[cocavan]

I'm somewhat familiar with the principles of OCR scanning, but I need practical help.

I'm interested in scanning some of my older books, particularly, but not only, cookbooks, into editable text. I need recommendations for a decent flatbed scanner as well as efficient software.

My ideal would be to scan books directly into WordPerfect, but, until pigs fly, that's not likely, so RTF and/or Word would do.

What reasonably priced (≤$150) flatbed scanners do the pros who read this request recommend? Also, what reasonably priced software programs will do the trick?

Thanks.

[brainout]

For that price, you don't get a scanner you'll want to keep. But here's a link giving you the ability to shop in that price range. Once you get used to scanning, you'll want more than a cheap flatbed you have to use one page at a time. Of the scanners, the most reliable ones reported are Canon, Epson, HP and Fujitsu. I opted for the latter, but it was $400, the size of a 1950's breadbox, and is not flatbed. For books you do need flatbed, and I use Brother MFC for that. They too are over $300, new. Epson and Canon are also in this price range, and I've seen good reviews on the former, in Amazon, not sure what PC World has to say.

Hope this helps.

[waldojim]

cocavan, on 20 November 2011 - 01:12 PM, said:

I'm somewhat familiar with the principles of OCR scanning, but I need practical help.

I'm interested in scanning some of my older books, particularly, but not only, cookbooks, into editable text. I need recommendations for a decent flatbed scanner as well as efficient software.

My ideal would be to scan books directly into WordPerfect, but, until pigs fly, that's not likely, so RTF and/or Word would do.

What reasonably priced (≤$150) flatbed scanners do the pros who read this request recommend? Also, what reasonably priced software programs will do the trick?

Thanks.

I personally use Canon scanners. They are reliable, and work quite well.

As for OCR, my suggestion would actually be Microsoft One Note. Surprisingly, it has been about the only thing that works reliably. It doesn't convert anything to get, but you get to treat the results as if they were text.