npn@cbnewsl.att.com (nils-peter.nelson) (03/23/91)
At the Seybold Seminar, Adobe had an exhibit that included several new printers with their RIP. One was especially impressive-- the HP Series IIISi. Apparently, HP has a proprietary board that does spot size and place adjustment. The result is a 300dpi printer that yields quality more like 400 dpi. I picked up a sample "Stock Report" page. I also picked up a sample of the new Kodak 7016PS output, which looked more like conventional 300 dpi. How could one quantify the differences? I ran both samples through an OCR board (this one from Calera) and diff'ed the files. Embarrassingly, the text was *not* identical; apparently, Adobe had two different people key in identical text, and they made errors. In addition, one used FrameMaker and one PageMaker, so the hyphenation was different. I went through by hand and found: 6 errors in 1728 characters on HP 10 errors in 1716 characters on Kodak (the errors are all in the OCR, *not* in the printer). As a free plug to HP, whom we have never forgiven for foisting PCL on the world, the IIISi, at 15ppm for under $6,000 and outstanding quality, is absolutely worth considering. If Adobe could supply a *standard* page, we could automate the quality check.
jaap@mtxinu.COM (Jaap Akkerhuis) (03/26/91)
In article <1991Mar22.224813.7086@cbnewsl.att.com> npn@cbnewsl.att.com (nils-peter.nelson) writes: > How he used an OCR-reader and did an experiment which worked better on > a new HP printer then a new Kodak printer. Hi Peter, I think your test was amusing, although hardly conclusive, unless the only way you read text is via an OCR-reader. One of the problems comparing printers this way, is that the toners from various printers might have a different reflective spectrum, which can influence the way machines read it much quicker then humans. I've seen ordinary copiers turning output from one printer useless after copying, due to the toner/exposure mismatch of the printer. An interesting experiment is to take output from various brands of copiers (at least, if they really use different engines, something which is not always the case), and feed it trough the competitors version. A good time is garanteed for all! jaap
lee@sq.sq.com (Liam R. E. Quin) (03/27/91)
npn@cbnewsl.att.com (nils-peter.nelson) wrote: > I went through by hand and found: > 6 errors in 1728 characters on HP > 10 errors in 1716 characters on Kodak > (the errors are all in the OCR, *not* in the printer). > >As a free plug to HP, [...] the IIISi, at 15ppm for >under $6,000 and outstanding quality, is absolutely >worth considering. Although I don't (yet) have an opinion on the HPIIISi (apart from disliking the name!), I do wonder whether it is entirely reasonable to equate quality with OCR recognition. Typographical features such as the use of ligatures and kerning often make life harder for an OCR program but easier for the human eye, to give a simple example. Since the documents in question were not produced by the same software, it seems a little unfair to Kodak. If this metric were universally established, the best printers would be those that used the OCR fonts that one sees on cheques, followed closely by monspaced fonts like Courier. The error rates quoted seem slightly on the high side to me, but I am not up to date with OCR software, and perhaps the text was in small sizes. The people for whom this metric _would_ be useful are those who accomplish file transfer by printing out a document and then scanning it in on another system... and yes, I have seen this done! :-( Lee -- Liam R. E. Quin, lee@sq.com, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, +1 (416) 963-8337 ``Agree, for Law is costly. -- Very good advice to litigious Persons, founded upon Reason and Experience; for many Times the Charges of a Suit exceed the Value of the Thing in Dispute.'' Bailey's dictionary, 1636