Epson V10 and V100

[RSKT]

Hi
I upgrade my scanner to an Epson V10 because I needed a low cost solution to
scan my 35mm film into digital images.
But to my horror, it took 12min at medium quality to scan 1 strip alone. I'm
wondering if this is "normal" speed and whether I can do much better with
the more costly V100 or V300 scanners instead?
I have an Epson R210 so would prefer to stick with Epson. I don't mind canon
but I don't think they have a film scanner for their lower end models.
Thanks in advance!

 

[tomm42]

Hi
I upgrade my scanner to an Epson V10 because I needed a low cost solution to
scan my 35mm film into digital images.
But to my horror, it took 12min at medium quality to scan 1 strip alone. I'm
wondering if this is "normal" speed and whether I can do much better with
the more costly V100 or V300 scanners instead?
I have an Epson R210 so would prefer to stick with Epson. I don't mind canon
but I don't think they have a film scanner for their lower end models.
Thanks in advance!

All depends on what resolution you are using, that sounds right for a
high res (approx 4000ppi) scan. Scanning is not fast no matter what
scanner you are using. If you are scanning for screen or PowerPoint
you can greatly reduce your resolution and increase the speed aof the
scan. If you are using Digital Ice to get rid of dust that doubles
your scanning time, if you have dirty slides it's a help, if your
slides are relatively clean don't use Digital Ice. More costly
scanners decrease the scanning time a little but just going to a V100
or V300 isn't going to get you much. When I'm scanning for screen
(1200ppi give me the best results even with downsizing) on an Epson
V700 takes a minute to a minute and a half, while at 4000ppi it takes
about 3-4 minutes on a 35 slide. So going up a model or two won't help
that much.

Tom

 

[RSKT]

Thanks tomm42/Michael
Problem is I reduced the res to as low as 300 before getting a scan speed
for a single film strip of 12min.
Of course the time doubles when I set to 600. 4 min would have been very
acceptable to me for 4000ppi!

I noticed the scan quality is average a best and there is no discernible
difference between 300 and 600 dpi (on my computer screen anyway). I'm
wondering if its because my system is bloated, or its my hardware issue (AMD
Athlon XP 2600+ with 2GB RAM). Assuming its the scanner issue, are you
saying an upgrade from V10 to V700 would be significant as far as speed is
concerned?

Thanks for the replies!

 

[Gary]

The rule against top posting was developed back in the time when there might
be days between the time an original post hit Usenet/Bitnet and someone
replied to it. The reader might like to see the o/p before they read the
reply. In this day and age when replies usually come quickly after the o/p
it makes no sense for readers to have to scroll through the o/p multiple
times to get down to the replies. In a top post the reader can always
scroll down to look at the o/p if he/she needs to refresh their memory,
otherwise it's "noted and move on." IMHO, the "rule" against top posting is
another case of "because that's the way we always did it!"

Gary
Visit Lucy & Gary and do the jigsaw puzzle at
www.under-1-roof.com/PuzzlePage.html


snip
....

 

[SF-East Bay'r]

I agree. I never could understand why people seem to prefer bottom posting.
Tom

 

[rodney]

I agree, I am an unashamed top poster.

 

[Gary]

I wasn't lecturing--just stating why I like reading top posters instead
slogging through the same message a dozen times to get to each new reply and
why I think bottom posting "might" have been a reasonable standard way back
when. But, I think that standards can and should evolve.

 

[Robert Peirce]

I agree. I never could understand why people seem to prefer bottom posting.
Tom

A little context editing helps a lot. I used to top post all the time
but find bottom posting actually works better. I left all this crap in
to prove the point. What if SF-East Bay had edited Gary down to a line
or two and then bottom posted his one line comment?

 

[Gary]

*plonk*

Sorry guys! I really didn't mean to piss anybody off!

 

[Bogey Man]

You bottom posted leaving a bunch of crap in so that your post wasn't
visible without scrolling. So, I just didn't bother scrolling to read what
you had to say. If I have to scroll, I don't read it.

 

[CSM1]

Then you miss out on 75-90% of the posts in the newsgroups.
A lot of people post on the bottom so that you can see what they are
replying to.

I posted this on the top so you would bother to read it.