logoalt Hacker News

ComputerPersontoday at 5:53 PM7 repliesview on HN

I've got a scan from a book that I OCR with new releases. Ligatures, critical sigla, Fraktur letterforms, subscripts, superscripts, etc.

Nothing special about this model for overly-detailed work like mine.

It's been a while since I last tested (and discontinued my subscription), but the "pro" models from OpenAI dominate. Not surprising, given the price difference, but it would be nice if an OCR-specific model could perform better. It's worth mentioning that even the highest-end models do a pretty poor job with intricate text like mine.


Replies

SyneRydertoday at 8:35 PM

While I haven't tried OpenAI for OCR, I've put my small scale OCR work through both Claude and Mistral OCR. Claude is absolutely better - even in OCR work I did last week and compared with Mistral OCR 4.0.

Mistral's one advantage is that Anthropic now flags OCR, because they don't allow anything that could be considered "reproduction", even of work for which you own the copyright. So my new workflow is Mistral OCR for the actual OCR, followed by a proofreading pass by Claude (which is allowed). Claude is obviously more expensive, but it caught entirely hallucinated sentences created by Mistral OCR 4.0, so I was glad for the backup check.

show 1 reply
kergonathtoday at 7:56 PM

I have been quite happy with Mistral OCR for the documents I needed to process (typeset, but old, with questionable scan quality, sometimes elaborate typesetting or, much worse, typewriter-and-handwriting approximations of it). I do not test every new model when they are released, but I did a review shortly after Mistral OCR 3 was released and it was a very good compromise: cheap, fast, and good results without further processing. I found generalist models to be way too much faf to get them to avoid unnecessary modifications to the text and report accurate bounding boxes for figures and tables.

That said, models have sometimes surprising weaknesses and a model could be terrible overall but magically work for one type of document.

kmitztoday at 6:46 PM

I got the opposite experience very recently : tried to OCR a bunch of handwritten emails addresses with chatGPT and I had to make so many corrections that I gave up. Whereas Mistral nailed it on first pass.

rtaylorgarlocktoday at 6:05 PM

Yet: how is pricing? Evaluating contents and routing appropriately isn't a new challenge in OCR, one of the oldest fields of applications in ML. Thus, how do the smaller open models perform in tandem with relatively pricy $/pg models & APIs? Your use case is remarkably rare relative to the volume and price sensitivity of enterprise data warehouse ops.

show 2 replies
giancarlostorotoday at 8:21 PM

So is Mistral OCR the best one? Have any other OCR models caught some of what you describe? I've been kind of interested in how "OCR" type models work compared to old school OCR.

show 2 replies
petcattoday at 5:59 PM

> the "pro" models from OpenAI dominate. Not surprising considering the price difference, but it would ne nice if an OCR-specific model could do better.

I haven't been impressed with any of Mistral's models. They obviously realized that they couldn't compete at the frontier so they decided to go for smaller focused models but even those have not been that good.

show 1 reply
josutoday at 8:29 PM

Whats the best open OCR at the moment?