It seems like with the current progress in ML models, doing OCR should be an easy task. After all, recognizing handwritten numbers was one of the prime benchmarks for image recognition (MNIST was released in 1994).

Yet, when I try to OCR any of my handwritten notes all I ever get is a jumbled mess of nonsense. Am I missing something, is my handwriting really that atrocious or is it the models?

Here’s a quick example, a random passage from a scientific article:

I tried EasyOCR, Tesseract, PPOCR and a few online tools. Only PPOCR was able to correctly identify the numbers and the words “J.” and “Chem.”. The rest is just a random mess of characters.

Edit: thank you all for shitting on my handwriting. That was not asked for, and also not helpful. That sample was intentionally “not nice” but is how I would write a note for myself. (You should see how my notes look like when I don’t need to read them again, lol)

chatGPT can transcribe it perfectly, and also works on a slightly larger sample. Deepseek works ok-ish but made some mistakes, and gemini is apparently not available in my country atm. I guess the context awareness is what makes those models better in transcription, and also why I can read it back without problems.

  • litchraleeEnglish
    0·
    44 minutes ago

    My German is non-existent, but it seems to me that those two references can agree with this form for the lowercase d:

    lowercase d handwriting

    Of course, your second reference shows an initial stroke towards the top of the circle, but the rest of the stroke is one motion where the ascender double-backs on itself, completing the circle in a counterclockwise move that also starts the ascender. That is to say, the circle and ascender are naturally attached.

    I could find only one reference which explicitly starts a new stroke for the ascender after completing the circle, but this example is from cursive, not from standard form:

    cursive d with separate ascender stroke

    If I had to guess, the impetus for not doubling back is to prevent the ascender from becoming messy, since writing over the same part of the page can cause smudging. And perhaps in hurried writing, this form lends itself to detaching the circle from the ascender. But I personally draw my cursive d with the ascender more akin to how cursive l is drawn, with a looping ascender, which preserves the attachment:

    cursive l with looping ascender stroke

    There is no ambiguity in cursive doing it this way, and for standard form, it saves a lift from the paper.

    Seeing as drawing the d with its circle separated from the ascender requires a lift, and also becomes ambiguous from an O and an L, I’m not entirely sure how that form would be clearer to read. Context of the language means there’s usually no issue of confusion between a D or OL, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the drawn form is clear to read, which is going to mess up any OCR system prior to performing spell checking.

    But some pathologal examples might include “olay” vs “day” vs “0 day”.