Hey, I'm the author here. My web host is having some problems right now, and I'd always intended to post a link to the demo instead, so I've put up a Cloudflare redirect straight to the demo.
Seems to be a link to a blog post which went down, and cloudflare didnt have a working version...so here is the link to the GH project:<p><a href="http://antimatter15.github.io/ocrad.js/demo.html" rel="nofollow">http://antimatter15.github.io/ocrad.js/demo.html</a>
If we are on optical recognition, did someone try compiling ZBar [1] to JavaScript? I did it but failed to get it reading canvas pixels. :/<p>[1] <a href="http://zbar.sourceforge.net/" rel="nofollow">http://zbar.sourceforge.net/</a>
I'm always curious... why not port the original rather than use emscripten? Naively you should get better performance and maintainability... is it just a time saving thing?
A. Cool<p>B. It is 6:30AM and before I've had my coffee...but am I reading right that he isn't using Tesseract? I know he says it that it was a bad idea to even try compiling it, but then spends a large part of the post talking about how great Tesseract is...just wanted to make sure I didn't miss a: "Well, finally bit the bullet and successfully got Tesseract compiled"<p>C. If not using Tesseract, then what is the rate of accuracy of what he's using (GOCR and Ocrad) compared to Tesseract? I see that GOCR was recently updated to 0.5 (though not uploaded to SourceForge yet, according to the notes <a href="http://jocr.sourceforge.net/" rel="nofollow">http://jocr.sourceforge.net/</a>)<p>FWIW, Tesseract is at 3.02 and its latest release notes are dated 10/23/2012...While doing things in straight JS has a lot of value in web apps...Tesseract, from my experience, is really far ahead of its OSS peers, and further along than a lot of commercial packages. I'm not sure the conveniences of pure JS OCR outweigh the necessity for accuracy in this domain