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!
--
Please delete "abc-" from my email address when replying.
Thanks
Try a Canon 4400F
$99.US
"RSKT" <abc-seahkt@cyberway.com.sg> wrote in message
news:g34hn3$sp6$1@mawar.singnet.com.sg...
> 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!
>
> --
> Please delete "abc-" from my email address when replying.
> Thanks
>
On Jun 15, 11:09 pm, "RSKT" <abc-sea...@cyberway.com.sg> wrote:
> 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!
>
> --
> Please delete "abc-" from my email address when replying.
> Thanks
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.
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! :-)
"tomm42" <tmonego@wildblue.net> wrote in message
news:50a44cfe-b0ce-400c-b672-a11d8f16aa55@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> 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
I have a 2.6 AMD with 2GB ram and an 8600F Canon and my scans are very
reasonable time wise..
I do not know why you would be slower.
Maybe some extra services or such running.
"RSKT" <abc-seahkt@cyberway.com.sg> wrote in message
news:g35v8g$nli$1@reader01.singnet.com.sg...
> 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! :-)
>
>
>
> "tomm42" <tmonego@wildblue.net> wrote in message
> news:50a44cfe-b0ce-400c-b672-a11d8f16aa55@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> 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
>
>
On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:09:57 +0800, "RSKT"
<abc-seahkt@cyberway.com.sg> wrote:
>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!
This product is interesting because it is NOT, actually, a scanner, but
rather a 5MP digital camera that takes a picture of the entire image
(slide or negative) at once. I am not sure what it's quality is, and
note that it does not have digital ICE or any other such enhancements.
Talker wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:09:57 +0800, "RSKT"
> <abc-seahkt@cyberway.com.sg> wrote:
>
>> 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!
>
>
> Here's a low cost film and slide scanner.
> http://www.cyberguys.com/templates/S...roductID=19138
>
> I don't know how well it works, so it might not be what you're looking
> for.
>
> Talker
Barry Watzman wrote:
> This product is interesting because it is NOT, actually, a scanner, but
> rather a 5MP digital camera that takes a picture of the entire image
> (slide or negative) at once. I am not sure what it's quality is, and
> note that it does not have digital ICE or any other such enhancements.
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!"
"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:99-dnXhXGvadHUTVnZ2dnUVZ_i2dnZ2d@giganews.com...
snip
....
> Please do not top post.
>
>
I agree. I never could understand why people seem to prefer bottom posting.
Tom
"Gary" <gary@under-1-roof.com> wrote in message
news:35481$48d9936d$48097434$11732@CTITECH.COM...
> 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
>
>
> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:99-dnXhXGvadHUTVnZ2dnUVZ_i2dnZ2d@giganews.com...
> snip
> ...
>> Please do not top post.
>>
>>
>
Epson V10 and V100 
Linear Mode
