[Zoom]

I'm looking to replace my aging (but dependable) Umax Astra 600s. I hate SCSI devices because they seem to give my G4/400 lots of grief.

So, along with a new FW CDR drive, I want a new non-SCSI scanner.

I know almost nothing about these newer devices, however. I am fairly sure that I don't need a FW scanner, but I'd get one if it wasn't much more expensive than a USB scanner. My current SCSI chain is slow... but I can't remember how slow. 10Mb? That's the same as USB1, right?

My present scanner is huge... legal size or something, and very thick. I've seen lots of really thin scanners out there - how well do they work? They look so... flimsy.

What's the biggest factor in scanning speed? That seems to be very slow with my current scanner. It stops a lot... waiting to send data maybe? It stops maybe 3 times to scan 8 inches.

There are lots of new features on scanners, too - buttons, mainly. Are these worth it? Do they work on Macs?

Which scanners have the best Mac driver support and SW bundle?

As far as tech specs go, what should I be looking for? I don't even know the specs on the scanner I have, but I know it's good enough. I assume most new scanners will be better than what I already have. But I'd be interested in learning about the specs and making an informed decision. Bit depth is the main one, I guess, and resolution. But I also want a good software package for the scanning part itself - I have Photoshop for editing.

Any and all advice appreciated.

[Cipher13]

USB is 12Mb/s.
I assume you're running with an Adaptec 2906?
The SCSI is faster than USB...

USB scanners are slow; but mine doesn't stop like yours does. Its a Microtek X6 - and I'm happy with it, though I don't scan much.

The buttons do work on some, but not all - it depends on the drivers.

I'd avoid Canon, look into Epson and Microtek, and check up on Umax and Agfa before diving in with those two...

Sorry I can't help more, gotta run, will post back later.

[Zoom]

I thought basic SCSI on the 2906 card (yes, that's what I have) is 10Mbs? Or does SCSI spec in MBs (bytes not bits)? That always confused and frustrated me. I guess that must be the case or USB would be faster, unless I have the bit rate wrong for SCSI.

Anyway, if that's true, then I wonder how slow a USB scanner would be. I don't scan much, though, either - especially now that I have a digital camera - so maybe I shouldn't worry about it. Getting rid of SCSI and gaining some desk space would be worth it.

I'd love to hear more in depth reasons for the recommendations you made on brand names.

Are there any problems with OSX? I'll be moving to that soon.

[zigzag]

Check out the reviews at pcworld.com and popular photography (don't have the link handy). Check out www.scantips.com for general info and links to reviews and software, etc.

Look for at least 1200 dpi optical (not interpolated). There are few reasons to use more than 300-600 dpi but the 1200-1600 units are inexpensive and tend to use better technology and software. Since you're using Photoshop, look for 42-48 bits internal AND external (some units scan at 48 bits but only send 24 to the computer). And if you do a lot of scanning, good speed is nice. I think USB is sufficient unless you're a really heavy user and need FW, but you'll pay for that privilege. As for software, you already have PS so you don't need editing software, just a reasonably flexible driver. I turn off all of my driver's editing functions (e.g. unsharp mask and descreening), import straight to PS, and do all of my editing in PS. If you want a particularly versatile driver, you'll have to do more research and maybe get a third party driver (see links at scantips.com). I don't know anything about OS-X compatibility at this point but I wouldn't count on it. By the time PS is OS-X native, the scanner drivers will probably be as well.

The thin scanners you've seen are the Canons. They've done very well in reviews, are compact, and USB-powered. However, they are compact because they use CIS technology, which, all else being equal, is not quite as good as CCD technology, but plenty good enough for consumer use. They aren't very fast.

I've read a lot of the reviews and the Epsons are consistently preferred above all other machines for scan quality and speed, and they've always supported Macs. The 1240 and 1640 are bargains at under $200.

I'm sure HP, Umax, Microtek, Agfa etc. have their merits but unless you want the portability of the Canons, I don't see much reason to look beyond the Epsons.

[Zoom]

Excellent writeup, zigzag!

And about that
name of yours...

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Zoom:
<STRONG>Excellent writeup, zigzag!

And about that
name of yours... </STRONG>

Never inhaled!

[PeteWK]

I've always had good luck with the HPs. I've got a 5370c at home and a 5300 at the office that do everything I ask of them. They're dependable and do an excellent range of things. The 5370c will do transparencies and slides as well. Plus I like the HP software best. My second choice would be Epson and then maybe Canon.

PeteWK

[Avenir]

Personally, I have a Canon 630u. As slow as it is thin, unfortunately, but still a great little machine. Scans great, super small size and you can't beat bus powered. Firewire is probably the way to go for faster scanning. We've sold the Epson Perfection line, the AGFA's, Canon's, Microtek's and UMAX's at the shop I used to work at, and all got good results. I won't tell you to stay away from anything specific, but if you have the money, go for a nice Epson Perfection firewire, that's what I'd do.

[Zoom]

Thanks, guys!