Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Alan Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy Subject: Re: Flatbed scanner ... pros/cons Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2024 16:32:30 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 123 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2024 01:32:30 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c028cf84a92f2ac76a34e03a70b93492"; logging-data="3390726"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/YAF9k29778mAL3rPW15bjg8G5X1JJjog=" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:NngkSGP6BGjlZ8u/lS0KVV5QzmU= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-CA Bytes: 6122 On 2024-09-10 16:01, Tom Elam wrote: > 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. I never said it wasn't "readable", Liarboy. And there are different use cases than scanning receipts. See, this is where you regularly show your ass to the world: You assume that everyone has to live by what YOU think is important and unimportant.