cuneiform team mailing list archive
-
cuneiform team
-
Mailing list archive
-
Message #00429
[Bug 344790] Re: OCR quality drops (mising point)
Second conclusion:
cuneiform (I try refactoring branch) produce error message like "Unknown DIB format
CTIImageList::AddImage: invalid image info " if the page has image object.
Example
cuneiform -v 1871_016.3B
1871_016.3B=> DIB 2544x3300 2544x3300+0+0 1-bit Bilevel DirectClass 24.02MiB 0.210u 0:00.209
############################
CuneiForm Recognize options:
Language: 0
Fax: false
Use speller: false
Layout options:
One Column: false
Dot Matrix: false
Auto Rotate: false
Tables number: 0
Geometry: Rect(Point(0,0), Point(2544,3300)) width:2544; height:3300
FormatOptions:
SerifName: Times New Roman
SansSerifName: Arial
Monospace Name: Courier New
Use bold: false
Use Italic: false
Use font size: false
Unrecognized char: '~'
Line breaks: false
############################
The image depth is 24 at this point.
falseWarning: RSL said that the lines don't need to be erased from the picture.
VSL: before table search - 0, after -13
VSL: Нужных изменений не найдено
Container CPAGE contains:
name : size
TYPE_IMAGE : 12032
TYPE_IMAGE : 12032
TYPE_TEXT : 12032
TYPE_TEXT : 12032
TYPE_TEXT : 12032
TYPE_TEXT : 12032
TYPE_TEXT : 12032
TYPE_TEXT : 12032
TYPE_TEXT : 12032
TYPE_TEXT : 12032
TYPE_TEXT : 12032
TYPE_TEXT : 12032
TYPE_TEXT : 12032
Fragment 1 Line 1: <1000>
Fragment 2 Line 2: <J. E. COSTA>
Fragment 3 Line 3: <reconstruction from rainfall data. Reconstructed flood peaks based>
Fragment 3 Line 4: <on rainfall analyses of' the 1976 Big Thompson storm for the two>
Fragment 3 Line 5: <basins are 153 and 110 m~/s (Miller and others, 1978) (Table 6).>
Fragment 3 Line 6: <Th>
Fragment 3 Line 7: <ese values are also closer to the paleohydraulic values than are>
Fragment 3 Line 8: <the slope-area estimates. Thus, two independent indirect discharge>
Fragment 3 Line 9: <estimates give peak discharge estimates similar to those calculated>
Fragment 3 Line 10: <by the paleohydraulic technique developed here, but significantl>
Fragment 3 Line 11: <icny>
Fragment 3 Line 12: <less than the published conventional slope-area discharge estimates>
Fragment 3 Line 13: <(Table 6). These results support the suggestion that excessive chan->
Fragment 3 Line 14: <nel scour in small mountain tributaries could cause slope-area dis->
Fragment 3 Line 15: <charge estimates to be too large.>
Fragment 3 Line 16: <A second explanation for why most paleohydraulic recon->
Fragment 3 Line 17: <structed discharges on small streams are lower than those estimated>
Fragment 3 Line 18: <by slope-area techniques may be that slope-area inethods require>
Fragment 3 Line 19: <the estimation of a roughness coefficient (n). Typical values consis->
Fragment 3 Line 20: <tently selected for large floods in small mountain channels are n =>
Fragment 3 Line 21: <0.035 to 0.06. Research on verification of roughness coefficients for>
Fragment 3 Line 22: <steep mountain channels recently completed (R. D. Jarrett, unpub.>
Fragment 3 Line 23: <data) indicates that these n values may be too low by factors of 1.5>
Fragment 3 Line 24: <to 2.0. Higher values would reduce velocities and result in lower>
Fragment 3 Line 25: <slope-area discharge estimates.>
Fragment 3 Line 26: <Finally, the fundamental assumptions that particles of all sizes>
Fragment 3 Line 27: <are available for transport in small, steep mountain valleys and that>
Fragment 3 Line 28: <flood velocity and depth (actually depth-slope product) are>
Fragment 3 Line 29: <reflected in the size of boulders in flood deposits must be examined.>
Fragment 3 Line 30: <Large floods may have been able to move boulders larger than>
Fragment 3 Line 31: <those that were available. This may be the case in Sawmill Gulch>
Fragment 3 Line 32: <(Table 6, site 9), which follows a major shear zone along which>
Fragment 3 Line 33: <uranium enrichrnent occurs (Sims and Sheridan, 1964). Fault>
Fragment 3 Line 34: <movements have crushed and broken the bedrock along closely>
Fragment 3 Line 35: <spaced joints and fractures, and consequently there are no very>
Fragment 3 Line 36: <large boulders available to be moved during a large flood. The>
Fragment 3 Line 37: <second assumption, that average velocity and depth can be recon->
Fragment 3 Line 38: <structed from particle size with reasonable accuracy, requires that>
Fragment 3 Line 39: <the methods selected, premises, and numerical values estimated rea->
Fragment 3 Line 40: <sonably approximate processes and conditions in the field. Unfor->
Fragment 3 Line 41: <tunately, the hazards entailed in compiling actual measurements>
Fragment 3 Line 42: <and observations during catastrophic floods preclude any substan->
Fragment 3 Line 43: <tial direct empirical corroboration.>
Fragment 4 Line 44: <macroturbulent effects in large rivers during flash fl>
Fragment 4 Line 45: <'�rna>
Fragment 4 Line 46: <explanation. Lifting forces induced by macrot>
Fragment 4 Line 47: <o ur ulent ">
Fragment 4 Line 48: <play an essential role in the entrainment of coarse>
Fragment 4 Line 49: <rse Particles ii>
Fragment 4 Line 50: <deep flows (Matthes, 1947; Baker, 1973; Jackson, 1976>
Fragment 4 Line 51: <upward forces promote the entrainment of parti.>
Fragment 4 Line 52: <ac son, 19761>
Fragment 4 Line 53: <coarsr>
Fragment 4 Line 54: <those that tractive force and velocity alone can .:>
Fragment 4 Line 55: <iphsh>
Fragment 4 Line 56: <particles coarser than about 2 m may be moved;>
Fragment 4 Line 57: <iws le,>
Fragment 4 Line 58: <and more shallow than would be predicted by exi;>
Fragment 4 Line 59: <exu ~polatrni>
Fragment 4 Line 60: <incipient motion velocity and depth values for small>
Fragment 4 Line 61: <e" pariie>
Fragment 5 Line 62: <APPLICATION OF PALEOHYDRAULIC>
Fragment 5 Line 63: <DISCHARGE COMPUTATIONS>
Fragment 6 Line 64: <The application of the paleohydraulic flood dis h>
Fragment 6 Line 65: <isc arge (>
Fragment 6 Line 66: <struction technique developed here can be demonstr t d>
Fragment 6 Line 67: <s rate usin>
Fragment 6 Line 68: <streams in the Colorado Front Range with sediment 1>
Fragment 6 Line 69: <mento ogrea>
Fragment 6 Line 70: <dence of large flash floods, but without conventional indiree>
Fragment 6 Line 71: <charge estimates. The two examples are a small tributa>
Fragment 6 Line 72: <u arytog>
Fragment 6 Line 73: <Gulch in the Big Thompson River basin, and a I:irge,t,>
Fragment 6 Line 74: <Boulder Creek at Boulder, Colorado, where the s, -entolo>
Fragment 6 Line 75: <flood record previously has been investigated by B. and q>
Fragment 6 Line 76: <(1980).>
Fragment 7 Line 77: <Rabbit Gulch Tributary>
Fragment 8 Line 78: <Figure 1 I shows a pile of large boulders deposited at the>
Fragment 8 Line 79: <2>
Fragment 8 Line 80: <of a small (1.8 km ) tributary to Rabbit Gulch from a catastrol>
Fragment 8 Line 81: <flash flood in 1976 in the Big Thompson River basin. The averag>
Fragment 8 Line 82: <the 5 largest boulders is 1,150 mm, and the channel slope measo>
Fragment 8 Line 83: <from 1:24,000 scale topographic maps is 0.091. Using equatioo>
Fragment 8 Line 84: <the estimated average flood velocity is 5.57 m/s, and from Figor>
Fragment 8 Line 85: <the estimated average flood depth is 1.35 m. Two valley cros~ s>
Fragment 8 Line 86: <tions are shown in Figure 12, along with the appropriate top flo>
Fragment 8 Line 87: <width (dashed lines) for the estimated average depth., he averi>
Fragment 8 Line 88: <discharge for the two cross sections is 57 ms/s. This ts to lx>
Fragment 8 Line 89: <reasonable value for the flood peak for two reasons thc or>
Fragment 8 Line 90: <discharge is approximately 32 m-/s/km2, which r.~ . rnilar>
Fragment 8 Line 91: <unit discharges for other small tributaries in the bra,ompsr>
Fragment 9 Line 92: <I.arge Streams>
Fragment10 Line 93: <When dealing with particles coarser than about 2 m, paleohy->
Fragment10 Line 94: <draulic reconstructions of' average velocity and depth are less accu->
Fragment10 Line 95: <rate than f' or smaller boulders. For the Big Thompson River, the>
Fragment10 Line 96: <only large stream in the Colorado Front Range used to verify>
Fragment10 Line 97: <paleohydraulic reconstructions, postflood slope-area surveys (Groz->
Fragment10 Line 98: <ier and others, 1976) indicated the average flood depth for two cross>
Fragment10 Line 99: <sections was 3.23 m. The reconstructed depth from Figure 7 using>
Fragment10 Line100: <the average of the five largest boulders moved through the cross>
Fragment10 Line101: <section and deposited below the mouth of the canyon (2.76 m)>
Fragment10 Line102: <( .. radley, 1982, personal commun.) is 4.80 m. The calculated>
Fragment10 Line103: <(W. C. Br>
Fragment10 Line104: <average velocity from slope-area measurements (rated "poor") is>
Fragment10 Line105: <7.92 m/s compared to 8.53 m/s computed from equation 10. The>
Fragment10 Line106: <paleohydraulic overestimation of depth and velocity results in the>
Fragment10 Line107: <reconstructed peak discharge at the mouth of the canyon exceedin>
Fragment10 Line108: <g>
Fragment10 Line109: <the slope-area estimate by 76eZ<.>
Fragment10 Line110: <This is a greater diff'erence than occurs in any of the smaller>
Fragment10 Line111: <streams with smaller-sized flood boulders. Possibly, additional>
Fragment11 Line112: <Figure II. Photograph of large boulders deposited at '"'>
Fragment11 Line113: <mouth of an unnamed tributary to Rabbit Gulch from a farg�'>
Fragment11 Line114: <flood in 1976. No previous discharge estimates e ist for this��>
Unknown DIB format
CTIImageList::AddImage: invalid image info
Text is recognized correctly, but there are no output file produced
--
OCR quality drops (mising point)
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/344790
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Cuneiform
Linux, which is the registrant for Cuneiform for Linux.
Status in Linux port of Cuneiform: New
Bug description:
OCR quality drops during porting.
Look at the result of recognition stdj4.tif, line 7, smart text format
was (stdj4.txt.initial)
mli i f r nin. Ithas
is (stdj4.txt.puma)
m li i f r nin Ithas
