Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!uunet!datapg!com50!com2serv!craig
From: craig@com2serv.C2S.MN.ORG (Craig S. Wilson)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Networks considered harmful
Message-ID: <3299@com50.C2S.MN.ORG>
Date: 26 Dec 89 13:42:27 GMT
References: <1250@toro.UUCP> <0ZXtO8S00hl=APvn1Y@andrew.cmu.edu>
Sender: nntp@com50.C2S.MN.ORG
Reply-To: craig@com2serv.c2s.mn.org (Craig S. Wilson)
Organization: Com Squared Systems, Mendota Heights, MN
Lines: 27

In article <0ZXtO8S00hl=APvn1Y@andrew.cmu.edu> jhm+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU (Jim Morris) writes:
<Here is an earlier reply to John's messsage -- back when it was just a
<bb post on USENet's telcom.
<From: Jim Morris <jhm+@andrew.cmu.edu>

<> These advantages include the fact that information is 
<> transmitted more cheaply as character streams than as images.
<> Group IV compression brings the image vs. ASCII ratio down to about 5. 

Does this take into account the fact that ASCII data streams can be
easily and quickly compressed, also.

<>  Moreover, messages transmitted as character streams can be readily
<> filed, searched, edited and used by computer programs.
<OCR can work for the searching part.  99% character recognition rates
<are common. There are already products available that scan, recognize,
<and index documents for you. The key idea is that the image is saved
<too, so there is no danger of the  1% missed characters causing problems
<other than missed retrieval.

I would very much like to hear specifics of anyone getting 99%
character recognition of transmitted facsimiles on a regular basis.
What are the costs in time and money of this sort of efficiency?

<Jim.Morris@andrew.cmu.edu

/craig