"CSM1" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:eqsXh.43$(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Talal Itani" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news
DmXh.9830$no.4774@trnddc02...
>>
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> On Apr 23, 3:15 am, "Talal Itani" <tit...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>> My old HP scanner finally quit all the way. So I went to Newegg, and I
>>>> found two really inexpensive scanners: Canon LiDE 25 is for $44.77,
>>>> Canon
>>>> LiDE 70 is for $89.88. I will not be scanning any photographs, since I
>>>> have
>>>> a digital camera. Yet every once in a while I scan a document. These
>>>> Canon
>>>> scanners seem to have good reviews. Yet I am wondering, why are they
>>>> so
>>>> inexpensive? What do I lose? Thank you.
>>>>
>>>> Talal Itani
>>>
>>> The only problem with LiDE's is that by nature they have very limited
>>> depth of field, and are pretty much useless for scanning anything
>>> other than flat paper. If you want to scan jewelry or other small 3d
>>> objects, get another type of scanner.
>>>
>>
>> I will only scan black and white text documents. Even with that I am
>> worried, $44.77 is an amazing price for a scanner. By the way, can
>> jewelry be scanned with a scanner?
>
> Absolutely, if the scanner's sensor is a CCD type.
> Just look at jewelry on Ebay.
>
> A lot of the jewelry is from a scanner. Some are from a digital camera.
>
This is very interesting. If the jewelry is flat, like a coin, I can see
how it can be scanned. But, what about rings, bracelets, can they also be
scanned with a flatbed?