Question

Laserfiche Workflow Scheduled OCR vs Client OCR - Difference Results

Workflow Laserfiche

Updated April 15, 2022

asked on October 16, 2014

I'm hoping someone can shed some light on this. I have a customer that has noticed he is getting slightly different OCR results when using the scheduled OCR in Workflow vs the Client. The settings for the OCR are identical. Is the Workflow using a different OCR engine vs the Client using OmniPage 18.5?

I will attach some screenshots.

1 0

Replies

replied on October 16, 2014 • Show version history

I've noticed similar differences at times between Quickfields whole page OCRing and the client.

From the looks of the screenshots however both of the settings look identical. The OCR'd text from Distributed Client almost looks like one of the settings is not on. You might try removing one thing at a time from your client and see if you can get close to the same results. There might be an image enhancement that is not actually kicking in.

1 0

replied on October 16, 2014

Thanks for the replies, the problem is we don't want to mimic the results from Workflow, we want to mimic the results the client can achieve but in Workflow. So basically, workflow isn't doing something that the client is. The problem is, there are no other settings possible in the Workflow configuration as shown in the screenshots.

1 0

replied on October 16, 2014

Distributed Computing Cluster (DCC), which Workflow calls into for OCR, uses the same OCR engine as the Client.

Are the OCR settings (optimization, image enhancements) the same in the Schedule OCR activity and the Client?

0 0

replied on July 3, 2015

Hi Miruna,

Can you please confirm, if it is the same Omnipage OCR engine used by Quick Fields as well?

1 0

replied on July 6, 2015

Yes.

1 0

replied on July 6, 2015

Great. Thanks for confirming.

0 0

replied on October 16, 2014

Shaun, I'm not seeing any screenshots in this thread. Schedule OCR provides the same options as the Client in Workflow 9.1.

0 0

replied on October 16, 2014

Miruna: there were screenshots here earlier, I downloaded and looked at them.

Shaun: I'm not proposing changing the settings to match workflow because obviously that was way worse. I was suggesting changing the settings in the client to see if you can duplicate it so you have a better idea what's happening. That way if you do you can either post those results here and/or open up a case with support. Obviously distributed processing is handling something different. Looking at the output from earlier when I downloaded it (before it was deleted, it was still in my downloads folder) it looks to me like decolumnize is on even though it says it's not.

0 0

replied on October 16, 2014

DCC's event log will show the exact settings it ran for each task. Look in the Event Viewer under Applications and Services Log\Laserfiche\Distributed Computing Cluster\DCC Service\Operational.

2 0

replied on October 16, 2014

Oh cool. That's useful.

0 0

replied on October 16, 2014

Thanks Chris, Miruna. Yes I had uploaded the screenshots, someone must have deleted them as they are not on here anymore. Chris, I asked my client to do the exact same thing you asked, as I too was wanting to see if it could be replicated, but haven't received results yet.

Thanks for the DCC event info, forgot about that being logged. I will check that and get back to you both.

1 0

replied on March 23, 2022

This is the exact issue I am having. My client and WF OCR setting are identical but I am getting different results. How can I confirm which version of OmniPage my WF is using?

I am processing tiff images, no electronic file.

any suggestions? I didnt see OmniPage in the WF admin console.

Thanks!

0 0

replied on April 15, 2022

Workflow does not use OCR, you need to look at the DCC machine. For version 11, that would be OmniPage 19.2 for all Laserfiche products.

0 0

You are not allowed to follow up in this post.

Question

Question

Laserfiche Workflow Scheduled OCR vs Client OCR - Difference Results

Replies

Sign in to reply to this post.