I'd like to get a bed scanner to scan the occasional image. I might
want to buy third-party imaging software like Vuescan and find a color
profile. One that's been around long enough to be on Ebay would be a
plus.

I see scanners for as low as $50. What should I look for.

I'll be using this with XP and w2k.

Thanks


--
Al Dykes
-----------
adykes at p a n i x . c o m

Al:

There are lots of choices over the spectrum of prices. Here's my
2-cents. Assuming you want to only do standard reflective scanning of
prints, pictures, etc., (no transparencies), Ed Hamrick recommends the
Canon LIDE-20 (600dpi). I use the LIDE-30 (1200dpi) with my XP box,
but 600dpi is probably all you really need for reflective scanning.
Both units work great with VueScan. The light source and sensor
combination gives a very linear response that doesn't change very much
over time. VueScan's internal profile for my LIDE-30 is very good
since I can see almost no difference between the results generated
with the internal profile and the scanner profile I created with
VueScan. Moreover, VueScan allows single scan, multisampling that the
Canon software doesn't -- not that you will need it very often because
the light/sensor is not very noisey. Both units are not table top
space hogs and are very inexpensive, but yield excellent high quality
results, imo.

Jeff Randall


(E-Mail Removed) (Al Dykes) wrote in message news:<c61785$i5i$(E-Mail Removed)>...
> I'd like to get a bed scanner to scan the occasional image. I might
> want to buy third-party imaging software like Vuescan and find a color
> profile. One that's been around long enough to be on Ebay would be a
> plus.
>
> I see scanners for as low as $50. What should I look for.
>
> I'll be using this with XP and w2k.
>
> Thanks

"Jeff Randall" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Ed Hamrick recommends the
> Canon LIDE-20 (600dpi). I use the LIDE-30 (1200dpi) with my XP box,
> but 600dpi is probably all you really need for reflective scanning.
> Both units work great with VueScan.

Oddly enough, the LiDE 20 works even better than the LiDE 30, since
it can scan faster. An added bonus is that the LiDE 20 costs less.

(This assumes that you don't need 1200 dpi for reflective scanning,
which few people do.)

Regards,
Ed Hamrick

For a while now I have been a proponent of the old HP 4c and its ilk. I
know they are table hogs, but you can get them on Ebay for literally
pennies (plus about $25 for shipping -- recently got one for 50 cents,
plus $17 shipping).

Sometimes I wonder if there is something I'm missing out on by not going
with the latest models. I have a theory that when SCSI was the cat's
meow, SCSI peripherals were designed to professional specs. Later the
wide availability of USB 1.1 and 2.0 allowed manufacturers to focus on
the consumer market, leaving much to be desired in their offerings since
1999 or so.

So, am I missing out on any real new feature? I don't buy the DPI
game. I do a lot of text archiving and would love for a scanner to give
me copier quality scans at 275 to 300 dpi. If any of the newer scanners
can improve over the quality of the 4c, then its time for me to shell
out the $$.

By the way, how fast is the LIDE-20 at scanning 300 dpi 1-bit A4 text?
The 4c can do four scans in @ 64 seconds. It can also do legal size,
allowing you to scan two facing pages of a book at once, reducing
scanning time by half. The LIDE-20?

MY RECOMMENDATION:

Find on Ebay a used 3c, 4c or 6100c with a document feeder. It will
probably run @ $40 including shipping.

If I am missing something, someone, please set me straight.

ES



Ed Hamrick wrote:
>
> "Jeff Randall" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > Ed Hamrick recommends the
> > Canon LIDE-20 (600dpi). I use the LIDE-30 (1200dpi) with my XP box,
> > but 600dpi is probably all you really need for reflective scanning.
> > Both units work great with VueScan.
>
> Oddly enough, the LiDE 20 works even better than the LiDE 30, since
> it can scan faster. An added bonus is that the LiDE 20 costs less.
>
> (This assumes that you don't need 1200 dpi for reflective scanning,
> which few people do.)
>
> Regards,
> Ed Hamrick

> If I am missing something, someone, please set me straight.

For flat copy, no you're not really missing anything.

Sampling bit depth on IIcx is only 24, but it's a *good* 24, and fine for
flat copy of all kinds. I don't get any more from a 36bit flatbed I have
from a photo than I do from the old IIcx.

The only time I need more than my IIcx can deliver (400ppi optical) is
for very small detailed origs that need to come way up (like postage
stamps), line art that needs to be 600 or higher at actual or larger size
than original, and...and, well, I believe that's about it.

Obviously, higher rez is needed for film, because the orig is so small,
especially 35mm and smaller. So this becomes the major diff. And though
2400-4800ppi ain't as good on flatbeds with tranny adaptor as on
dedicated film scanner, it's pretty darn good for the price and adequate
for many folks's needs. And for MF it's the only practical alternative
short of $1800. And for LF, it's only one short of maybe $4000. And MF or
larger are actually *quite* good at 2400 and up on these Epsons and
others.

--
Mac McDougald
Doogle Digital - www.doogle.com