 
and I can aquire scanned images directly from wordperfect6.1 
and corel paint 5.0.  Included ocr is good, but if you are 
serious I would go for the upgrade offered to omnipage pro.  I 
would DEFINATELY go for the 600 dpi for ocr (or photos).  I 
have scanned magazine articles in and get tons of mistakes at 
300 dpi.  600 dpi rarely makes a mistake.

if you have further questions, email me.

peace
ed

David R. Hanson (drh4@midway.uchicago.edu) wrote:
: I'm considering purchase of either an HP3p or 3c scanner.  I can afford the
: 3c, but only want to pay the extra $ if the difference for my uses are
: significant.  Occasionally, I'll scan in pictures and art, but the bulk of my
: scanning work should be in OCR, document storage, (probably on Pagekeeper
: 2.0), "copying" with the photocopy utility, etc.  I'm using win 3.1, OS/2
: Warp's win-os2, and either Win95 or NT, moving increasingly to one of the
: latter as 32-bit win apps get released.

I faced the same decision myself four months ago.  Since the bulk of my 
scanner work was for OCR, I opted to go for the HP IIIp ScanJet.  It was 
cheaper than the IIIc and I read in a review that grayscale scanners tend 
to do a better job with OCR, and are certainly much faster in scanning 
pages.  YMMV, of course...

Michael G. Lloyd
mlloyd@cuix.pscu.com or mglloyd@msn.com

man,
     i have a HPIIcx scanner and works fine.  i see no different in 3c and IIcx as well
as its resolution. also, if we are not image designer , we don't need so much dpi
the iicx is enough verm much for nearly all scanning aaplication. 

BTW, do you know where i can get the 32bits iicx driver so that i can use my
scanner under WINNT3.5

thank you

desmond

drh4@midway.uchicago.edu (David R. Hanson) wrote:
>I'm considering purchase of either an HP3p or 3c scanner.  I can afford the
>3c, but only want to pay the extra $ if the difference for my uses are
>significant.  Occasionally, I'll scan in pictures and art, but the bulk of my
>scanning work should be in OCR, document storage, (probably on Pagekeeper
>2.0), "copying" with the photocopy utility, etc.  I'm using win 3.1, OS/2
>Warp's win-os2, and either Win95 or NT, moving increasingly to one of the
>latter as 32-bit win apps get released.
>
>Thus the question:  do those of you using the 600 dpi, speedier 3c notice a
>significant improvement in these areas over the 3p?  Can we expect the new
>32-bit apps to get more punch from the greater resolution?  Do you notice much
>of a speed difference?  What are your other thoughts on this decision, and
>what applications have you had good luck with?
>
>TIA for any advice,
>
>Dave
>
>
>Dave Hanson                
>drh4@midway.uchicago.edu  
>Philosphy Ph.D. Student, The University of Chicago 
>

drh4@midway.uchicago.edu (David R. Hanson) wrote:

>I'm considering purchase of either an HP3p or 3c scanner.  I can afford the
>3c, but only want to pay the extra $ if the difference for my uses are
>significant.  Occasionally, I'll scan in pictures and art, but the bulk of my
>scanning work should be in OCR, document storage, (probably on Pagekeeper
>2.0), "copying" with the photocopy utility, etc.  I'm using win 3.1, OS/2
>Warp's win-os2, and either Win95 or NT, moving increasingly to one of the
>latter as 32-bit win apps get released.
>
>Thus the question:  do those of you using the 600 dpi, speedier 3c notice a
>significant improvement in these areas over the 3p?  Can we expect the new
>32-bit apps to get more punch from the greater resolution?  Do you notice much
>of a speed difference?  What are your other thoughts on this decision, and
>what applications have you had good luck with?
>
>TIA for any advice,
>
>Dave
>
>
>Dave Hanson                
>drh4@midway.uchicago.edu  
>Philosphy Ph.D. Student, The University of Chicago 
>
Keep one thing in mind, for OCR work, all the major OCR packages (Check
this month's ZD report in Computer Shopper, my favorite TYprereader from
Expervision IS the best, Omniscan by Carere is second) work at their best
on 300 dpi scans, running higher resolutions DO NOT impove recognition,
just result in much larger files and slow down the OCR programs.  You'll
love 600dpi color for graphics, but my HP Scanjet IIp will deliver equal
performance to the 3p or 3c for OCR work...

---------------
Jeff Weiss          Voice: (603) 352-8004
weisslaw@sover.net

In article <DF2to4.I4@midway.uchicago.edu>,
   drh4@midway.uchicago.edu (David R. Hanson) wrote:
>I'm considering purchase of either an HP3p or 3c scanner.  I can afford the
>3c, but only want to pay the extra $ if the difference for my uses are
>significant.  Occasionally, I'll scan in pictures and art, but the bulk of my
>scanning work should be in OCR, document storage, (probably on Pagekeeper
>2.0), "copying" with the photocopy utility, etc.  I'm using win 3.1, OS/2
>Warp's win-os2, and either Win95 or NT, moving increasingly to one of the
>latter as 32-bit win apps get released.
>
>Thus the question:  do those of you using the 600 dpi, speedier 3c notice a
>significant improvement in these areas over the 3p?  Can we expect the new
>32-bit apps to get more punch from the greater resolution?  Do you notice 
much
>of a speed difference?  What are your other thoughts on this decision, and
>what applications have you had good luck with?

The greatest difference is that the 3P is Grey Scale and the 3C is Colour that 
may help you decide.


-----------------------------
Ivan Hyslop <ivanh@iconz.co.nz>
PC Communications
Auckland, New Zealand
Computer Retail Sales & Installation
Computer Training, Internet & BBS
Desktop Publishing Service
7 Days a Week - 24 Hours-a-Day
------------------------------

Ed Leiken (deaded@ccnet.com) wrote:
: about HP 3c.
: ....
: serious I would go for the upgrade offered to omnipage pro.  I 
: would DEFINATELY go for the 600 dpi for ocr (or photos).  I 
: have scanned magazine articles in and get tons of mistakes at 
: 300 dpi.  600 dpi rarely makes a mistake.
: 
: if you have further questions, email me.
: 
: peace
: ed
:
I am also in the market for a scanner.  I'm primarily concerned about ocr 
of newspaper articles.  Will I get more accuracy at 600 dpi than the 
300x600 offered by the monocrome hp scanner?  The monochrome scanner is 
about $300 on the street.  The color scanner sells for about $900.  For a 
given ocr package, will my accuracy go up by a factor of three, like the 
price?

Thanks

des <ccip@hk.linkage.net> wrote:
>man,
>     i have a HPIIcx scanner and works fine.  i see no different in 3c and IIcx as well
>as its resolution. also, if we are not image designer , we don't need so much dpi
>the iicx is enough verm much for nearly all scanning aaplication. 

So what's the deal?  Did you scan than reply in with your 300 
dpi scanner?  ;^)

Really though, it's hard to take someone's advice who has a 
300dpi and can't see why he should get 600, as opposed to 
someone who has tried both.  There is really no comparison when 
scanning  small text.  Don't take my word for it, do the math. 
 Or even better, take a magazine article down to your local 
comp usa and check them out.  If the $300 scanner does what you 
want, it's dumb to spend the extra $600.  I needed the color 
and that's why I got it.  As far as the question, is it 3x as 
good for 3x the price.  That's not really a relevant question. 
If I get 95% accuracy in 300dpi and 99.99% acuracy in 600 dpi, 
no that's not 3 times as good, but it will still save me lots 
of time editing (depending on the length of the article).

Really, what you buy depends on your needs.  I'm a hobyist and 
have no needs, just wants, and the 3c satisfies them all.  Any 
other questions, feel free to email me, this group is just too 
big to catch all the articles.

peace
ed

In article <43sm88$7ls@ccnet2.ccnet.com>, Ed Leiken  <deaded@ccnet.com> wrote:
>Really though, it's hard to take someone's advice who has a 
>300dpi and can't see why he should get 600, as opposed to 
>someone who has tried both.  There is really no comparison when 
>scanning  small text.  Don't take my word for it, do the math.
>...
>If I get 95% accuracy in 300dpi and 99.99% acuracy in 600 dpi, 
>no that's not 3 times as good, but it will still save me lots 
>of time editing (depending on the length of the article).

Yes.  The $65536 question is, what difference in OCR accuracy
do you see between 300 and 600 dpi *IN PRACTICE*?  Have you
DONE this experiment and what was the result?

I did a very limited experiment and found almost no difference
in accuracy using the Calera Wordscan software that was packaged
with the 3c.  That surprised me somewhat but maybe the result
would be different with more kinds of print samples (I used
part of a page from a newspaper).

If you've done a more extensive experiment, please tell us what
happened!

phr@netcom.com (Paul Rubin) wrote:

>I did a very limited experiment and found almost no difference
>in accuracy using the Calera Wordscan software that was packaged
>with the 3c.  That surprised me somewhat but maybe the result
>would be different with more kinds of print samples (I used
>part of a page from a newspaper).
>
>If you've done a more extensive experiment, please tell us what
>happened!

I have done a bit.  I guess it's individual.  I scanned a 
newspaper article from the contra costa times, a table from PC 
magazine, and an article from people magazine all in 300 and 
600 dpi.  I got 5-6 errors/article with 300 dpi and only 1 
error in 3 articles with 600dpi.  This was hardly a controlled 
clinical trial, but whatever.  I already have the 3c and am not 
going to kick my butt trying to prove to myself that I dont' 
need it ;^)

peace
ed