| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<vbi1k1$1endb$5@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy Subject: Re: Flatbed scanner ... pros/cons Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2024 10:13:37 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 124 Message-ID: <vbi1k1$1endb$5@dont-email.me> References: <vb2t56$1ljuq$1@dont-email.me> <vb4a5k$2r69a$1@dont-email.me> <vb4osh$2thdj$2@dont-email.me> <vbf5kt$rtg4$2@dont-email.me> <vbfdi2$t567$2@dont-email.me> <vbhmrd$1css1$1@dont-email.me> <vbi1ci$1elh0$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2024 19:13:38 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a71dafeb25a5a94096df0d0e00e9f392"; logging-data="1531307"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19e89/YQ+ZEzICjs5oHfkpa3tDGE2k9FMc=" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:jzpbEUtT6QaqULpScfG9EU3+C5Y= Content-Language: en-CA In-Reply-To: <vbi1ci$1elh0$1@dont-email.me> Bytes: 6403 On 2024-09-07 10:09, -hh wrote: > On 9/7/24 10:09 AM, 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. >> >> 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. > > Because I never said I'd be scanning documents to PDF at 4800. > > Plus I've never said that PDFed documents are the _only_ use case. > > What I've said is that for this, PDFing is the primary use case, and > that productivity factors & workflow siting discourages the clunky "all > in one" type of device. > > I've already bought .. and retired .. scanners whose max resolutions > were 300dpi and 1200dpi and inadequate to workflow needs, so it isn't > particularly logical to go backwards to another "max 1200dpi" scanner. > > For planning purposes, the technical rule of thumb for sampling > instrumentation is to sample at at least 4x the source. Applied here, a > basic office printed doc used to be 300dpi, but 600dpi has become the > standard, so full data capture requires at least 1200-2400dpi. Line art > is 1200dpi, which means 4800dpi+. For film, it varies from 1200-2400dpi > for a basic scan, to 6400dpi for high quality. Higher than that hits > diminishing returns, which relates back to the analog silver nitrate > source, but even here depends on the grain of the original film: one > will typically have more available to be extracted from Kodachrome 25, > 64 and Ektar 25 than from mainstream 400 ISO consumer grade stuff. Isn't it amazing how often Tom thinks he knows better... ....and loudly claims so... ....to people who actually have experience in a field? :-)