OT: Flatbed scanner speeds

I have a very occasional need for a flatbed scanner. For about the same price, I can get either a new no-frills entry-level scanner or a used HP Scanjet 6300c. The HP 6300c is an old model that was, according to reviews, a versatile and blazingly fast mid-range model when it was new 10 years ago. It also comes with a document feeder and a film scanner. The optical resolution of

1200x1200 is more than good enough for me.

What I'd like to know, but can't find out, is how the 6300c stacks up against current entry-level models for speed. One review states that preview is 10 sec or less and scanning an 8x10 photo took 20 secs, but doesn't say at what resolution. I don't have access to any current model to try out and couldn't find figures for preview and scan speeds with a quick search. This is where I'm hoping for some useful input here.

Reply to
Pimpom
Loading thread data ...

Do yourself a favor and see if it has drivers for your OS. Probably you should check win7 64 bit assuming you are not there and plan to upgrade. Otherwise to run old scanners without modern drivers you will have to buy Ed Harmrick's Vuescan. The cost of the software will negate any saving in buying an old scanner.

Many 1200x1200 specs are a phony interpolation, i.e the scanner is

600x600. That doesn't have to be the case, but you need to check the native resolution.

Manufacturer have little incentive to provide new drivers for old hardware other than goodwill.

Reply to
miso

On a sunny day (Tue, 12 Jul 2011 13:04:59 +0530) it happened "Pimpom" wrote in :

Use a digital camera. I have a very good old Canon scanner, but it has no Linux drivers. So I use the Canon digital camera flash, the flash eliminates any blur due to movement. Or use a tripod. Anyways, faster cheaper better. The Canon is good to fake money, other papers, in combination with a Epson color photo inkjet I have. Unfortunately one time the Canon scanner did not work, I hit it, it fell on the ground, picked it up and still no go. Turned out to be the stupid MS driver needed reloading. But since that time it makes funny noises and probably is no longer any good to copy dollars. But dollars and US bonds should be junk within a few weeks anyways, so who cares. The camera (A470) is great. Some who have vision problems cannot read some of those pictures, but when that brain part is absent they could not do anything with the pictures if they could read them anyways. So I'd say use a digital camera. Scanners take too much space anyways.

Reply to
Jan Panteltje

The specs say that 1200 dpi is the optical resolution, and can be extrapolated to 999,999. Can't see any practical use for the latter figure, but it reinforces the fact that 1200 *is* the optical res.

I've already checked for drivers. It comes with a driver for Win XP, the OS I'm using now. The HP site says that they don't have drivers for later OSes. A search indicated that some owners are using the XP driver for Win 7. They say that, after Windows detected the scanner, it just needed a reboot before the driver could be installed.

What I really need to know is the speed compared to recent entry-level models.

Reply to
Pimpom

And NOW we know why all your schematics are ALWAYS illegible! :-(

--
Ian Malcolm.   London, ENGLAND.  (NEWSGROUP REPLY PREFERRED)
ianm[at]the[dash]malcolms[dot]freeserve[dot]co[dot]uk
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
IanM

I *have* been using cameras in lieu of a scanner for quite a few years now. It works well in many cases but there are times when a flatbed would be more suitable.

Reply to
Pimpom

Did you see the specs on the HP site?

SCSI interface by pushing the HP Scanjet front-panel button and scanning directly to end-user programs through the HP Precisionscan 2.0 software.

NOTE the use of the SCSI interface to achieve the 'marketing' speed! It appears to have a USB 1.0 interface so will be rather slow if you use USB. Do you have a compatible SCSI card?

I'd bet the task speeds are at 300dpi as the lower the resolution, the faster the transfer but OCR and photos get pretty crappy below 300dpi.

Still running an EPSON Expression 1640XL A3 flatbed scanner here on the same SCSI bus as some drives and a CD writer. It is circa 2001, and apart from the size, is broadly comparable to the one you are considering. I wont change it until it is no longer repairable by an experienced tech (ME), as I haven't seen anything better with a clean but fully featured UI let alone at a reasonable price. If I have to I'll maintain an XP or WinFlp box just to run it. ;-)

The only thing to be cautious about is lamp condition. If at all possible, you want to see some test scans of various types of documents ...

--
Ian Malcolm.   London, ENGLAND.  (NEWSGROUP REPLY PREFERRED)
ianm[at]the[dash]malcolms[dot]freeserve[dot]co[dot]uk
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
IanM

copy dollars.

So what? You go around defrauding vending machines with photocopied currency?

You're a real prize, boy.

Where is the firing squad when we need one?

Reply to
UltimatePatriot

:-) I refrained from commenting on that because I was the one asking for help. But now that you've brought it up, I'll just add that I produce *much* better images with my camera, but they often need some post processing to get a really clean image. It depends on the object and intended use of the image. Some jobs could be done better with a camera, others with a scanner. Which is why I want to have both.

Reply to
Pimpom

Most times, it is simply the wrong camera (read lens).

Most cameras have a minimum focal length, which most folks trying to do macro shots with NON macro centric cameras (or lenses) fail to keep in mind. All these fixed lens digital cameras in the channel are typically not macro centric. Though more and more of the newer ones are making better lens systems.

My last camera was 17 inches, and it WAS macro centric. This one I have here now is 14 Mp and I can be as close as 0.5"(12.4mm)from the primary lens. You can bet it would not take fuzzy full page shots.

Reply to
TheGlimmerMan

As the proud owner of an original Pantelje (currently awaiting framing), I can testify that the photos are pretty much true to the original. ;-)

Reply to
Spehro Pefhany

The older scanners use cold cathode lamps and take considerable time before you actually are doing any scanning.

Newer models use LED's and are much faster as they have no warm up time Also the older scanners use the printer port or a USB 1 port. The newer ones use USB 2.

Dan

Reply to
dcaster

Thake a look at:

formatting link

--
It's easy to think outside the box, when you have a cutting torch.
Reply to
Michael A. Terrell

One problem with using a camera as a substitute for a scanner without a special rig is that it's difficult to have consistent lighting. Here's a combination of two shots taken with my Panasonic FZ30. The shot on the left was cropped and resized, but otherwise unedited. The second one is cropped from a shot of a yellowed and stained page from good old Radiotron Designer's Handbook.

formatting link

Reply to
Pimpom

On a sunny day (Tue, 12 Jul 2011 09:02:02 -0400) it happened Spehro Pefhany wrote in :

Yes it is indeed a most valuable possession. Maybe best to keep it under a protective atmosphere. Perhaps dry nitrogen.

Reply to
Jan Panteltje

On a sunny day (Wed, 13 Jul 2011 00:49:35 +0530) it happened "Pimpom" wrote in :

When I took the pictures of the magnets on the black glass table, in one of those you can see every fingerprint on the glass, amazing! Of course I did not publish that one, can be used to fake my fingerprints.

Reply to
Jan Panteltje

Well you did have to check the drivers too. Otherwise this would be a dumb purchase.

I'm guessing you are never going to go 64 bit then. XP X64 was a weird ass release to say the least. MS totally ripped me off since it really couldn't be use for an upgrade. Or to be more exact, it was just easier to find win7 pro 64bit OEM.

Reply to
miso

do

All you need is a spacer after the lens and you are in macro land.

Reply to
miso

Well the quality of a page shot depends on what it gets shot with, and the rest of the set-up as well.

My single camera, single lens job I spoke about weeks ago pretty much covers everything, and the price clinches it. Best damned camera money can buy. All the dopes that spend thousands on their gear and then rarely use it? Do they really think it will hold its value?

Olympus SP-800UZ 14 Mpixel Sub $300 Ultra Macro-Zoom sweetness.

Don't really need anything else.(well... a tripod, etc.)

Reply to
TheGlimmerMan

I have the 6300c in my lab, bought it used to use the feeder option. It does not scan super fast, but the feeder makes the difference since you can place the stack and forget about it until its finished.

It uses the link to XP and later drivers, no problems. But, be sure to check that the feeder is good, can draw the paper in correctly and has the correct "grip". Otherwise it will render useless.....

Regards

Klaus

Reply to
Klaus Kragelund

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.