Remote Deposit Capture RSS Feed
Remote Deposit Capture Newsletter
Remote Deposit Capture Group on LinkedIn
Remote Deposit Capture Group onTwitter
The Green Sheet

Email Page 
Print Page 
 Add to LinkedIn Add to Twitter Add to Facebook Add to Reddit Add to StumbleUpon 
Add to Tumblr
Search discussion boards: 

Remote Deposit Capture Discussion Boards

The Remote Deposit Capture Discussion Boards are open to the entire industry. Post comments, share news, ask questions and more with professionals from throughout the industry.
Go back to Discussion Boards
Remote Deposit Capture Discussions Discuss the ins-&-outs of Remote Deposit Capture here. No vendor solicitations here please.
Discussion Boards > Remote Deposit Capture Discussions > Scanner Hit Rate View modes: 
User avatar
awargo - 4/28/2007 2:22:02 AM
Scanner Hit Rate
What would be an acceptable % success rate (scanned and no corrections need to be made) of preprinted corporate type checks run through an RDC scanner.  We have been running test batches and have had up 37.5% and 45% failure to read check dollar amounts.  We are using our bank's internet RDC solution, since our audit department vetoed the software version.  We had a much better rate with the software solution, utilizing the same scanner, Digital TS220E.  In our most recent test, we had an 85% success rate.

User avatar
rdc1 - 4/28/2007 2:43:13 AM
Re: Scanner Hit Rate
An 85% success rate is very good. Based upon personal experience, and discussions with dozens of solution providers and end-users, a general range of success for the types of checks you outline is generally around 75-80%. We've even heard of instances of 90%+.

The success rate depends primarily upon the quality of 1) the source document, 2) the CAR / LAR / OCR / ICR software being used, 3) the actual scanner, and 4) the degree to which the equipment is (or is not) maintained and cleaned.

Are you using the same scanner with the browser-based version?

User avatar
awargo - 4/30/2007 10:27:22 PM
Re: Scanner Hit Rate
We are using the same scanner, the Digital TS 220E.  It is new, having only been used to run a few test batches, possibly 200 checks in total.  The biggest problem checks seemed to be the ones with the multiple 'Void' (covering the whole face of the checks) watermarks/security features. 

If 85% is good for printed corporate checks, what can we expect from hand written consumer checks?

User avatar
rdc1 - 5/1/2007 6:33:51 PM
Re: Scanner Hit Rate
If you're using the same scanner, but are having vastly different results on CAR / LAR reco rates on a thin client vs. thick client operational model, the most likely cause is the Reco software being used in the thin environment is not as complicated / sophisticated as the version you had locally installed. This makes logical sense as the more horsepower the reco software has / needs equates to the need for more horsepower centrally, more data from the scanner, and more time to transmit and process the data.

In conversations we've had with hosted solutions providers, there is a delicate balance between processing time and robustness of the CAR/LAR and IQA/IQU software. Most solution providers have a goal of performing the reco process in the background without any impact to the end user. Based upon the experiences you've outlined above, maybe this isn't the right goal?

Similar to all the various versions of Microsoft Office and other competing software packages, Reco Software comes in many degrees of competency, from basic to editions lebelled as "platinum", and results are further complicated by source documents, the scanner being used, the condition of the scanner and more.

Most of the reco rates I am familiar with are part of a thick-client installation where the reco software may very well be better than the capabilities currently available in a thin-client environment. In a thick-client environment, we have heard from the industry to expect 80% success on printed checks and 60% success would be good on hand-written checks, on average. Please keep in mind, though, any success rate results in new processing efficiencies for the end user.

Hopefully, a couple of solution providers might be able to post some additional insights on this issue.

User avatar
CopaKid - 7/24/2007 10:31:23 PM
Re: Patent Reform
I have been doing some research on the various blogs and "informational" sites on the Patent Reform Act of 2007.  It is considered by many that this will not pass the votes needed to make into law.  In fact, people are saying that this is going to loose alot of steam.  Sure, it made it out of committee, but that does not necessary make it into law.  People are trying to get this voted on before the August break if it has any chance of maintaining the needed steam. 

My opinion, for what it is worth, is that this bill will not make it into law.  What do other people think?  Remember, this has to be a joint bill which both the Senate and House pass in the same form.  Also, remember that Sen. Sessions amendment dealing with check imaging is only on one of the bills.  So, it could be axed as part of the process. 


Recent Forum Posts

RE:Reg. CC -Virtual Endorsements

We are not making any changes at this time. We overlay with the virtual endorsement, and we are well aware that it will not protect us if the original paper is presented for negotiation. We do check for endorsements at the time of the deposit, but we will not require the special endorsement, I ca...
Posted on 6/19/2018 5:01:21 PM

RE:Reg. CC -Virtual Endorsements

I agree that the virtual endorsement will not help to limit liability under the new Reg CC rule.  The virtual endorsement functions I know of apply an endorsement to the back of an image -- and if/when the image is printed, the virtual endorsement prints.  The Reg CC changes  and t...
Posted on 6/19/2018 2:46:42 PM

RE:Reg. CC -Virtual Endorsements

Ahafner, virtual endorsements will not work with this regulation.  The endorsement has to be on the physical check.
Posted on 6/19/2018 12:00:13 PM