> As far as I know, it powers all OCR at Google (e.g. in Keep, Docs, etc.).
Tesseract is acceptable only if the text is neatly laid out, in more-or-less straight parallel lines or at the very least consistent orientation that's close enough to being straight horizontal lines.
Google Cloud Vision, however, can read any orientation, any font, through perspective distortion and does not need the different text blobs in the image to be consistent in any way. Superior in every way to plain Tesseract (and if it is Tesseract after preprocessing, the magic is in that preprocessing more than it is in Tesseract)
I would actually be very surprised to hear GCV uses Tesseract; and if they don't, why would they use something inferior for other products?
Tesseract is acceptable only if the text is neatly laid out, in more-or-less straight parallel lines or at the very least consistent orientation that's close enough to being straight horizontal lines.
Google Cloud Vision, however, can read any orientation, any font, through perspective distortion and does not need the different text blobs in the image to be consistent in any way. Superior in every way to plain Tesseract (and if it is Tesseract after preprocessing, the magic is in that preprocessing more than it is in Tesseract)
I would actually be very surprised to hear GCV uses Tesseract; and if they don't, why would they use something inferior for other products?