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: Tue, 10 Sep 2024 16:32:30 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 123
Message-ID: <vbqkue$37f86$1@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> <vbqj3n$36v22$2@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 01:32:30 +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: <vbqj3n$36v22$2@dont-email.me>
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.