Slashdot Mirror


Searching for a Decent Scanner?

Stumped about Scanners asks: "My little sister's scanner is acting up, so she's in the market for a new one. However, the software she wishes to use it with (some funkadelic 'music OCR' thing that lets you scan sheet music and transforms it automagically into MIDI files) claims that it doesn't work too well with HP scanners. And, truth be told, I've never known much about which scanners are good and which are crap. So, which scanners lately are decent? Which are crap? I know that DPI matters very little (just like it does in printers)-- it's quality that matters. Could the SlashDot community provide some info on which scanners (some from HP and some not from HP) are decent? Are there any quasi-reputable sites (a la Tom's Hardware?) that have reviews on such things?"

18 of 425 comments (clear)

  1. Hey boss! "The TWAIN!!" by EggMan2000 · · Score: 4, Informative
    There are a lot of scanners on the market and they are realy not that different anymore. Your sister needs to get a TWAIN compatable scanner that is a stand-alone. Here are a few Epson scanners. A lot of these companies are really afraid of HP b/c HP offers these multi-purpose devices. Those can really suck. But for the money the Epson above should do the trick. But compare them to UMAX, Canon, etc.

    Just remember: "TWAIN" not "WIA" not "All-in-one"

    --
    what? what I thought we were in the trust tree in the nest, were we not?
  2. Add to Question by rknop · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Which ones are well-supported by SANE, so us Linux (etc.) users can use it?

    I generally find that the models on the shelf in CompUSA and the like are not supported by SANE (at least the ones that are on the less expensive end). Meanwhile, the ones that SANE says they support are all more than a month or two old. I don't know why so much of the computer industry feels the need to put out a new model number with essentially the same functionality every couple of months, but printers and scanners in particular seem to suffer from that. It makes it difficult for those of us using free drivers to keep up with.

    What's a good, low-end, *current* scanner that you can get that works with SANE?

    -Rob

    1. Re:Add to Question by Feyr · · Score: 4, Interesting

      i have an old scsi UMAX scanner here that's a serious pain in the ass (read: almost impossible) to get working in windows according to cow-workers. SANE picked it up on the first try, and the quality is even good!

      feyr my SANE-ity

  3. go EPSON by aurelien · · Score: 5, Informative

    AFAIK the quality is top, the price correct, and it plays very nice with any OS (espacially p'n'p under linux with xsane).

    --
    aurelien
  4. Well... by coldmist · · Score: 4, Informative

    I have a Microtek 6800 and a Fujitsu grayscale duplex scanner right now. I've owned Umax too and helped install HP scanners for others.

    Epson and Microtek are probably the best 100-400 scanners. You get what you pay for if you go less than that.

    I don't like Epson's drivers. They didn't give me as much control over the scan as the Microtek ones do. The Microtek drivers have a few annoyances, but are full-featured.

    Overall, for a good average user, a $150 scanner from Microtek or Epson would be a good investment.

    --
    Don't steal. The government hates competition.
  5. Enter it yourself by ericdano · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Being a professional musician myself, I have tried a lot of these software scanning solutions. Basically, it's easier and faster to just enter scores into a sequencer (like Digital Performer than to deal with the corrections you have to make when dealing with these music to midi scanners.

    Save yourself time and money. Get a good keyboard, synth module, and a sequencer and do it that way. Scanning it to midi just doesn't ever work right.

    --
    It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
    I moderate therefore I rule!
    --
  6. digital camera by Jeffrey+Baker · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If you have a digital camera, try that instead. Many digital cameras, even middle-of-the-line ones like a Powershot S400 or similar, are perfectly good replacements for document scanners, and normally much, much faster.

  7. Re:Hey boss! "The TWAIN!!" by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Uh, can somebody explain to me why they consider all-in-oners not to be TWAIN compatible? TWAIN is after all a software protocol, and my wife's Epson scanner/printer/copier/fax seems to be TWAIN compatible (in that I can hook up to it's driver as a TWAIN source in Paint Shop Pro and get a picture back).

    --
    SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  8. Well I like by ellem · · Score: 4, Funny

    the Radio Shack Pro-89.

    I can easily program all of my favorite drivers in in no time. But the Bearcats can be programmed for you at the track at the Race-Scan trucks.

    --
    This .sig is fake but accurate.
  9. Re:Google by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Much more with reality- from Google you get paid reviews. From slashdot you get user reviews. For any geek, the second is much more valuable because the first is just marketing.

    --
    SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  10. HP 33xx series has a limited life span by brokeninside · · Score: 4, Informative

    They're nice machines, but mine only lasted about a year and half (maybe two years). After which it needed a scanner bulb replacement and HP didn't offer the part for sale. Rather, one had to purchase the whole scanner assembly in order to fix the multifunction device. Worse, not even the print function works when the device reports a scanner error.

    Prior to this meltdown, I was pretty pleased with the unit. Getting it to play nice with OS X Panther was a royal bear, but that problem was fixed by the time that Panther had been out about a year.

    I wanted to buy one of the Canon or Samsung models to replace it, but neither offered OS X drivers for their multifunction devices. If I didn't have such a limited amount of space, I would have bought a separate printer, copier, and scanner. Separately, they wouldn't have had much of a premium over all-in-one units.

    I ended up buying another HP. Unless you want to spend a couple thousand on industrial grade machines, they're pretty much the only game in town for laser all-in-ones for OS X.

  11. Canon LIDE 30 by Chuckaluphagus · · Score: 4, Informative

    I have a Canon LiDE 30 that I picked up for work (scanning patent documents). It's light, quiet, cheap (cost me $70), relatively quick, and draws power over the USB connection so it uses only that one cable. I use it primarily for black-and-white and greyscale images, but it's done color very nicely as well.

    I believe the current model in this line is the LiDE 35, but all of the above should apply.

  12. Re:HP's are bad because they're junk. by msaulters · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Anyway, DON'T BUY HP!!

    I'm so sad that I have to agree with this. I remember how I used to swear by HP. 10 to 15 years ago, they couldn't be beat. Then they completely changed. Everything they put out became disposable and cheap. Their inkjet printers are the strongest example of how they went wrong. I have a friend who's still using his deskjet 500, after nearly 15 years. But in the mid-90's, they started selling not printers, but disposable ink-cartridge caddies. Even the cartridges were junk. You couldn't print 1/4 of the pages advertised before they gummed up so bad they were useless. I haven't bought an HP product in years.

    Another reason they aren't worth a crap is their shitty driver support. You buy an HP workstation-class machine from the late 90's early 00's, and you get no support for win98, because it's a home O/S. They only have 2K drivers. Or you buy a 'home/home office' variety from that period, and there's no Win 2K drivers. This extended to their 'internet keyboards' too, which was the last HP item I ever bought.

    Then they bought up Compaq, and even their server line now has issues. Ever tried to use their mounting rails? I never thought, back in the 90's that I'd pick a Dell server over HP/Compaq and be able to make the decision merely on the basis of their racks and rails!
    --
    These people looked deep into my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined.
  13. Re:DPI ? by thoromyr · · Score: 5, Informative

    Although DPI matters it isn't an over riding factor in quality. This is true for scanners, printers and digital cameras. Your assertion fails because you assume that all scanned/printed/imaged pixels are equal. They are not.

    A very good illustration of this is with color scanning. If you buy an expensive scanner its color accuracy should be quite good. If you buy a cheap scanner, not so much. Something that is common is getting dark blue for black.

    Ah! You say, if you *really* care about the color accuracy (and who does?) then you just "apply a filter" in Photoshop. Not so fast -- if black comes in as dark blue, the question is what does dark blue come in as? if it also comes in as dark blue you just lost information and it can't be recovered.

    Even if there is little information loss, "just" compressing of color space then it is something a bit beyond a simple filter. Color matching software is about the only way to deal with this problem, something Apple provides out of the box and is little used elsewhere.

    My first scanner was a UMAX 1200 and with a scan target and some software I was able to create a color match profile for that scanner. The improvement in scan quality was very significant.

    The short of it? It doesn't really matter if you scanner can go to 48000000 dpi if all of those "dots" are garbage. That's why getting a quality scanner is important. Scanning in a resolution higher than you will use is also a waste of time and storage, but that is another matter.

    For digital cameras you get the same issues as with scanners. Ooo! Its 500 Mega Pixels! Means absolutely nothing if the reds are washed out, the blacks are blue, etc.

    And printers are even more fun because people use different inks on different papers so color matching is even more hit and miss. But the original weakening of DPI as being useful to gauge printer output was when inkjet printer resolution started getting ramped up.

    The problem is that the printer could place, say, 720 dots in an inch, but each dot was maybe 1/72 inch across (from memory -- at this point I don't remember the actual size of a dot on the inkjets as I don't use them). So all you got out of the 720 DPI was overly wet paper. (Well, it also allowed some smoothing of diagonals, but considering the bleeding problem with inkjets that point is of questionable value.)

    Thoromyr

  14. Re:DPI ? by debest · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The OP is correct: just like with digicams, it very often doesn't matter what the resolution is, the scanner needs to have good quality optics or it is shite.

    What would you rather have, a 300dpi scan that is crystal clear (if a bit jaggy under a magnifier), or a 1200dpi scan that renders its blurriness in incredible resolution, and at about 16x the file size?

    If your scanner doesn't have good glass under the hood, it makes no difference how fine the CCD/CMOS resolution is.

    --
    Look at the tomato! Isn't it sad? He can't dance! Poor tomato!
  15. Re:DPI ? by infochuck · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, you know wrong.

    No, YOU know wrong. DPI doesn't matter for spit; any new scanner sold these days will use a greater resolution than most people will ever need. Just like all xMP digital cameras are not equal - the quality of the optics goes a long way toward determining final quality; I'd take a 3MP cam with Nikkor or Leica optics over some roody-poot 1000MP camera.

    Chances are, the 600 DPI Epson will produce better quality scans than that 3600 DPI (interpolated) from Brand J (for junk).

    Get a clue before you start correcting folks.

  16. Re:Google by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because /. has that 8-hour interrogation to prove who you really are so no marketing geeks ever get on here and try to pretend that they are unbiased users.

    No, because /. doesn't let the "marketing geeks" have any more say than the "unbiased users"- thus letting a ton of people jump on the marketing geek's posts with disagreements and bad reviews. The bad reviews that you'd never see on a marketing site like ZDNet or Tom's Hardware.

    --
    SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  17. Re:Hey boss! "The TWAIN!!" by sconeu · · Score: 4, Informative

    Do *NOT* get UMAX. They don't provide free updates and support, and you absolutely cannot get most of their scanners to work under SANE/XSANE.

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.