Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Tom Elam <thomas.e.elam@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Flatbed scanner ... pros/cons
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2024 19:01:12 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 112
Message-ID: <vbqj3n$36v22$2@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>
 <vbhq2s$1dljm$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2024 01:01:12 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="caf97849f9bf481e2daac2d4dc15c574";
	logging-data="3374146"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19ft1vdpitfACmDOgpUgRO9hARmztFzuQ4="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:wiQIBBDb9l7QGsdm9xe7BCcgCGE=
In-Reply-To: <vbhq2s$1dljm$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5683

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.