View Full Version : Scanner options for photo quality/speed

02-09-2004, 05:08 PM
Presently I have an aged Acer scanner that takes forever with low quality photos. (using a USB 1 port).
I am looking at CanoScan LiDE 80 or 3000F
I have a vast number of photos that I want to scan - will the above meet that requirement? I am having trouble getting info. on speed and quality comparisons.
cheers rock

02-09-2004, 06:29 PM
email or webpage is fine. flatbeds more or less are around the same thing but of course you can spend a grand or more on a better one. the bottomline is you are scanning the print and not the film.

generally i scan photos at 600x600 dpi and save as TIF or just as JPG if its for web or email. the quality is not bad. some photo labs have requested the photo just need to be 300 or 400 dpi. i would just give them a 600 to work with.. i believe all modern scanners and even my 10 yr old one support 600 so you should have no issues ... needs some edit work thou to get the photo better.

if you are considering archiving photos then a lab would do a better lab when you request a high resolution scan onto a CD.

Jen C
02-09-2004, 08:10 PM
Hi Rock

Have a look at this site (http://www.scantips.com/) before you buy a scanner, especially this page (http://www.scantips.com/chap3.html). It explains what all the terminology really means and will help you make an educated purchase for your requirements. That website is frequently mentioned on PF1 for it's good scanner information.

03-09-2004, 05:02 PM
Thanks...I have spent the afternoon with our Nikon 5700 'tripoded'
it is so quick compered to what I have been using and the pics so good.
Though I will still get a decent scanner
thanks for your replies
cheers rock

03-09-2004, 05:15 PM
hi rockwood,

i just scanned a A4, one page of a book to be printed. I scanned at 600dpi as my laser printer does 600 dpi. The file size was 100MB!! I am still working on it, may just use 300dpi ..

400 dpi for a 5x4" photo is about 5MB if I recall correctly.

03-09-2004, 05:28 PM
I think a photo CD may be a better deal.
the print when scanned is not going to yelied the best compared tot he film. when film is scanned it is much more manageable. say if scanned at 2600dpi its about 20MB I heard. there are 4000dpi scanners too or even 12,000 dpi for those v special photos - request a drum scan at the lab.

reason i think is you are scanning that small thumbnail size film rather than a print which is so much larger in dimension.

I think flat bed scanners are not bad for casual use or to be printed 1:1 but when i had 400dpi photos (4x5") printed 1:1 they were noticeably unsharper, u could see the odd pixel hanging off etc.. i did not do any editing. this was a few yrs back..

Murray P
03-09-2004, 06:21 PM
I have a Canon 3000F which I'm pretty satified with. I rarely scan over 600dpi but used to do quiet a few prints in the 400-600dpi range. I use a digital camera now so the scanner is mainly used for documents which it does very well.

Whichever scanner you choose make sure you use it on a USB 2.0 port rather than the older 1.0/1.1 ports. My built in ports are 1.1 and the scanner is often pausing or backing up on high def scans.

Cheers Murray P