What, in your opinion, is the best scanner to buy if, primarily, someone
wants to scan in old photographs (some badly faded with time) so that you
can create a viewing CD-DVD. Thanks.
On Aug 15, 6:15 am, "Steve Turner" <stevezyg...@telus.net> wrote:
> What, in your opinion, is the best scanner to buy if, primarily, someone
> wants to scan in old photographs (some badly faded with time) so that you
> can create a viewing CD-DVD. Thanks.
If the photos are paper not ttransparencies or negatives almost any
scanner will do the job. I'm liking Epsons right now but I have had
good experiences with UMAX. Cheap scanners are just that ceap and you
get what you pay for. If you don't have transparencies I look at the
Epson V500, it will also do 35mm and I believe 2 1/4 transie. If you
have a large number of transparencies or negatives go to the Epson
V700. Quite a bit more $ but a higher level scanner.
"tomm42" <tmonego@wildblue.net> wrote in message
news:d6aa6e97-4bad-4bcb-8df4-afc3bcd68e62@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 15, 6:15 am, "Steve Turner" <stevezyg...@telus.net> wrote:
>> What, in your opinion, is the best scanner to buy if, primarily, someone
>> wants to scan in old photographs (some badly faded with time) so that you
>> can create a viewing CD-DVD. Thanks.
>
>
> If the photos are paper not ttransparencies or negatives almost any
> scanner will do the job. I'm liking Epsons right now but I have had
> good experiences with UMAX. Cheap scanners are just that ceap and you
> get what you pay for. If you don't have transparencies I look at the
> Epson V500, it will also do 35mm and I believe 2 1/4 transie. If you
> have a large number of transparencies or negatives go to the Epson
> V700. Quite a bit more $ but a higher level scanner.
>
> Tom
Thanks, Tom. What do you think of the Hewlett Packard Scanjet 5590 Digital
Flatbed Scanner? I like the idea of a sheet feeder, not for pictures
obviously.
"Steve Turner" <stevezygote@telus.net> wrote in message
news:Mtfpk.7206$%b7.6704@edtnps82...
>
> "tomm42" <tmonego@wildblue.net> wrote in message
> news:d6aa6e97-4bad-4bcb-8df4-afc3bcd68e62@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>> On Aug 15, 6:15 am, "Steve Turner" <stevezyg...@telus.net> wrote:
>>> What, in your opinion, is the best scanner to buy if, primarily, someone
>>> wants to scan in old photographs (some badly faded with time) so that
>>> you
>>> can create a viewing CD-DVD. Thanks.
>>
>>
>> If the photos are paper not ttransparencies or negatives almost any
>> scanner will do the job. I'm liking Epsons right now but I have had
>> good experiences with UMAX. Cheap scanners are just that ceap and you
>> get what you pay for. If you don't have transparencies I look at the
>> Epson V500, it will also do 35mm and I believe 2 1/4 transie. If you
>> have a large number of transparencies or negatives go to the Epson
>> V700. Quite a bit more $ but a higher level scanner.
>>
>> Tom
>
> Thanks, Tom. What do you think of the Hewlett Packard Scanjet 5590 Digital
> Flatbed Scanner? I like the idea of a sheet feeder, not for pictures
> obviously.
>
> http://www.staples.ca/ENG/Catalog/ca...affixedcode=WW
Wow. I really appreciate all this! Years ago I bought an HP Scanjet 6300c
and it was painfully slow. I didn't ge that much use out of it actually and
at the time could have used a document feeder but not so much now. I'm
learning more about scanners now. The 6300c has got something wrong with the
belt but it isn't worth my while to fix it, even though I paid almost 600
CAD for it. They're advertised on eBay for something like 15 bucks now!
"CSM1" <nomoremail@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:%Bhpk.23012$Ri.4804@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com...
> "Steve Turner" <stevezygote@telus.net> wrote in message
> news:Mtfpk.7206$%b7.6704@edtnps82...
>>
>> "tomm42" <tmonego@wildblue.net> wrote in message
>> news:d6aa6e97-4bad-4bcb-8df4-afc3bcd68e62@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Aug 15, 6:15 am, "Steve Turner" <stevezyg...@telus.net> wrote:
>>>> What, in your opinion, is the best scanner to buy if, primarily,
>>>> someone
>>>> wants to scan in old photographs (some badly faded with time) so that
>>>> you
>>>> can create a viewing CD-DVD. Thanks.
>>>
>>>
>>> If the photos are paper not ttransparencies or negatives almost any
>>> scanner will do the job. I'm liking Epsons right now but I have had
>>> good experiences with UMAX. Cheap scanners are just that ceap and you
>>> get what you pay for. If you don't have transparencies I look at the
>>> Epson V500, it will also do 35mm and I believe 2 1/4 transie. If you
>>> have a large number of transparencies or negatives go to the Epson
>>> V700. Quite a bit more $ but a higher level scanner.
>>>
>>> Tom
>>
>> Thanks, Tom. What do you think of the Hewlett Packard Scanjet 5590
>> Digital Flatbed Scanner? I like the idea of a sheet feeder, not for
>> pictures obviously.
>>
>> http://www.staples.ca/ENG/Catalog/ca...affixedcode=WW
>
> My personal opinion, HP scanners are crap.
>
> I use Canon Scanners.
> http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/co...categoryid=104
>
> Go for the Film and Negative scanners even though you don't have film to
> scan.
> Those scanners are better scanners in that they use CCD sensors.
>
> This is the one I go for:
> http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/co...&modelid=15561
>
> NewEgg sells them a bit cheaper.
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16838111015
>
> This is a comparison between a CCD and A CIS sensor.
> http://www.carlmcmillan.com/DOF/DepthofField.htm
>
> Simple test but effective.
>
> --
> CSM1
> http://www.carlmcmillan.com
> --
>
>
Honestly, get an old HP 5470C on E-Bay. Was a top-of-the-line Editor's
Choice (PC Magazine) scanner from about 2002. Still a great scanner and
you can pick them up on E-Bay for as little as $10 to $20 (although by
the time you ship it, it will be twice that).
Another newer but still good option, the Epson 4490 (about $100 to $140;
somtimes can still be found "new in box").
Steve Turner wrote:
> What, in your opinion, is the best scanner to buy if, primarily, someone
> wants to scan in old photographs (some badly faded with time) so that
> you can create a viewing CD-DVD. Thanks.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
The 5590 is the scanner that was the successor to the 5470C that I
recommended. If the 5470C is equipped with an ADF, it becomes a 5490C
(it was sold that way with the ADF, or the ADF could be added later).
I have them both (5590 and 5490 (aka 5470 with ADF). The older 5490 is
better in my opinion, because of the software. From a hardware
perspective, the one (and only) advantage of the 5590 is that it's ADF
can duplex (do both sides of the page without manual intervention or
paper reinsertion), while the 5470's (5490's) ADF is single-sided only
(you can scan both sides by reinserting the paper .... Adobe Acrobat
will let you do this and automatically, properly, interleave the pages
if you are creating a PDF file).
One caution about getting a 5470/5490 if you want an ADF: The ADF [if
bought separately] is HP model or part number C9866A. While you can
find LOTS of these on E-Bay, and CHEAP (under $50 .... WAY under $50,
usually (and I mean total for scanner AND ADF)), be sure that you get
both the ADF INPUT tray and the proper power supply for the scanner with
the ADF (the power supply changes when you add the ADF ... you need the
dual voltage power supply that supplies both 12v and 24v). Neither the
input tray nor the power supply are still available from HP, either or
both are missing from most E-Bay listings that include the ADF, and the
ADF is useless without both of them.
Steve Turner wrote:
>
> "tomm42" <tmonego@wildblue.net> wrote in message
> news:d6aa6e97-4bad-4bcb-8df4-afc3bcd68e62@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>> On Aug 15, 6:15 am, "Steve Turner" <stevezyg...@telus.net> wrote:
>>> What, in your opinion, is the best scanner to buy if, primarily, someone
>>> wants to scan in old photographs (some badly faded with time) so that
>>> you
>>> can create a viewing CD-DVD. Thanks.
>>
>>
>> If the photos are paper not ttransparencies or negatives almost any
>> scanner will do the job. I'm liking Epsons right now but I have had
>> good experiences with UMAX. Cheap scanners are just that ceap and you
>> get what you pay for. If you don't have transparencies I look at the
>> Epson V500, it will also do 35mm and I believe 2 1/4 transie. If you
>> have a large number of transparencies or negatives go to the Epson
>> V700. Quite a bit more $ but a higher level scanner.
>>
>> Tom
>
> Thanks, Tom. What do you think of the Hewlett Packard Scanjet 5590
> Digital Flatbed Scanner? I like the idea of a sheet feeder, not for
> pictures obviously.
>
> http://www.staples.ca/ENG/Catalog/ca...affixedcode=WW
>
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
"CSM1" <nomoremail@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:%Bhpk.23012$Ri.4804@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com...
> "Steve Turner" <stevezygote@telus.net> wrote in message
> news:Mtfpk.7206$%b7.6704@edtnps82...
>>
>> "tomm42" <tmonego@wildblue.net> wrote in message
>> news:d6aa6e97-4bad-4bcb-8df4-afc3bcd68e62@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Aug 15, 6:15 am, "Steve Turner" <stevezyg...@telus.net> wrote:
>>>> What, in your opinion, is the best scanner to buy if, primarily,
>>>> someone
>>>> wants to scan in old photographs (some badly faded with time) so that
>>>> you
>>>> can create a viewing CD-DVD. Thanks.
>>>
>>>
>>> If the photos are paper not ttransparencies or negatives almost any
>>> scanner will do the job. I'm liking Epsons right now but I have had
>>> good experiences with UMAX. Cheap scanners are just that ceap and you
>>> get what you pay for. If you don't have transparencies I look at the
>>> Epson V500, it will also do 35mm and I believe 2 1/4 transie. If you
>>> have a large number of transparencies or negatives go to the Epson
>>> V700. Quite a bit more $ but a higher level scanner.
>>>
>>> Tom
>>
>> Thanks, Tom. What do you think of the Hewlett Packard Scanjet 5590
>> Digital Flatbed Scanner? I like the idea of a sheet feeder, not for
>> pictures obviously.
>>
>> http://www.staples.ca/ENG/Catalog/ca...affixedcode=WW
>
> My personal opinion, HP scanners are crap.
>
> I use Canon Scanners.
> http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/co...categoryid=104
>
> Go for the Film and Negative scanners even though you don't have film to
> scan.
> Those scanners are better scanners in that they use CCD sensors.
>
> This is the one I go for:
> http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/co...&modelid=15561
>
> NewEgg sells them a bit cheaper.
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16838111015
>
> This is a comparison between a CCD and A CIS sensor.
> http://www.carlmcmillan.com/DOF/DepthofField.htm
>
> Simple test but effective.
>
> --
> CSM1
> http://www.carlmcmillan.com
> --
>
Do you have a feeling for how the Canon 8800F compares to the Epson V500?
Thanks.
another Tom
"SF-East Bay'r" <not_real@notreal.net> wrote in message
news:vtlrk.18497$xZ.658@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
> "CSM1" <nomoremail@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:%Bhpk.23012$Ri.4804@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com...
>> "Steve Turner" <stevezygote@telus.net> wrote in message
>> news:Mtfpk.7206$%b7.6704@edtnps82...
>>>
>>> "tomm42" <tmonego@wildblue.net> wrote in message
>>> news:d6aa6e97-4bad-4bcb-8df4-afc3bcd68e62@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>>> On Aug 15, 6:15 am, "Steve Turner" <stevezyg...@telus.net> wrote:
>>>>> What, in your opinion, is the best scanner to buy if, primarily,
>>>>> someone
>>>>> wants to scan in old photographs (some badly faded with time) so that
>>>>> you
>>>>> can create a viewing CD-DVD. Thanks.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If the photos are paper not ttransparencies or negatives almost any
>>>> scanner will do the job. I'm liking Epsons right now but I have had
>>>> good experiences with UMAX. Cheap scanners are just that ceap and you
>>>> get what you pay for. If you don't have transparencies I look at the
>>>> Epson V500, it will also do 35mm and I believe 2 1/4 transie. If you
>>>> have a large number of transparencies or negatives go to the Epson
>>>> V700. Quite a bit more $ but a higher level scanner.
>>>>
>>>> Tom
>>>
>>> Thanks, Tom. What do you think of the Hewlett Packard Scanjet 5590
>>> Digital Flatbed Scanner? I like the idea of a sheet feeder, not for
>>> pictures obviously.
>>>
>>> http://www.staples.ca/ENG/Catalog/ca...affixedcode=WW
>>
>> My personal opinion, HP scanners are crap.
>>
>> I use Canon Scanners.
>> http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/co...categoryid=104
>>
>> Go for the Film and Negative scanners even though you don't have film to
>> scan.
>> Those scanners are better scanners in that they use CCD sensors.
>>
>> This is the one I go for:
>> http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/co...&modelid=15561
>>
>> NewEgg sells them a bit cheaper.
>> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16838111015
>>
>> This is a comparison between a CCD and A CIS sensor.
>> http://www.carlmcmillan.com/DOF/DepthofField.htm
>>
>> Simple test but effective.
>>
>> --
>> CSM1
>> http://www.carlmcmillan.com
>> --
>>
> Do you have a feeling for how the Canon 8800F compares to the Epson V500?
> Thanks.
> another Tom
The Canon 8800F and the Epson V500 are very similar.
The Epson V500 has a max optical resolution of 6400 DPI.
The Canon 8800F has a max optical resolution of 4800 DPI.
Those two specs are only important if you are scanning film.
For paper you almost never need more than about 600 DPI.
If you compare to a fax machine, you only need 200 DPI.
Personally I like Canon much better that Epson. I have had bad experience
with the Epson line of printers, so I am prejudiced against the Epson line.
"CSM1" <nomoremail@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:AGork.19963$89.15127@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
> "SF-East Bay'r" <not_real@notreal.net> wrote in message
> news:vtlrk.18497$xZ.658@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>
>> "CSM1" <nomoremail@nomail.com> wrote in message
>> news:%Bhpk.23012$Ri.4804@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com...
>>> "Steve Turner" <stevezygote@telus.net> wrote in message
>>> news:Mtfpk.7206$%b7.6704@edtnps82...
>>>>
>>>> "tomm42" <tmonego@wildblue.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:d6aa6e97-4bad-4bcb-8df4-afc3bcd68e62@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> On Aug 15, 6:15 am, "Steve Turner" <stevezyg...@telus.net> wrote:
>>>>>> What, in your opinion, is the best scanner to buy if, primarily,
>>>>>> someone
>>>>>> wants to scan in old photographs (some badly faded with time) so that
>>>>>> you
>>>>>> can create a viewing CD-DVD. Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If the photos are paper not ttransparencies or negatives almost any
>>>>> scanner will do the job. I'm liking Epsons right now but I have had
>>>>> good experiences with UMAX. Cheap scanners are just that ceap and you
>>>>> get what you pay for. If you don't have transparencies I look at the
>>>>> Epson V500, it will also do 35mm and I believe 2 1/4 transie. If you
>>>>> have a large number of transparencies or negatives go to the Epson
>>>>> V700. Quite a bit more $ but a higher level scanner.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tom
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, Tom. What do you think of the Hewlett Packard Scanjet 5590
>>>> Digital Flatbed Scanner? I like the idea of a sheet feeder, not for
>>>> pictures obviously.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.staples.ca/ENG/Catalog/ca...affixedcode=WW
>>>
>>> My personal opinion, HP scanners are crap.
>>>
>>> I use Canon Scanners.
>>> http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/co...categoryid=104
>>>
>>> Go for the Film and Negative scanners even though you don't have film to
>>> scan.
>>> Those scanners are better scanners in that they use CCD sensors.
>>>
>>> This is the one I go for:
>>> http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/co...&modelid=15561
>>>
>>> NewEgg sells them a bit cheaper.
>>> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16838111015
>>>
>>> This is a comparison between a CCD and A CIS sensor.
>>> http://www.carlmcmillan.com/DOF/DepthofField.htm
>>>
>>> Simple test but effective.
>>>
>>> --
>>> CSM1
>>> http://www.carlmcmillan.com
>>> --
>>>
>> Do you have a feeling for how the Canon 8800F compares to the Epson V500?
>> Thanks.
>> another Tom
> The Canon 8800F and the Epson V500 are very similar.
>
> The Epson V500 has a max optical resolution of 6400 DPI.
>
> The Canon 8800F has a max optical resolution of 4800 DPI.
>
> Those two specs are only important if you are scanning film.
> For paper you almost never need more than about 600 DPI.
>
> If you compare to a fax machine, you only need 200 DPI.
>
> Personally I like Canon much better that Epson. I have had bad experience
> with the Epson line of printers, so I am prejudiced against the Epson
> line.
>
>
> --
> CSM1
> http://www.carlmcmillan.com
> --
>
I will be doing a lot of slide scanning, but 4800 should be OK. My old film
scanner (an HP S20) did 2400 max and the slides looked good on the DVD I
made.
Tom
Recommended Scanner? 
Linear Mode
