Re: OCR/barcode reliability

From: Arthur Keller <arthur_at_kellers_dot_org>
Date: Thu Jun 03 2004 - 01:12:34 CDT

At 11:30 PM -0400 6/2/04, David Mertz wrote:
>>>I find this claim unlikely if we are talking about OCR fonts like
>>>OCR-A. At the least it is not supportable without some empirical
>>>evidence. Strong counter-evidence is provided by the banking
>>>industry, who process literally billions of checks every day, with
>>>extremely low error rates, using OCR fonts.
>>Banks use MICR not straight OCR. That's Magnetic Ink. And the
>>MICR encoding is more redundant that straight OCR is.
>
>Still?
>
>I thought the MICR was something from the 1980s, and banks had
>generally moved to pure optical now.
>
>For example, from http://www.checkmagic.com/FAQ.htm:
>
>>These special characters are called MICR (Magnetic Ink Character
>>Recognition) characters because they were originally designed to be
>>printed in a special magnetic ink and read using magnetic sensors
>>in the banks' machinery. However, almost all banks (more than 90%)
>>now use optical sensors (OCR -Optical Character Recognition) to
>>read your checks. This means that the banks' equipment can read the
>>MICR characters as long as they are printed clearly and accurately,
>>with magnetic or standard ink or toner.

It isn't OCR-A or the like. The MICR font (developed years ago by
SRI) is much more redundant than OCR-A.

Best regards,
Arthur

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur M. Keller, Ph.D., 3881 Corina Way, Palo Alto, CA  94303-4507
tel +1(650)424-0202, fax +1(650)424-0424
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external 
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain    
==================================================================
Received on Wed Jun 30 23:17:04 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jun 30 2004 - 23:17:29 CDT