Re: Flatbed scanner ... pros/cons

On 9/7/2024 11:05 AM, Alan wrote:

On 2024-09-07 07:09, Tom Elam wrote:

On 9/6/2024 1:18 PM, -hh wrote:

On 9/6/24 11:03 AM, Tom Elam wrote:

On 9/2/2024 12:24 PM, Alan wrote:

On 2024-09-02 05:13, Tom Elam wrote:

On 9/1/2024 7:25 PM, -hh wrote:

Looking at replacing an old Canon 'CanoScan LiDE 110' that seems to be fading away (bulb's going yellow).
>
Its USB connected; I use it quite a bit w/MacOS's "Image Capture" app, and documents to PDF.
>
Looking around at equivalents, I think I've narrowed it down to two:
>
* Canon CanoScan LiDE 400
>
* Epson Perfection V39 II
>
It looks like both are currently supported in MacOS Sonoma 14.x
>
Any particular plus/minus or other observations?  Cost difference is negligible ($80 vs $90).
>
A couple of things that I've found:
>
* Epson is USB-2 (disappointing) & has separate power supply
* Canon claims USB-C but not which flavor/version thereof.
>
* Documentation isn't clear if the Epson supports scan-to-PDF.
>
>
>
Thoughts?
>
>
-hh

>
Why a single purpose scanner when for a little more your can scan, print on paper/photo, and fax? Why USB? HP and others have all-in-one wireless devices with document feed for scanning multiple pages or can be used as a flatbed. My HP all-in-one supports 1200 dpi scans, do you really need more or is it an issue with the size of the scan bed?

>
As usual, you spout off as if your situation is teh ony one that could be relevant.
>
1200dpi is certainly more than adequate for printed documents, but only a complete ignoramus could be unaware of the fact that HH has been taking many, many photographs for many, many years.
>
And while I'm suspect (I was going to right "sure" there, but unlike you, I don't pretend to omniscience) that almost all the pictures he takes today are taken digitally, it seems likely that he has at least some pictures taken the old-fashioned way that he might want to scan in digital form.

>
Except that in the statement above he says "I use it quite a bit w/ MacOS's "Image Capture" app, and documents to PDF." and "Documentation isn't clear if the Epson supports scan-to-PDF." This indicates that he is more concerned about scanning documents, not pictures.

>
As its primary use case, sure.
>
>

1200 dpi works for printed pictures unless you really want to blow them up.

>
It depends on the original media & intended application, of course, but I consider 1200 to be marginal and 1990s technology; I'd want a flatbed to be capable of at least 4800, which matches an older Epson scanner that can do transparencies ... I forget how long ago I got that one but for carbon-dating purposes, it has a dual USB + Firewire 400 interface!
>
>
-hh

>
No idea why anything above 150-300 DPI is required for a PDF. I use 300/color for some documents and the output is readable, takes up a lot less space than 1200, and scans much faster. 150 works for most of my documents. At 1200 the output is better but is 24x the size of the 300 scan.

 Are you kidding me? Is "readable" the highest level of your discernment.
 "I have no idea why anyone needs to have anything to eat better than McDonald's".
 That explains a lot of your inability to see the issues with Windows:
 You have no taste.
 

>
I ran a 1200/color dpi scan on a document printed off the web, a national parks map. Enlarged, that picked up the pixels from the original!
>
Enlighten me on what purpose 4800 dpi serves for scanning to a pdf. Those files would be HUGE.

 You are an idiot, Liarboy. Straight up an idiot.
 Just because a scanner CAN do 4800dpi, doesn't mean you have to use 4800 dpi all the time.
 

Readable, and very much so. I scan FBO aircraft fuel receipts on a weekly basis at 300 DPI and deposit scanned checks too. Never had an issue, and 300 dpi is a lot faster than 600 or 1200. I do eat McDonald's fare, but tonight it was boneless rib-eye on the grill. Yummy.