Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

ervier · Aug 24, 2003, 04:42 PM

I want to buy a new scanner in the near future. I have a UMAX scsi scanner now, but it's very slow. I'm going to scan all my family albums, as I've noticed that the pictures are fading out. So this means scanning several hundred pictures, and I'll probably do some more albums for relatives.

So speed is a requirement. And of course good scanning quality. I want good quality scans. USB2 would be nice, even if it means buying a usb2-card. Firewire would be better of course, but probably much more expensive. Prices up to $/Euro 200.

I'm thinking about the following scanners, but can't decide.

1) Canon LIDE 30/50
2) Epson 1660 PHOTO
3) HP 4500

The canon has the best looks, and I like the fact that it doesn't have an adapter. I also heard it's not really fast (the 30), but the 50 is probably a lot faster.

I'm a little worried about the HP software, as I've heard bad things about it. Furthermore, I think HP sometimes tries to take too much control. I want to be able to control bit-depth and scan resolution myself. No Vuescan software.

I heard the epson is fast, but I hate the separate adapter. And I heard it cannot be connected to a usb-hub permanently because that disables sleep mode.

midwinter · Aug 24, 2003, 05:15 PM

I have a canon. It's great and small and is USB powered. The software is ugly, but it works fine.

Immortal K-Mart Employee · Aug 24, 2003, 05:40 PM

Epson makes crap printers but great scanners.

reynard · Aug 24, 2003, 11:33 PM

Im going to buy the LiDE 30. I have only the most limited uses for it--copying receipts, occasional graphics and photos. I done a lot of checking and this model gets great reviews from people doing similar tasks.

The one criticism is that it is slow. I don't care. But with your workload, you should get the LiDE 50 and the USB 2 card. Or another model entirely. There is a reason there are different levels of scanners. The economy class just won't fulfill your needs.

emdash · Aug 26, 2003, 03:45 PM

Do you have access to the negatives of these pictures? If so, get a dedicated slide/negative scanner like a Nikon Coolscan IV or 4000 or that new Minolta Dimage Scan Dual (or whatever it's called -- there was just a thread on it in here). Scanning prints just isn't worthwhile (unless you have no alternative), and flatbed scanners simply aren't optimized for slides or negatives.

Good luck.

blackbird_1.0 · Aug 28, 2003, 12:13 PM

exactly how slow is the LIDE 30/
i need a cheap scanner to scan images once in a while, also, does it scan text?

reynard · Aug 30, 2003, 04:00 AM

How slow is the LiDE? I dont have mine yet but it has been shipped. I was confident enough with what I read that its speed would be sufficient for my uses.

Sounds like it would be for yours, too. Virtually all the reviews I found were positive. Some didn't mention its lack of speed at all. For the occasional scan, who cares if it takes a minute longer than a pro model? Only if you are making consecutive scans would, I imagine, its rate become tiresome.

Regarding text. I specifically asked that of a clerk in the Santa Monica Apple store. He said it would do fine with text. He poined to an all-in-one HP they use to copy stuff for customers and said the LiDE has even better resolution. If you want to convert the scan to a formatible textt document you realize you need to buy separate software.

blackbird_1.0 · Aug 30, 2003, 07:23 AM

are you referring to the LIDE 30?

bergy · Aug 30, 2003, 10:10 AM

If you buy a Canon, make sure that in Toolbox you check "Use scanner driver to make advanced settings". That's the only way to preview the scan. Canon's Canoscan Toolbox is the most convoluted mess I have ever had to deal with. Talk about making things unecessarily complex. My old UMax was a pleasure to scan with. Canons GUI is terrible!

blackbird_1.0 · Aug 30, 2003, 10:13 AM

what about epson's?

Dale Sorel · Aug 30, 2003, 02:15 PM

Originally posted by midwinter:
I have a canon. It's great and small and is USB powered. The software is ugly, but it works fine.

That's easily taken care of with VueScan

coitus · Aug 30, 2003, 02:31 PM

I recently purchased an Epson 3200 (firewire) and it screams and has respectable software. The only drawback (which depends on your checkbook) was the price-tag of $500.

coitus

reynard · Aug 30, 2003, 10:48 PM

Sorry Blackbird. Yes, I did mean the LiDE 30.

Severed Hand of Skywalker · Aug 31, 2003, 12:07 AM

Originally posted by Dale Sorel:
That's easily taken care of with VueScan

That costs more then most scanners.

blackbird_1.0 · Aug 31, 2003, 05:35 AM

cool, thanks

bergy · Aug 31, 2003, 08:11 PM

Originally posted by Dale Sorel:
That's easily taken care of with VueScan

I found Vuescan to be overly complicated for the once in a while consumer scanner. But it makes you think, how can 1 guy write software for all those scanners,,,, whereas the scanner companies can barely write something that works for their own.

reynard · Sep 1, 2003, 02:51 AM

[quote]But it makes you think, how can 1 guy write software for all those scanners,,,, whereas the scanner companies can barely write something that works for their own.[quote/]

(I dont know how to make a quote in this forum so forgive me if I err)

Anyway, amen. The state of drivers for Macs is bleak. I realize that Macs are only fraction of market share but you'd think that it wouldnt be that hard to write decent drivers for their own hardware.

Little things like that make it hard to recommend Macs to non-techie types. Its embarrassing to say, "Well, you can't use this Minolta laser printer if you buy a Mac." And these people don't want to hear that you might find a decent driver from a online sight that will allow you some basic functions. (Gimprint)

I think this factor is underestimated as a problem for people considering switching to Mac. I guess it is more expensive writing the software for Macs than I imagine. And/or our marketshare makes it just an avoidable nuisance.

tooki · Sep 1, 2003, 05:00 PM

You can just not use the Canon toolbox, just use the Photoshop plugin.

tooki

reynard · Sep 3, 2003, 10:15 PM

I dont know if blackbird, or anyone else, is still following this thread but I just got my Canon LiDE 30 scannner. First impression is very favorable. I downloaded the OSX drivers from the Canon site before connecting the scanner. And you know what? It works!

I didnt even mess with the included CD rom. I guess I might boot into OS9 and load it there in case I have need to use it in that OS.

But the OSX (I have X.6.2) driver seems complete. If there are other functions available to Windows, I can tell by any obvious ommisions in OSX.

I do have photoshop Elements but I wanted to see if the drivers worked so I havent even tried it with Elements.

I did need to plug the sanner into the USB port on the computer. I have a USB hub, powered, but I got a pop-up message saying that that port did not supply the required power for the scanner.

Finally, quality of first couple of scans seems great. And as I expected, its plenty fast for me. Faster than I feared after reading some reviews from users. So far, its excellent.

blackbird_1.0 · Sep 11, 2003, 06:03 PM

doesn't the toolbox work in classic on osx, or is it osx native?

ervier · Sep 12, 2003, 12:30 PM

Thanks for all the replies!

At the moment I'm considering the Canon LiDE 50 and 5000f, and maybe the Epson 1660. The LiDE50 is cheap, with lower resolution and lower speed. The 5000f and 1660 are comparable although the 5000f has higher resolution.

What I'm wondering is the following: at the moment I have a 600dpi scanner, 36bits. My primary reason to buy a new scanner is my old photo albums, pictures fading out. But what resolution will be necessary to scan these pictures? I will use the highest resolution that makes a difference. Let's take a normal print of 10x15cm, good quality. At what point will you see the grain of the print? Is it 1200 dpi, 1600 or 2400? Then I've noticed that lots of those 70s prints are on then-fashionable papers with texture and stuff. A lot of detail is lost here.

So do I need those 2400 dpi? And then the file size...

zigzag · Sep 12, 2003, 05:28 PM

Originally posted by ervier:
Thanks for all the replies! At the moment I'm considering the Canon LiDE 50 and 5000f, and maybe the Epson 1660. The LiDE50 is cheap, with lower resolution and lower speed. The 5000f and 1660 are comparable although the 5000f has higher resolution.

What I'm wondering is the following: at the moment I have a 600dpi scanner, 36bits. My primary reason to buy a new scanner is my old photo albums, pictures fading out. But what resolution will be necessary to scan these pictures? I will use the highest resolution that makes a difference. Let's take a normal print of 10x15cm, good quality. At what point will you see the grain of the print? Is it 1200 dpi, 1600 or 2400? Then I've noticed that lots of those 70s prints are on then-fashionable papers with texture and stuff. A lot of detail is lost here.

So do I need those 2400 dpi? And then the file size...

Actually, scanning photo prints does not require a lot of resolution - anything beyond 250-300dpi is overkill, there's just not much more information to be extracted from a photo print than that (negatives contain much more information and therefore benefit from higher scanning resolutions).

It also depends on what you intend to do with the images. If all you're going to do is look at them on a computer monitor, you only need to scan at 72-96dpi - that's the highest resolution computer monitors can display. If you're going to reprint them on an ink-jet, 200-300 is the most an inkjet can handle (despite what the printer's specs say). In fact, if an ink-jet gets more resolution than that, it will rescale the image which can actually make the print look worse.

If you're going to increase the size of the final image, you'll want to increase the scanning resolution accordingly. Double the print means double the resolution, etc. This also applies when you crop an image then blow it up to fit the original dimensions. So if you plan on blowing a 2x4 image up to 4x8, double your scanning resolution from, say, 96 to 200, or 300 to 600.

Unless you plan on printing posters from your photos, you'll probably never need 2400dpi or even 1200dpi. Those resolutions are mostly for negatives and line art.

Here's a good on-line guide to scanning: www.hamrick.com

reynard · Sep 13, 2003, 05:41 PM

I have a sad update on the LiDE 30 saga. As my previous posts indicate I'd heard such glowing consumer reviews--except a little slow for pros--I decided to get mine.

It was great for 2 weeks. Now it doesn't work. At all.

At first I thought it another complication with drivers for OSX. I removed and reloaded drivers. Nothing. Message I get is that the USB cable may not be connected. It is. And the cable and port from which it runs are fine. I unplugged it from the scanner to a printer and it worked. Canon uses its own USB cord which supplies both the power and signal. They caution against using any other USB cable which I obeyed.

What cann I say? I hope it's an anomaly. I'm willing to get a replacement. I was thrilled with it till it broke. I'll post back with my attempts to get it replaced. I bought it through Amazon.
Im a teacher and Im very busy this time of year so I may be a while.

ervier · Sep 13, 2003, 06:25 PM

Originally posted by zigzag:
Actually, scanning photo prints does not require a lot of resolution - anything beyond 250-300dpi is overkill, there's just not much more information to be extracted from a photo print than that (negatives contain much more information and therefore benefit from higher scanning resolutions).

It also depends on what you intend to do with the images. If all you're going to do is look at them on a computer monitor, you only need to scan at 72-96dpi - that's the highest resolution computer monitors can display. If you're going to reprint them on an ink-jet, 200-300 is the most an inkjet can handle (despite what the printer's specs say). In fact, if an ink-jet gets more resolution than that, it will rescale the image which can actually make the print look worse.

Thanks for the reply! What I want is to scan the images at the highest resolution possible, primarily to make reprints and to do anything I want with it. So if it would be possible to make a poster afterwards, like would be possible with the original negatives, than I would want that. But I know that won't be possible. I just want to save as much as possible, because these pictures will get worse in the coming years, and there is no better copy and no negative.

I know about pixels and web-resolutions, work with them everyday, but of course you can't know that.

About the printer resolution: that's new to me. I thought for-print-resolutions (of the image) should be 50% higher than the printer-resolution. So if you would print on 600dpi, the image resolution should be 900dpi. At least, that's what I understood about professional prints, but I may be wrong here.

PeterKG · Sep 14, 2003, 01:26 AM

I bought a Canon LiDE 50 today, to replace an Epson. It is a great scanner. I can actually use the buttons to start a scan. I could never use the buttons with my Epson and OSX. This scanner software is much more integrated. I can scan to email, scan to printer, scanner to Photoshop with ease. It's small footprint is nice on my desk.

zigzag · Sep 15, 2003, 12:26 AM

Originally posted by ervier:
Thanks for the reply! What I want is to scan the images at the highest resolution possible, primarily to make reprints and to do anything I want with it. So if it would be possible to make a poster afterwards, like would be possible with the original negatives, than I would want that. But I know that won't be possible. I just want to save as much as possible, because these pictures will get worse in the coming years, and there is no better copy and no negative.

I know about pixels and web-resolutions, work with them everyday, but of course you can't know that.

About the printer resolution: that's new to me. I thought for-print-resolutions (of the image) should be 50% higher than the printer-resolution. So if you would print on 600dpi, the image resolution should be 900dpi. At least, that's what I understood about professional prints, but I may be wrong here.

If you have the storage space, by all means scan at higher resolutions. I always scan at 2-3 times the needed resolution in case I want to blow the image up.

Some pros also scan at 2x the desired resolution, then resample the image downward by 50% in Photoshop. They believe this helps to remove scanner noise.

So even though photo prints probably don't contain more than 300dpi worth of information, I'm often scanning them at 600-1200.

I believe the "50% higher" rule-of-thumb is for press work, not inkjet printers. Everything I've read says that anything above 200-300 for inkjets is probably overkill and can even result in a worse print.

Note that inkjet dpi specifications have a special meaning that doesn't necessarily correspond with scanning resolutions. It's all explained here (I gave you the wrong link earlier - sorry):

http://www.scantips.com