• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

scanner advice?

H

her34

Senior member
i'm looking for scanner and would appreciate comments. scanner will be used for documents and photos (film slide option not needed). #1 importance would be image quality.

i've read a little about digital ice. it seems that cheapest scanner with this is few hundred. i don't have many old photos so i could live without this, unless there are some other benefits?

currently i'm looking at canon lide 35 or 80. quality is suppose to be good, and size is great.

so i ask

1) what scanner do you recommend? any comments on canon lide?

2) would i ever need more than 1200 dpi? what situations would a 2400 dpi be better suited than 1200dpi? digitizing photos is good at 600dpi right?

3) any other considerations i should make?
 
I like my Canon lide N1220U scanner not the fastest but works well and takes up little room for the amt of times you use it.
 
her34, FWIW I've been using an LiDE 30 for a couple years now, and it's performed flawlessly. It's not USB 2.0, in contrast to either the 35 ot 80, so it's a bit slow. But, the software, especially the OCR, works fine. The ArcSoft Photo Studio software does what I need it to to.

I don't know if this is a feature unique to Canon, but you can place multiple images on the scanner, and it has the capability to part them out to individual files.

Jeff
 
1. Forget whatever the scanners say about bit depth. Its all marketing. What matters is what the scanning equiptment can actually output, and typically what they market is the theoretical max (that is never attained in almost every model but the most expencive)

2. Get samples of output quality if you can. Look CLOSELY at the image. Look at details like how smooth color flows into differant tones. There is a point where it will look fine to you at a glance but you will definity start seeing it later on. Typically if the colors have smooth gradiation to your eye on close and long inspection, it should be just fine. Just take several min, or youll have 1000 images scanned later that youll find yourself becomeing less and less satisfied with as you get to know image quality more and more down the line.

3. Typical photo prints are printed at about 300DPI. This means you will not get any more detail scanning over 300ppi _theoretically_. Sadly scanners are imperfec thus will not perfectly scan DPI to PPI (ppi = pixels per inch), thus youd want to scan at double that at least, then resizeing it. You will get a better image no matter what final size it is the higher your source image was scanned into the computer _optically_. Though there is a steep decline in useable data return after a point.
 
thanks for input so far. i'm close to ordering the canon lide 35.

3. Typical photo prints are printed at about 300DPI. This means you will not get any more detail scanning over 300ppi _theoretically_. Sadly scanners are imperfec thus will not perfectly scan DPI to PPI (ppi = pixels per inch), thus youd want to scan at double that at least, then resizeing it. You will get a better image no matter what final size it is the higher your source image was scanned into the computer _optically_. Though there is a steep decline in useable data return after a point.
Click to expand...

so 600dpi would be safe, 1200dpi would be great. which makes me wonder, why would anyone need a scanner with higher dpi? what dpi would you scan your own photos at?
 
Scanning documents, like black and white images and such, greyscale, things that do not need to be photoquality, get an all in one scanner/printer deal. Lexmark makes some good ones for cheap.

I personally wouldent scan printed images. (unless thats all I had) I would scan slides and negatives. Scanning those will be around the 3000ppi rnge as they are small and _very_ packed with information. To answer your question, it really depends. If Im sending a picture to grandma, I would scan at whatever dpi was the least to fit into a email and show up and grannys screal without haveing to scroll. This is typically 72ppi. so a image 4 inches long and 3 high would be a 288x216. Big enough for granny and email and very fast to scan. If I were storeing the images for backup to save and protect as workable originals I would scan at the highest optical resolution the scanner can produce. Stay away from 'digital zoom'.
 
Originally posted by: aeternitas
1. Forget whatever the scanners say about bit depth. Its all marketing. What matters is what the scanning equiptment can actually output, and typically what they market is the theoretical max (that is never attained in almost every model but the most expencive)

2. Get samples of output quality if you can. Look CLOSELY at the image. Look at details like how smooth color flows into differant tones. There is a point where it will look fine to you at a glance but you will definity start seeing it later on. Typically if the colors have smooth gradiation to your eye on close and long inspection, it should be just fine. Just take several min, or youll have 1000 images scanned later that youll find yourself becomeing less and less satisfied with as you get to know image quality more and more down the line.

3. Typical photo prints are printed at about 300DPI. This means you will not get any more detail scanning over 300ppi _theoretically_. Sadly scanners are imperfec thus will not perfectly scan DPI to PPI (ppi = pixels per inch), thus youd want to scan at double that at least, then resizeing it. You will get a better image no matter what final size it is the higher your source image was scanned into the computer _optically_. Though there is a steep decline in useable data return after a point.
Click to expand...
So if choosing between the Canon LiDE 35 (1200 x 2400 dpi) or the more expensive LiDE 80 (2400 x 4800 dpi), which would you get?

Also anyone know if there's a difference in the LiDE 50 and 35? Looks like maybe the 35 replaced the 50.

BTW, other than size and styling, reviews on cnet for all these aren't too great.
 
Depending on your needs I do not know. For my needs niether would really work well. If all youre doing is scanning documents and images for email, the cheaper one (and something else cheaper still) would work fine. If youre useing it for backing up important color images, get the more expencive one. You dont want to be sitting around in 30 years looking at images wishing you could of gotten a bit more detail out of them. If thay are going to be that important to you that is.
 
Sounds like you don't know anything about those models and are just saying which to get by price?

Anyone know more about them, or if other brands/models are better for similar price?
 
Believe it or not scanning is a science all to itself. It can get very complex. Basically the optical capability is usually the lowest number referenced by a manufacturer. Scan dpi, moniter dpi and printer dpi are all different. I still use a 10 year old scsi scanner with a program called artscan by jetsoft. I'm still more than happy with it. Believe me, this software kept me from throwing the scanner out years ago. Do a some reading before you buy. Here is a good place to start. Scanhelp
Here is another must read Scantips
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top