[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

I'm a HUGE fan of Canon Printers, the i950 that I have is printing bliss.

I've been looking to replace my cheap 6 year+ old agfa 1212u scanner that cost me a whole $100 new.

I found the Canon MP130:
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/con...;modelid=10442

Since I wanted a copier also I thought it might be a good idea. Now I know it is low end but the scanning rez is rather high.

Now the bad part. Here is an image scanned on my agfa 1212u at 300DPI with de-screening on.
No unsharp mask, no colour correction. Nothing.
http://homepage.mac.com/bitfly/.Pictures/Misc/agfa.jpg

Here is the same image from the Canon with the same settings:
http://homepage.mac.com/bitfly/.Pictures/Misc/canon.jpg

What in the world is wrong with the canon? I mean the colour is totally off, I can correct that, look at the sharpness difference. It is horrible.

Am I doing something very wrong here or should this thing be back at the store tomorrow?

[hudson1]

Just curious, what are the file sizes of the two images?

[zigzag]

It looks to me like there's a difference in both resolution and dynamic range - the Canon just isn't capturing as much detail or tonal range as the Agfa. The perils of buying all-in-ones. Of course, it could just be a bad unit.

You can't really rely on resolution specs - it's too easy for manufacturers to fudge them. The real difference is in the optical quality. Some of the most expensive scanners, like the Umax 1600, have relatively unimpressive resolution specs.

[Mithras]

It's hard to tell, maybe if you posted a few more scans from the same book?

[tooki]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

What in the world is wrong with the canon? I mean the colour is totally off, I can correct that, look at the sharpness difference. It is horrible.

Well, for one thing, I don't think there's a huge sharpness difference -- mostly the lack of contrast is making it look bad, but also remember that de-screening blurs, and the Canon may use a different de-screening algorithm, or a different amount of default de-screening. To make an accurate sharpness comparison, you'll need to scan something without de-screening.

Because my experience with Canon scanners has been good, I doubt it's just THAT crappy a product. Instead, my hunch is that it didn't calibrate correctly. Most scanners have a small, narrow opening in the glass, just beyond the document area. That's where the scanner calibrates itself against the color of the lid. If something else is there, it may cause color problems. So see what happens if you scan something that is a single page and lays flat completely within the scanning area, to make sure the calibration area isn't covered.

Also, you may just need to play with the software: in many scanner apps, when you turn off automatic color/exposure, it DOESN'T switch to some neutral default, but rather just stays at the last-used setting, which may be terribly wrong for the next image.

tooki

[OreoCookie]

I have no personal experience with Canon scanners, I have an Epson at home and a trusty Umax scanner (SCSI), an Epson scanner (USB) and a Nikon scanner for negatives at work.

But I can tell one thing: if you have such a small budget for scanner and printer, you will have to make very hard compromises. For instance, a high-quality 48 bit analog-digital converter costs at least 50 € alone. If you can, return it and invest in a scanner.

There was just a review in a computer mag I trust, and basically the Canon CanoScan 4200F and the Epson 2580 Photo deliver about the same quality in scans.

To pay more than that is IMHO not really useful except if you deal with `hand-made' photos (i. e. not digitally printed).

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by hudson1

Just curious, what are the file sizes of the two images?

Originally they were 15 meg tiffs.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

I've done some more tinkering and made things MUCH better but still not as good as the old cheap agfa.

First, I turned OFF the scanners colour profile setting for coloursync, that got rid of the yellow, the colour is almost perfect now.

Second, I believe tookie was right about some sort of calibration when you first turn on the scanner. I MIGHT have had something in the scanner when I first turned it on which made it mess up somehow. I turned it on and off with nothing in it and it is better.

The only issue I have with it now is that it is not as sharp as the agfa but I think I can live with it.

I have 29 days of more testing to do with it before I have to return it (if necessary).

[Krusty]

Well, the mp130 is a $99 product which can be found for $89 (all dollar figures US). I wouldn't exactly think that it is going to be "high-end" in any of its functions ... just basic priniting/scanning/copying for a reasonable price.
I just saw one in the flesh today at a local Staples and am considering it for my office just to have basic scanning/copying functionality with a small footprint (color integrity not that important ... just want digital copies of documents so I can file them away). Your picture comparisons don't deter me from that. I wouldn't be buying an AIO in this price range if you are looking for high quality scans (its less expensive than Canon's standalone mid-range printers or scanners ... you can't reasonably expect that it would match or surpass these offerings). If you look, the scanning specs on the mp130 are roughly the same as their lowest-end, $49 scanner.

[OreoCookie]

Don't bother if image quality is a concern. Or if you want to stick to an all-in-one, invest more (triple the amount you spend). My parent's G85 scanner was no match to my 69 € (it was an excellent deal) Epson 1660 Photo. And that still is a rather cheap scanner (but does all I need).

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Um ah, can anyone confirm that USB 2.0 is not supported on Macs?

[Krusty]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

Um ah, can anyone confirm that USB 2.0 is not supported on Macs?

Check the other thread you started about the mp130. I tested and my i560 DID NOT show up as a usb 2.0 device

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by Krusty

Check the other thread you started about the mp130. I tested and my i560 DID NOT show up as a usb 2.0 device

Yes I saw that but I would like to know if it is just with SOME models or every damn Canon.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

"Thank you for contacting Canon product support.

Let me begin by apologizing for the confusion regarding your inquiry. We
do our best to answer all customer inquiries as accurately and
efficiently as possible.

After speaking to our engineers, I discovered that the PIXMA MP130 only
supports USB 1.1 (or USB 2.0 Full-Speed). The information that I
originally gave was based on preproduction specifications that
ultimately changed."

[tooki]

USB 2.0 is supported on Macs, but since every USB 1.1 device is compatible with USB 2.0 computers, Canon (and others) call all their USB devices "USB 2.0".

Remember, the words "USB 2.0" alone DO NOT indicate that the high-speed 480Mbps mode will be used:

USB 1.1 "low speed" = USB 2.0 "low speed" = 1.5Mbps
USB 1.1 "full speed" = USB 2.0 "full speed" = 12Mbps
USB 2.0 "high speed" = 480Mbps

tooki

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by tooki

USB 2.0 is supported on Macs, but since every USB 1.1 device is compatible with USB 2.0 computers, Canon (and others) call all their USB devices "USB 2.0".

Remember, the words "USB 2.0" alone DO NOT indicate that the high-speed 480Mbps mode will be used:

USB 1.1 "low speed" = USB 2.0 "low speed" = 1.5Mbps
USB 1.1 "full speed" = USB 2.0 "full speed" = 12Mbps
USB 2.0 "high speed" = 480Mbps

tooki

The problem is the first 2 emails to canon they told me the MP130 had HIGH SPEED.

[tooki]

Which, as you already posted, they told you was a mistake.

My point is, it is not a Mac vs PC issue as you first suspected.

tooki