My experience: bought a cheapish Mustek 10 years ago, connected to LPT port, It had the most amazing OCR software with it, could read almost anything printed Yup! Same here! They were great! Scanners are something that have NOT benefitted from development/sophistication/bundling with other devices. AND all the all-in-ones have lost the ability to handle slides/negatives.
Hi We have the Canon mp620. Never used the scanner though... so not able to say whether it is any good or not. D Replying a bit late but for what it is worth, I use a Lexmark X4580 all in one WiFi scanner /printer/ fax. Newer models are available. Good choice of memory card readers. Works well with any grahpics/photo program I throw at it.What I do like is the small size , its about 3/4 the size of my HP Photosmart7960, v.good but a whopper. The CanonscanN12400U I have stored away always gave me grief and I lost patience with it. Plenty of choice out there.
For what its worth, most researchers at the US Archives seem to use an Epson scanner. They are among the best personal scanner, if not the leader in the industry. I have an Epson Perfection and it is exactly that. Cheers, Marc
I bought a Epson Stylus Photo PX710W all in one today and first impressions are it's excellent ! Epson Stylus Photo PX710W - null. Technical Specifications and Overview
There is a review of the 5600F in today's Sunday Times,quite a good write up but I note it received a negetive review from the only contributor writing a review on another web site. The S.T reviews 5 models.Take your pick.
I use an Epsom V200 photoscan, great for slides, pictures and has an extendable cover to take books, i have had no complaints at all. Oldman
And I have a Brother DCP-145C, scanner/printer/copier/fax. My fourth scanner, the fastest yet, and it cost me what, 50€? Reading the thread it appears we would be hard put to point out a bad scanner
I have four scanners here, an HP 4100 PSC, two 11"x18" Mustek A3s, and a Canon portable (powered by USB only). The Mustek's are good, but they fight the HP for resources. If you have one, be sure to install the software AFTER the HP or the Mustek will not work reliably. On the flip side of that, it will take two pieces of regular paper at once, reducing handling time when you're doing a large batch of scanning. I keep the Canon in my laptop bag for trips to the library to get documents. It has the advantage of being about as small as a flatbed can get. The only issue is the glass is very thin, and a heavy book may cause the traveling mechanism to bind. And, as I've said else where, a digital camera is fine for making copies for OCR. I use a 10 megapixel Fuji Finepix and that is probably overkill for the job.
what success have you had with negative slide scanning ? Ive had two neg scanners one was a 'Primafilm PF3600u 18 megapixel , found it hard to get a good result with B/W 35 negs especially if they were slightly overexposed or under exposed , didnt have any colour stuff so couldnt comment on the quality of the reroduction. The other purchased from Aldi just before Christmas was a 'Traveler TV6500' 35mm neg/slide scanner. Which seems like a clone of other scanners Ive seen , 5 megapixel 1800 dpi it wouldnt work with the supplied software and I had to use a another program , but saying that it produced really good images that the other one couldnt. John
China Hand - have had a Canon MP160 scanner/printer for about four years now -not one problem and very good results - not too expensive either... Cheers
what success have you had with negative slide scanning ? Ive had two neg scanners one was a 'Primafilm PF3600u 18 megapixel , found it hard to get a good result with B/W 35 negs especially if they were slightly overexposed or under exposed , didnt have any colour stuff so couldnt comment on the quality of the reroduction. The other purchased from Aldi just before Christmas was a 'Traveler TV6500' 35mm neg/slide scanner. Which seems like a clone of other scanners Ive seen , 5 megapixel 1800 dpi it wouldnt work with the supplied software and I had to use a another program , but saying that it produced really good images that the other one couldnt. John Quite impressed with these little Slide/film Scanners based on video cameras. Bought one from Maplin in their Christmas sale for £20, and it's now gone through c.500 colour slides with no real issues. Software's a bit clunky (probably should have just imported to Photoshop from point one, but once the dreary routine of importing had begun I was loath to change), and I miss the larger carriers and auto-scanning of a 'Proper' Minolta Scanner I used previously, but on the whole - pretty damned good for the price. Next; importing thousands of monochrome Negs... deep joy. On Flatbeds. Watch yerself buying on eBay if you use Windows 7 (and possibly Vista?). Check model number and do a quick Google for anyone having compatibility issues before bidding. My (old) USB flatbed refused to play once I got W7, and though I know it can be done (one universal freeware scanner program speaks to it - but covers the scans in watermarks), it can be a bugger to get the right drivers set up for older gear. Still struggling, even using plain Twain via Photoshop, to the extent the thing's now near useless.
Feeling a bit overwhelmed by photos (not just the WW2 ones though they are particularly challenging in that I have tons of little snaps which I want to reproduce as clearly as possible for uploading etc). I keep seeing adverts for these clever machines that scan photos to "PC or CD or Memory stick " or all sorts of things with MP somethings in them. Has anyone got some pointers as to what I should put on my Father Christmas list. My techy ability is spot on for typing but thats it. HELP. PS apologies to Diane for the title of this.....
I've been using the Epson Perfection series of scanners for well over ten years now and owned about three or four different models. They are high quality and very reliable. Currently I have the 4490 PHOTO model, which is very good value for money. Forgot the combo scanner/fax/printers as you just end up with a poor a printer and an even poorer scanner. With scanners it is very much worth paying that little bit extra to get good results. Also scanning is a lot like photography and requires a certain amount of skill and artistry to produce good results. Lee Entirely agree with all Lee`s comments. I`ve been using Epson scanners for years, including the Perfection models, and they`re excellent. Also tried the Scanner/Fax/Printer route once and as Lee says, it`s just a compromise. An Epson with a good native scanning resolution is a safe bet and buy something mid-range, rather than a base / entry level model and you shouldn`t be dissapointed. John PS: I use mine with Silverfast software via a Photoshop Plug-In.
Scanning slides is a nightmare. Quite simply the time and effort needed to get a really good result is horrendous. Best settle on what is 'good enough' rather than go for best possible. The cheap film strip scanners from the likes of Maplin should be good enough. Photos are slightly easier but a lot depends on your monitor. If you have a poor one then by optimising your photos for your screen might mean they look crap on a normal one. In short 'scanning' is the easy part. It is the adjusting to get the raw scan into a good image that takes up all your time. Scanning books? I have scanned 1000's and you are always going to end up damaging (if not destroying) some of your books. Just laying them flat is enough to split most of the modern softbacks. A warning. Never ever scan a metalic object. You might not notice it at first but it always leaves a little scratch and very soon dozens of little scratches make one big scratch
Film has a much higher density range than prints so you really need a decent dedicated film scanner. The film adapters on budget flatbeds just aren't going to cut it. It's been over a decade now since I was daily scanning film but then for semi-professional results you needed something like the Nikon Coolscan series of 35mm film scanners. In most cases a decent result from transparency film was achieved in one scan. Colour negative could be more problematical especially if the originals were poorly exposed. For B&W I've always maintained that scanning should be done from a master print rather than from negatives. The film adapters on the better quality flatbeds, like the higher Epson Perfection range do an OK job on film. Scanned images will always need a certain amount of processing after scanning but it is important that you get the scanning part correct, especially in terms of contrast range. You bring up a good point about monitors. Your monitor should always be properly calibrated before scanning or photo retouching. Newer versions of Windows have a system monitor set up utility and so does Photoshop. Lee Scanning slides is a nightmare. Quite simply the time and effort needed to get a really good result is horrendous. Best settle on what is 'good enough' rather than go for best possible. The cheap film strip scanners from the likes of Maplin should be good enough. Photos are slightly easier but a lot depends on your monitor. If you have a poor one then by optimising your photos for your screen might mean they look crap on a normal one. In short 'scanning' is the easy part. It is the adjusting to get the raw scan into a good image that takes up all your time. Scanning books? I have scanned 1000's and you are always going to end up damaging (if not destroying) some of your books. Just laying them flat is enough to split most of the modern softbacks. A warning. Never ever scan a metalic object. You might not notice it at first but it always leaves a little scratch and very soon dozens of little scratches make one big scratch
