Is Auto Rotate Implemented?

Asked by Neil Pitman

Does the current version include the ability to detect the orientation of text on the page and autorotate accordingly prior to recognition. So, for example a landscape document that has been scanned as portrait would be rotated automatically. A calling program to generate a searchable would need to know what rotation was made so that the source image can be rotated as required.

There are a number of commented out sections of code such as the one below which suggest that it was there at one time?

If it is not implemented is there any guidance on how we might achieve this? Thanks.

/*-Andrey: moved to RRecCom (recognition) and RNorm (autorotate)
//--------------------------------------------------------------
        case REXC_FNREX_ISLANGUAGE:
            *(Word32*)pData = (Word32)REXC_IsLanguage;
            break;
        case REXC_FNGETORIENT:
            *(Word32*)pData = (Word32)REXC_GetOrient;
            break;
-*/

Question information

Language:
English Edit question
Status:
Solved
For:
Cuneiform for Linux Edit question
Assignee:
No assignee Edit question
Last query:
Last reply:
Revision history for this message
Yury V. Zaytsev (zyv) said :
#1

The current version does not support auto-rotate as is, although it probably still resides somewhere in the PUMA code and needs to be worked on and subsequently enabled (just as the layout engine). I am quite sure, that the closed-source Windows version had this feature for a while. Unfortunately I can't provide you with more information ATM. Maybe Dmitry could comment on that more extensively.

In any case any of your possible code / documentation contributions are welcome.

Revision history for this message
Yury V. Zaytsev (zyv) said :
#2

Question abandoned by author.

Revision history for this message
Martin Wildam (mwildam) said :
#3

I would be interested in the status of autorotate. In my tests with 0.8.0 it did not seem to support autorotate. I am about to update to 0.9.0 but I can't find any change log.

Revision history for this message
Yury V. Zaytsev (zyv) said :
#4

No, it's not.