Looking at replacing an old Canon 'CanoScan LiDE 110' that seems to be
fading away (bulb's going yellow).

Its USB connected; I use it quite a bit w/MacOS's "Image Capture" app,
and documents to PDF.

Looking around at equivalents, I think I've narrowed it down to two:

* Canon CanoScan LiDE 400

* Epson Perfection V39 II

It looks like both are currently supported in MacOS Sonoma 14.x

Any particular plus/minus or other observations? Cost difference is
negligible ($80 vs $90).

A couple of things that I've found:

* Epson is USB-2 (disappointing) & has separate power supply
* Canon claims USB-C but not which flavor/version thereof.

* Documentation isn't clear if the Epson supports scan-to-PDF.

Thoughts?

-hh

On 2024-09-01 16:25, -hh wrote:
> Looking at replacing an old Canon 'CanoScan LiDE 110' that seems to be
> fading away (bulb's going yellow).
>
> Its USB connected; I use it quite a bit w/MacOS's "Image Capture" app,
> and documents to PDF.
>
> Looking around at equivalents, I think I've narrowed it down to two:
>
> * Canon CanoScan LiDE 400
>
> * Epson Perfection V39 II
>
> It looks like both are currently supported in MacOS Sonoma 14.x
>
> Any particular plus/minus or other observations?  Cost difference is
> negligible ($80 vs $90).
>
> A couple of things that I've found:
>
> * Epson is USB-2 (disappointing) & has separate power supply
> * Canon claims USB-C but not which flavor/version thereof.
>
> * Documentation isn't clear if the Epson supports scan-to-PDF.
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
> -hh

That Epson is very well reviewed on pcmag.com and they specifically call
out that it can output PDF.

On 9/1/2024 7:25 PM, -hh wrote:
> Looking at replacing an old Canon 'CanoScan LiDE 110' that seems to be
> fading away (bulb's going yellow).
>
> Its USB connected; I use it quite a bit w/MacOS's "Image Capture" app,
> and documents to PDF.
>
> Looking around at equivalents, I think I've narrowed it down to two:
>
> * Canon CanoScan LiDE 400
>
> * Epson Perfection V39 II
>
> It looks like both are currently supported in MacOS Sonoma 14.x
>
> Any particular plus/minus or other observations?  Cost difference is
> negligible ($80 vs $90).
>
> A couple of things that I've found:
>
> * Epson is USB-2 (disappointing) & has separate power supply
> * Canon claims USB-C but not which flavor/version thereof.
>
> * Documentation isn't clear if the Epson supports scan-to-PDF.
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
> -hh

Why a single purpose scanner when for a little more your can scan, print
on paper/photo, and fax? Why USB? HP and others have all-in-one wireless
devices with document feed for scanning multiple pages or can be used as
a flatbed. My HP all-in-one supports 1200 dpi scans, do you really need
more or is it an issue with the size of the scan bed?

On 9/2/24 8:13 AM, Tom Elam wrote:
> On 9/1/2024 7:25 PM, -hh wrote:
>> Looking at replacing an old Canon 'CanoScan LiDE 110' that seems to be
>> fading away (bulb's going yellow).
>>
>> Its USB connected; I use it quite a bit w/MacOS's "Image Capture" app,
>> and documents to PDF.
>>
>> Looking around at equivalents, I think I've narrowed it down to two:
>>
>> * Canon CanoScan LiDE 400
>>
>> * Epson Perfection V39 II
>>
>> It looks like both are currently supported in MacOS Sonoma 14.x
>>
>> Any particular plus/minus or other observations?  Cost difference is
>> negligible ($80 vs $90).
>>
>> A couple of things that I've found:
>>
>> * Epson is USB-2 (disappointing) & has separate power supply
>> * Canon claims USB-C but not which flavor/version thereof.
>>
>> * Documentation isn't clear if the Epson supports scan-to-PDF.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>>
>> -hh
>
> Why a single purpose scanner when for a little more your can scan, print
> on paper/photo, and fax?

I already have a printer (color laser, networked), so the call here is
for a small footprint device on the desk for the workflow.

> Why USB? HP and others have all-in-one wireless
> devices with document feed for scanning multiple pages or can be used as
> a flatbed.

I have wireless printing already too; don't really see much utility in
having a wireless scanner that's more than an arm's length away from the
keyboard.

Plus a lot of the documents are single pages (for document tracking) and
have been folded (feed reliability), so bulk sheet feeding isn't

> My HP all-in-one supports 1200 dpi scans, do you really need
> more or is it an issue with the size of the scan bed?

The all-in-ones take up quite a bit more room (and I don't need another
printer .. especially an inkjet), which doesn't fit well with my desktop
setup: I presently have a low profile flatbed right next to my
keyboard, so from a work motion standpoint, it is "fingertip" close. No
having to get up or twisting around to put papers on/off, etc.

-hh

On 2024-09-02 05:13, Tom Elam wrote:
> On 9/1/2024 7:25 PM, -hh wrote:
>> Looking at replacing an old Canon 'CanoScan LiDE 110' that seems to be
>> fading away (bulb's going yellow).
>>
>> Its USB connected; I use it quite a bit w/MacOS's "Image Capture" app,
>> and documents to PDF.
>>
>> Looking around at equivalents, I think I've narrowed it down to two:
>>
>> * Canon CanoScan LiDE 400
>>
>> * Epson Perfection V39 II
>>
>> It looks like both are currently supported in MacOS Sonoma 14.x
>>
>> Any particular plus/minus or other observations?  Cost difference is
>> negligible ($80 vs $90).
>>
>> A couple of things that I've found:
>>
>> * Epson is USB-2 (disappointing) & has separate power supply
>> * Canon claims USB-C but not which flavor/version thereof.
>>
>> * Documentation isn't clear if the Epson supports scan-to-PDF.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>>
>> -hh
>
> Why a single purpose scanner when for a little more your can scan, print
> on paper/photo, and fax? Why USB? HP and others have all-in-one wireless
> devices with document feed for scanning multiple pages or can be used as
> a flatbed. My HP all-in-one supports 1200 dpi scans, do you really need
> more or is it an issue with the size of the scan bed?

As usual, you spout off as if your situation is teh ony one that could
be relevant.

1200dpi is certainly more than adequate for printed documents, but only
a complete ignoramus could be unaware of the fact that HH has been
taking many, many photographs for many, many years.

And while I'm suspect (I was going to right "sure" there, but unlike
you, I don't pretend to omniscience) that almost all the pictures he
takes today are taken digitally, it seems likely that he has at least
some pictures taken the old-fashioned way that he might want to scan in
digital form.

On 9/2/2024 10:34 AM, -hh wrote:
> On 9/2/24 8:13 AM, Tom Elam wrote:
>> On 9/1/2024 7:25 PM, -hh wrote:
>>> Looking at replacing an old Canon 'CanoScan LiDE 110' that seems to
>>> be fading away (bulb's going yellow).
>>>
>>> Its USB connected; I use it quite a bit w/MacOS's "Image Capture"
>>> app, and documents to PDF.
>>>
>>> Looking around at equivalents, I think I've narrowed it down to two:
>>>
>>> * Canon CanoScan LiDE 400
>>>
>>> * Epson Perfection V39 II
>>>
>>> It looks like both are currently supported in MacOS Sonoma 14.x
>>>
>>> Any particular plus/minus or other observations?  Cost difference is
>>> negligible ($80 vs $90).
>>>
>>> A couple of things that I've found:
>>>
>>> * Epson is USB-2 (disappointing) & has separate power supply
>>> * Canon claims USB-C but not which flavor/version thereof.
>>>
>>> * Documentation isn't clear if the Epson supports scan-to-PDF.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>>
>>> -hh
>>
>> Why a single purpose scanner when for a little more your can scan,
>> print on paper/photo, and fax?
>
> I already have a printer (color laser, networked), so the call here is
> for a small footprint device on the desk for the workflow.
>
>
>> Why USB? HP and others have all-in-one wireless devices with document
>> feed for scanning multiple pages or can be used as a flatbed.
>
> I have wireless printing already too; don't really see much utility in
> having a wireless scanner that's more than an arm's length away from the
> keyboard.
>
> Plus a lot of the documents are single pages (for document tracking) and
> have been folded (feed reliability), so bulk sheet feeding isn't
>
>
>> My HP all-in-one supports 1200 dpi scans, do you really need more or
>> is it an issue with the size of the scan bed?
>
> The all-in-ones take up quite a bit more room (and I don't need another
> printer .. especially an inkjet), which doesn't fit well with my desktop
> setup:  I presently have a low profile flatbed right next to my
> keyboard, so from a work motion standpoint, it is "fingertip" close.  No
> having to get up or twisting around to put papers on/off, etc.
>
>
> -hh
>

That last paragraph precisely describes my setup. My wireless HP
printer/scanner is accessible from where I'm sitting typing this reply.
The wireless HP laser is next to it. But I see your point if your
printer is somewhere else and a need more than 1200 dpi. I scan a LOT of
multi-page documents for upload to CAP sites. This HP is very reliable,
even if the pages are dinged up a bit.

On 9/2/2024 12:24 PM, Alan wrote:
> On 2024-09-02 05:13, Tom Elam wrote:
>> On 9/1/2024 7:25 PM, -hh wrote:
>>> Looking at replacing an old Canon 'CanoScan LiDE 110' that seems to
>>> be fading away (bulb's going yellow).
>>>
>>> Its USB connected; I use it quite a bit w/MacOS's "Image Capture"
>>> app, and documents to PDF.
>>>
>>> Looking around at equivalents, I think I've narrowed it down to two:
>>>
>>> * Canon CanoScan LiDE 400
>>>
>>> * Epson Perfection V39 II
>>>
>>> It looks like both are currently supported in MacOS Sonoma 14.x
>>>
>>> Any particular plus/minus or other observations?  Cost difference is
>>> negligible ($80 vs $90).
>>>
>>> A couple of things that I've found:
>>>
>>> * Epson is USB-2 (disappointing) & has separate power supply
>>> * Canon claims USB-C but not which flavor/version thereof.
>>>
>>> * Documentation isn't clear if the Epson supports scan-to-PDF.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>>
>>> -hh
>>
>> Why a single purpose scanner when for a little more your can scan,
>> print on paper/photo, and fax? Why USB? HP and others have all-in-one
>> wireless devices with document feed for scanning multiple pages or can
>> be used as a flatbed. My HP all-in-one supports 1200 dpi scans, do you
>> really need more or is it an issue with the size of the scan bed?
>
> As usual, you spout off as if your situation is teh ony one that could
> be relevant.
>
> 1200dpi is certainly more than adequate for printed documents, but only
> a complete ignoramus could be unaware of the fact that HH has been
> taking many, many photographs for many, many years.
>
> And while I'm suspect (I was going to right "sure" there, but unlike
> you, I don't pretend to omniscience) that almost all the pictures he
> takes today are taken digitally, it seems likely that he has at least
> some pictures taken the old-fashioned way that he might want to scan in
> digital form.

Except that in the statement above he says "I use it quite a bit
w/MacOS's "Image Capture" app, and documents to PDF." and "Documentation
isn't clear if the Epson supports scan-to-PDF." This indicates that he
is more concerned about scanning documents, not pictures.

1200 dpi works for printed pictures unless you really want to blow them up.

On 9/6/24 11:03 AM, Tom Elam wrote:
> On 9/2/2024 12:24 PM, Alan wrote:
>> On 2024-09-02 05:13, Tom Elam wrote:
>>> On 9/1/2024 7:25 PM, -hh wrote:
>>>> Looking at replacing an old Canon 'CanoScan LiDE 110' that seems to
>>>> be fading away (bulb's going yellow).
>>>>
>>>> Its USB connected; I use it quite a bit w/MacOS's "Image Capture"
>>>> app, and documents to PDF.
>>>>
>>>> Looking around at equivalents, I think I've narrowed it down to two:
>>>>
>>>> * Canon CanoScan LiDE 400
>>>>
>>>> * Epson Perfection V39 II
>>>>
>>>> It looks like both are currently supported in MacOS Sonoma 14.x
>>>>
>>>> Any particular plus/minus or other observations?  Cost difference is
>>>> negligible ($80 vs $90).
>>>>
>>>> A couple of things that I've found:
>>>>
>>>> * Epson is USB-2 (disappointing) & has separate power supply
>>>> * Canon claims USB-C but not which flavor/version thereof.
>>>>
>>>> * Documentation isn't clear if the Epson supports scan-to-PDF.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -hh
>>>
>>> Why a single purpose scanner when for a little more your can scan,
>>> print on paper/photo, and fax? Why USB? HP and others have all-in-one
>>> wireless devices with document feed for scanning multiple pages or
>>> can be used as a flatbed. My HP all-in-one supports 1200 dpi scans,
>>> do you really need more or is it an issue with the size of the scan bed?
>>
>> As usual, you spout off as if your situation is teh ony one that could
>> be relevant.
>>
>> 1200dpi is certainly more than adequate for printed documents, but
>> only a complete ignoramus could be unaware of the fact that HH has
>> been taking many, many photographs for many, many years.
>>
>> And while I'm suspect (I was going to right "sure" there, but unlike
>> you, I don't pretend to omniscience) that almost all the pictures he
>> takes today are taken digitally, it seems likely that he has at least
>> some pictures taken the old-fashioned way that he might want to scan
>> in digital form.
>
> Except that in the statement above he says "I use it quite a bit w/
> MacOS's "Image Capture" app, and documents to PDF." and "Documentation
> isn't clear if the Epson supports scan-to-PDF." This indicates that he
> is more concerned about scanning documents, not pictures.

As its primary use case, sure.

> 1200 dpi works for printed pictures unless you really want to blow them up.

It depends on the original media & intended application, of course, but
I consider 1200 to be marginal and 1990s technology; I'd want a flatbed
to be capable of at least 4800, which matches an older Epson scanner
that can do transparencies ... I forget how long ago I got that one but
for carbon-dating purposes, it has a dual USB + Firewire 400 interface!

-hh

On 2024-09-01 16:25, -hh wrote:
> Looking at replacing an old Canon 'CanoScan LiDE 110' that seems to be
> fading away (bulb's going yellow).
>
> Its USB connected; I use it quite a bit w/MacOS's "Image Capture" app,
> and documents to PDF.
>
> Looking around at equivalents, I think I've narrowed it down to two:
>
> * Canon CanoScan LiDE 400
>
> * Epson Perfection V39 II
>
> It looks like both are currently supported in MacOS Sonoma 14.x
>
> Any particular plus/minus or other observations?  Cost difference is
> negligible ($80 vs $90).
>
> A couple of things that I've found:
>
> * Epson is USB-2 (disappointing) & has separate power supply
> * Canon claims USB-C but not which flavor/version thereof.
>
> * Documentation isn't clear if the Epson supports scan-to-PDF.
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
> -hh

I did a little more digging for you, and I'm leaning towards the Canon
because while both can scan PDFs from buttons on the front, the Canon
seems to have better support for multi-page PDFs.

You click to start a PDF scan, and then you can keep adding pages until
you click the "Stop" button.

PCMag seems to rate them both nearly the same (although the Epson was
the one they recommended in their composite "Best scanners of 2024), but
if you are planning to scan longer documents, it might make a simpler
workflow.

On 9/6/24 4:21 PM, Alan wrote:
> On 2024-09-01 16:25, -hh wrote:
>> Looking at replacing an old Canon 'CanoScan LiDE 110' that seems to be
>> fading away (bulb's going yellow).
>>
>> Its USB connected; I use it quite a bit w/MacOS's "Image Capture" app,
>> and documents to PDF.
>>
>> Looking around at equivalents, I think I've narrowed it down to two:
>>
>> * Canon CanoScan LiDE 400
>>
>> * Epson Perfection V39 II
>>
>> It looks like both are currently supported in MacOS Sonoma 14.x
>>
>> Any particular plus/minus or other observations?  Cost difference is
>> negligible ($80 vs $90).
>>
>> A couple of things that I've found:
>>
>> * Epson is USB-2 (disappointing) & has separate power supply
>> * Canon claims USB-C but not which flavor/version thereof.
>>
>> * Documentation isn't clear if the Epson supports scan-to-PDF.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>>
>> -hh
>
> I did a little more digging for you, and I'm leaning towards the Canon
> because while both can scan PDFs from buttons on the front, the Canon
> seems to have better support for multi-page PDFs.

Well, OBE now because I picked up the Epson.

> You click to start a PDF scan, and then you can keep adding pages until
> you click the "Stop" button.
>
> PCMag seems to rate them both nearly the same (although the Epson was
> the one they recommended in their composite "Best scanners of 2024), but
> if you are planning to scan longer documents, it might make a simpler
> workflow.

Typically, the stuff I'm doing is a single page, with folding from being
mailed. If there's a multi-page need, that's easy enough to combine
into a single file in MacOS Preview.

-hh

On 2024-09-06 13:28, -hh wrote:
> On 9/6/24 4:21 PM, Alan wrote:
>> On 2024-09-01 16:25, -hh wrote:
>>> Looking at replacing an old Canon 'CanoScan LiDE 110' that seems to
>>> be fading away (bulb's going yellow).
>>>
>>> Its USB connected; I use it quite a bit w/MacOS's "Image Capture"
>>> app, and documents to PDF.
>>>
>>> Looking around at equivalents, I think I've narrowed it down to two:
>>>
>>> * Canon CanoScan LiDE 400
>>>
>>> * Epson Perfection V39 II
>>>
>>> It looks like both are currently supported in MacOS Sonoma 14.x
>>>
>>> Any particular plus/minus or other observations?  Cost difference is
>>> negligible ($80 vs $90).
>>>
>>> A couple of things that I've found:
>>>
>>> * Epson is USB-2 (disappointing) & has separate power supply
>>> * Canon claims USB-C but not which flavor/version thereof.
>>>
>>> * Documentation isn't clear if the Epson supports scan-to-PDF.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>>
>>> -hh
>>
>> I did a little more digging for you, and I'm leaning towards the Canon
>> because while both can scan PDFs from buttons on the front, the Canon
>> seems to have better support for multi-page PDFs.
>
> Well, OBE now because I picked up the Epson.

Ah... ...no worries.

>
>
>> You click to start a PDF scan, and then you can keep adding pages
>> until you click the "Stop" button.
>>
>> PCMag seems to rate them both nearly the same (although the Epson was
>> the one they recommended in their composite "Best scanners of 2024),
>> but if you are planning to scan longer documents, it might make a
>> simpler workflow.
>
> Typically, the stuff I'm doing is a single page, with folding from being
> mailed.  If there's a multi-page need, that's easy enough to combine
> into a single file in MacOS Preview.

Then no worries!

And while it looks like you can't initiate a push scan using the PDF
button, Epson's software will certainly let you do a multiple page PDF
in one operation. I can't say that with absolute certainty of course,
but it's pretty much universal functionality these days.

On 9/6/2024 1:18 PM, -hh wrote:
> On 9/6/24 11:03 AM, Tom Elam wrote:
>> On 9/2/2024 12:24 PM, Alan wrote:
>>> On 2024-09-02 05:13, Tom Elam wrote:
>>>> On 9/1/2024 7:25 PM, -hh wrote:
>>>>> Looking at replacing an old Canon 'CanoScan LiDE 110' that seems to
>>>>> be fading away (bulb's going yellow).
>>>>>
>>>>> Its USB connected; I use it quite a bit w/MacOS's "Image Capture"
>>>>> app, and documents to PDF.
>>>>>
>>>>> Looking around at equivalents, I think I've narrowed it down to two:
>>>>>
>>>>> * Canon CanoScan LiDE 400
>>>>>
>>>>> * Epson Perfection V39 II
>>>>>
>>>>> It looks like both are currently supported in MacOS Sonoma 14.x
>>>>>
>>>>> Any particular plus/minus or other observations?  Cost difference
>>>>> is negligible ($80 vs $90).
>>>>>
>>>>> A couple of things that I've found:
>>>>>
>>>>> * Epson is USB-2 (disappointing) & has separate power supply
>>>>> * Canon claims USB-C but not which flavor/version thereof.
>>>>>
>>>>> * Documentation isn't clear if the Epson supports scan-to-PDF.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -hh
>>>>
>>>> Why a single purpose scanner when for a little more your can scan,
>>>> print on paper/photo, and fax? Why USB? HP and others have
>>>> all-in-one wireless devices with document feed for scanning multiple
>>>> pages or can be used as a flatbed. My HP all-in-one supports 1200
>>>> dpi scans, do you really need more or is it an issue with the size
>>>> of the scan bed?
>>>
>>> As usual, you spout off as if your situation is teh ony one that
>>> could be relevant.
>>>
>>> 1200dpi is certainly more than adequate for printed documents, but
>>> only a complete ignoramus could be unaware of the fact that HH has
>>> been taking many, many photographs for many, many years.
>>>
>>> And while I'm suspect (I was going to right "sure" there, but unlike
>>> you, I don't pretend to omniscience) that almost all the pictures he
>>> takes today are taken digitally, it seems likely that he has at least
>>> some pictures taken the old-fashioned way that he might want to scan
>>> in digital form.
>>
>> Except that in the statement above he says "I use it quite a bit w/
>> MacOS's "Image Capture" app, and documents to PDF." and "Documentation
>> isn't clear if the Epson supports scan-to-PDF." This indicates that he
>> is more concerned about scanning documents, not pictures.
>
> As its primary use case, sure.
>
>
>> 1200 dpi works for printed pictures unless you really want to blow
>> them up.
>
> It depends on the original media & intended application, of course, but
> I consider 1200 to be marginal and 1990s technology; I'd want a flatbed
> to be capable of at least 4800, which matches an older Epson scanner
> that can do transparencies ... I forget how long ago I got that one but
> for carbon-dating purposes, it has a dual USB + Firewire 400 interface!
>
>
> -hh

No idea why anything above 150-300 DPI is required for a PDF. I use
300/color for some documents and the output is readable, takes up a lot
less space than 1200, and scans much faster. 150 works for most of my
documents. At 1200 the output is better but is 24x the size of the 300
scan.

I ran a 1200/color dpi scan on a document printed off the web, a
national parks map. Enlarged, that picked up the pixels from the original!

Enlighten me on what purpose 4800 dpi serves for scanning to a pdf.
Those files would be HUGE.

On 2024-09-07 07:09, Tom Elam wrote:
> On 9/6/2024 1:18 PM, -hh wrote:
>> On 9/6/24 11:03 AM, Tom Elam wrote:
>>> On 9/2/2024 12:24 PM, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2024-09-02 05:13, Tom Elam wrote:
>>>>> On 9/1/2024 7:25 PM, -hh wrote:
>>>>>> Looking at replacing an old Canon 'CanoScan LiDE 110' that seems
>>>>>> to be fading away (bulb's going yellow).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Its USB connected; I use it quite a bit w/MacOS's "Image Capture"
>>>>>> app, and documents to PDF.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Looking around at equivalents, I think I've narrowed it down to two:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * Canon CanoScan LiDE 400
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * Epson Perfection V39 II
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It looks like both are currently supported in MacOS Sonoma 14.x
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any particular plus/minus or other observations?  Cost difference
>>>>>> is negligible ($80 vs $90).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A couple of things that I've found:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * Epson is USB-2 (disappointing) & has separate power supply
>>>>>> * Canon claims USB-C but not which flavor/version thereof.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * Documentation isn't clear if the Epson supports scan-to-PDF.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -hh
>>>>>
>>>>> Why a single purpose scanner when for a little more your can scan,
>>>>> print on paper/photo, and fax? Why USB? HP and others have
>>>>> all-in-one wireless devices with document feed for scanning
>>>>> multiple pages or can be used as a flatbed. My HP all-in-one
>>>>> supports 1200 dpi scans, do you really need more or is it an issue
>>>>> with the size of the scan bed?
>>>>
>>>> As usual, you spout off as if your situation is teh ony one that
>>>> could be relevant.
>>>>
>>>> 1200dpi is certainly more than adequate for printed documents, but
>>>> only a complete ignoramus could be unaware of the fact that HH has
>>>> been taking many, many photographs for many, many years.
>>>>
>>>> And while I'm suspect (I was going to right "sure" there, but unlike
>>>> you, I don't pretend to omniscience) that almost all the pictures he
>>>> takes today are taken digitally, it seems likely that he has at
>>>> least some pictures taken the old-fashioned way that he might want
>>>> to scan in digital form.
>>>
>>> Except that in the statement above he says "I use it quite a bit w/
>>> MacOS's "Image Capture" app, and documents to PDF." and
>>> "Documentation isn't clear if the Epson supports scan-to-PDF." This
>>> indicates that he is more concerned about scanning documents, not
>>> pictures.
>>
>> As its primary use case, sure.
>>
>>
>>> 1200 dpi works for printed pictures unless you really want to blow
>>> them up.
>>
>> It depends on the original media & intended application, of course,
>> but I consider 1200 to be marginal and 1990s technology; I'd want a
>> flatbed to be capable of at least 4800, which matches an older Epson
>> scanner that can do transparencies ... I forget how long ago I got
>> that one but for carbon-dating purposes, it has a dual USB + Firewire
>> 400 interface!
>>
>>
>> -hh
>
> No idea why anything above 150-300 DPI is required for a PDF. I use
> 300/color for some documents and the output is readable, takes up a lot
> less space than 1200, and scans much faster. 150 works for most of my
> documents. At 1200 the output is better but is 24x the size of the 300
> scan.

Are you kidding me? Is "readable" the highest level of your discernment.

"I have no idea why anyone needs to have anything to eat better than
McDonald's".

That explains a lot of your inability to see the issues with Windows:

You have no taste.

>
> I ran a 1200/color dpi scan on a document printed off the web, a
> national parks map. Enlarged, that picked up the pixels from the original!
>
> Enlighten me on what purpose 4800 dpi serves for scanning to a pdf.
> Those files would be HUGE.

You are an idiot, Liarboy. Straight up an idiot.

Just because a scanner CAN do 4800dpi, doesn't mean you have to use 4800
dpi all the time.

On 9/7/24 10:09 AM, Tom Elam wrote:
> On 9/6/2024 1:18 PM, -hh wrote:
>> On 9/6/24 11:03 AM, Tom Elam wrote:
>>> On 9/2/2024 12:24 PM, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2024-09-02 05:13, Tom Elam wrote:
>>>>> On 9/1/2024 7:25 PM, -hh wrote:
>>>>>> Looking at replacing an old Canon 'CanoScan LiDE 110' that seems
>>>>>> to be fading away (bulb's going yellow).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Its USB connected; I use it quite a bit w/MacOS's "Image Capture"
>>>>>> app, and documents to PDF.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Looking around at equivalents, I think I've narrowed it down to two:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * Canon CanoScan LiDE 400
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * Epson Perfection V39 II
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It looks like both are currently supported in MacOS Sonoma 14.x
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any particular plus/minus or other observations?  Cost difference
>>>>>> is negligible ($80 vs $90).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A couple of things that I've found:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * Epson is USB-2 (disappointing) & has separate power supply
>>>>>> * Canon claims USB-C but not which flavor/version thereof.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * Documentation isn't clear if the Epson supports scan-to-PDF.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -hh
>>>>>
>>>>> Why a single purpose scanner when for a little more your can scan,
>>>>> print on paper/photo, and fax? Why USB? HP and others have all-in-
>>>>> one wireless devices with document feed for scanning multiple pages
>>>>> or can be used as a flatbed. My HP all-in-one supports 1200 dpi
>>>>> scans, do you really need more or is it an issue with the size of
>>>>> the scan bed?
>>>>
>>>> As usual, you spout off as if your situation is teh ony one that
>>>> could be relevant.
>>>>
>>>> 1200dpi is certainly more than adequate for printed documents, but
>>>> only a complete ignoramus could be unaware of the fact that HH has
>>>> been taking many, many photographs for many, many years.
>>>>
>>>> And while I'm suspect (I was going to right "sure" there, but unlike
>>>> you, I don't pretend to omniscience) that almost all the pictures he
>>>> takes today are taken digitally, it seems likely that he has at
>>>> least some pictures taken the old-fashioned way that he might want
>>>> to scan in digital form.
>>>
>>> Except that in the statement above he says "I use it quite a bit w/
>>> MacOS's "Image Capture" app, and documents to PDF." and
>>> "Documentation isn't clear if the Epson supports scan-to-PDF." This
>>> indicates that he is more concerned about scanning documents, not
>>> pictures.
>>
>> As its primary use case, sure.
>>
>>
>>> 1200 dpi works for printed pictures unless you really want to blow
>>> them up.
>>
>> It depends on the original media & intended application, of course,
>> but I consider 1200 to be marginal and 1990s technology; I'd want a
>> flatbed to be capable of at least 4800, which matches an older Epson
>> scanner that can do transparencies ... I forget how long ago I got
>> that one but for carbon-dating purposes, it has a dual USB + Firewire
>> 400 interface!
>>
>>
>> -hh
>
> No idea why anything above 150-300 DPI is required for a PDF. I use 300/
> color for some documents and the output is readable, takes up a lot less
> space than 1200, and scans much faster. 150 works for most of my
> documents. At 1200 the output is better but is 24x the size of the 300
> scan.
>
> I ran a 1200/color dpi scan on a document printed off the web, a
> national parks map. Enlarged, that picked up the pixels from the original!
>
> Enlighten me on what purpose 4800 dpi serves for scanning to a pdf.
> Those files would be HUGE.

Because I never said I'd be scanning documents to PDF at 4800.

Plus I've never said that PDFed documents are the _only_ use case.

What I've said is that for this, PDFing is the primary use case, and
that productivity factors & workflow siting discourages the clunky "all
in one" type of device.

I've already bought .. and retired .. scanners whose max resolutions
were 300dpi and 1200dpi and inadequate to workflow needs, so it isn't
particularly logical to go backwards to another "max 1200dpi" scanner.

For planning purposes, the technical rule of thumb for sampling
instrumentation is to sample at at least 4x the source. Applied here, a
basic office printed doc used to be 300dpi, but 600dpi has become the
standard, so full data capture requires at least 1200-2400dpi. Line art
is 1200dpi, which means 4800dpi+. For film, it varies from 1200-2400dpi
for a basic scan, to 6400dpi for high quality. Higher than that hits
diminishing returns, which relates back to the analog silver nitrate
source, but even here depends on the grain of the original film: one
will typically have more available to be extracted from Kodachrome 25,
64 and Ektar 25 than from mainstream 400 ISO consumer grade stuff.

-hh

On 2024-09-07 10:09, -hh wrote:
> On 9/7/24 10:09 AM, Tom Elam wrote:
>> On 9/6/2024 1:18 PM, -hh wrote:
>>> On 9/6/24 11:03 AM, Tom Elam wrote:
>>>> On 9/2/2024 12:24 PM, Alan wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-09-02 05:13, Tom Elam wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/1/2024 7:25 PM, -hh wrote:
>>>>>>> Looking at replacing an old Canon 'CanoScan LiDE 110' that seems
>>>>>>> to be fading away (bulb's going yellow).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Its USB connected; I use it quite a bit w/MacOS's "Image Capture"
>>>>>>> app, and documents to PDF.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Looking around at equivalents, I think I've narrowed it down to two:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * Canon CanoScan LiDE 400
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * Epson Perfection V39 II
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It looks like both are currently supported in MacOS Sonoma 14.x
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any particular plus/minus or other observations?  Cost difference
>>>>>>> is negligible ($80 vs $90).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A couple of things that I've found:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * Epson is USB-2 (disappointing) & has separate power supply
>>>>>>> * Canon claims USB-C but not which flavor/version thereof.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * Documentation isn't clear if the Epson supports scan-to-PDF.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -hh
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why a single purpose scanner when for a little more your can scan,
>>>>>> print on paper/photo, and fax? Why USB? HP and others have all-in-
>>>>>> one wireless devices with document feed for scanning multiple
>>>>>> pages or can be used as a flatbed. My HP all-in-one supports 1200
>>>>>> dpi scans, do you really need more or is it an issue with the size
>>>>>> of the scan bed?
>>>>>
>>>>> As usual, you spout off as if your situation is teh ony one that
>>>>> could be relevant.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1200dpi is certainly more than adequate for printed documents, but
>>>>> only a complete ignoramus could be unaware of the fact that HH has
>>>>> been taking many, many photographs for many, many years.
>>>>>
>>>>> And while I'm suspect (I was going to right "sure" there, but
>>>>> unlike you, I don't pretend to omniscience) that almost all the
>>>>> pictures he takes today are taken digitally, it seems likely that
>>>>> he has at least some pictures taken the old-fashioned way that he
>>>>> might want to scan in digital form.
>>>>
>>>> Except that in the statement above he says "I use it quite a bit w/
>>>> MacOS's "Image Capture" app, and documents to PDF." and
>>>> "Documentation isn't clear if the Epson supports scan-to-PDF." This
>>>> indicates that he is more concerned about scanning documents, not
>>>> pictures.
>>>
>>> As its primary use case, sure.
>>>
>>>
>>>> 1200 dpi works for printed pictures unless you really want to blow
>>>> them up.
>>>
>>> It depends on the original media & intended application, of course,
>>> but I consider 1200 to be marginal and 1990s technology; I'd want a
>>> flatbed to be capable of at least 4800, which matches an older Epson
>>> scanner that can do transparencies ... I forget how long ago I got
>>> that one but for carbon-dating purposes, it has a dual USB + Firewire
>>> 400 interface!
>>>
>>>
>>> -hh
>>
>> No idea why anything above 150-300 DPI is required for a PDF.  I use
>> 300/ color for some documents and the output is readable, takes up a
>> lot less space than 1200, and scans much faster. 150 works for most of
>> my documents. At 1200 the output is better but is 24x the size of the
>> 300 scan.
>>
>> I ran a 1200/color dpi scan on a document printed off the web, a
>> national parks map. Enlarged, that picked up the pixels from the
>> original!
>>
>> Enlighten me on what purpose 4800 dpi serves for scanning to a pdf.
>> Those files would be HUGE.
>
> Because I never said I'd be scanning documents to PDF at 4800.
>
> Plus I've never said that PDFed documents are the _only_ use case.
>
> What I've said is that for this, PDFing is the primary use case, and
> that productivity factors & workflow siting discourages the clunky "all
> in one" type of device.
>
> I've already bought .. and retired .. scanners whose max resolutions
> were 300dpi and 1200dpi and inadequate to workflow needs, so it isn't
> particularly logical to go backwards to another "max 1200dpi" scanner.
>
> For planning purposes, the technical rule of thumb for sampling
> instrumentation is to sample at at least 4x the source.  Applied here, a
> basic office printed doc used to be 300dpi, but 600dpi has become the
> standard, so full data capture requires at least 1200-2400dpi. Line art
> is 1200dpi, which means 4800dpi+.  For film, it varies from 1200-2400dpi
> for a basic scan, to 6400dpi for high quality.  Higher than that hits
> diminishing returns, which relates back to the analog silver nitrate
> source, but even here depends on the grain of the original film:  one
> will typically have more available to be extracted from Kodachrome 25,
> 64 and Ektar 25 than from mainstream 400 ISO consumer grade stuff.

Isn't it amazing how often Tom thinks he knows better...

....and loudly claims so...

....to people who actually have experience in a field?

:-)

On 9/7/2024 11:05 AM, Alan wrote:
> On 2024-09-07 07:09, Tom Elam wrote:
>> On 9/6/2024 1:18 PM, -hh wrote:
>>> On 9/6/24 11:03 AM, Tom Elam wrote:
>>>> On 9/2/2024 12:24 PM, Alan wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-09-02 05:13, Tom Elam wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/1/2024 7:25 PM, -hh wrote:
>>>>>>> Looking at replacing an old Canon 'CanoScan LiDE 110' that seems
>>>>>>> to be fading away (bulb's going yellow).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Its USB connected; I use it quite a bit w/MacOS's "Image Capture"
>>>>>>> app, and documents to PDF.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Looking around at equivalents, I think I've narrowed it down to two:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * Canon CanoScan LiDE 400
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * Epson Perfection V39 II
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It looks like both are currently supported in MacOS Sonoma 14.x
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any particular plus/minus or other observations?  Cost difference
>>>>>>> is negligible ($80 vs $90).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A couple of things that I've found:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * Epson is USB-2 (disappointing) & has separate power supply
>>>>>>> * Canon claims USB-C but not which flavor/version thereof.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * Documentation isn't clear if the Epson supports scan-to-PDF.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -hh
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why a single purpose scanner when for a little more your can scan,
>>>>>> print on paper/photo, and fax? Why USB? HP and others have
>>>>>> all-in-one wireless devices with document feed for scanning
>>>>>> multiple pages or can be used as a flatbed. My HP all-in-one
>>>>>> supports 1200 dpi scans, do you really need more or is it an issue
>>>>>> with the size of the scan bed?
>>>>>
>>>>> As usual, you spout off as if your situation is teh ony one that
>>>>> could be relevant.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1200dpi is certainly more than adequate for printed documents, but
>>>>> only a complete ignoramus could be unaware of the fact that HH has
>>>>> been taking many, many photographs for many, many years.
>>>>>
>>>>> And while I'm suspect (I was going to right "sure" there, but
>>>>> unlike you, I don't pretend to omniscience) that almost all the
>>>>> pictures he takes today are taken digitally, it seems likely that
>>>>> he has at least some pictures taken the old-fashioned way that he
>>>>> might want to scan in digital form.
>>>>
>>>> Except that in the statement above he says "I use it quite a bit w/
>>>> MacOS's "Image Capture" app, and documents to PDF." and
>>>> "Documentation isn't clear if the Epson supports scan-to-PDF." This
>>>> indicates that he is more concerned about scanning documents, not
>>>> pictures.
>>>
>>> As its primary use case, sure.
>>>
>>>
>>>> 1200 dpi works for printed pictures unless you really want to blow
>>>> them up.
>>>
>>> It depends on the original media & intended application, of course,
>>> but I consider 1200 to be marginal and 1990s technology; I'd want a
>>> flatbed to be capable of at least 4800, which matches an older Epson
>>> scanner that can do transparencies ... I forget how long ago I got
>>> that one but for carbon-dating purposes, it has a dual USB + Firewire
>>> 400 interface!
>>>
>>>
>>> -hh
>>
>> No idea why anything above 150-300 DPI is required for a PDF. I use
>> 300/color for some documents and the output is readable, takes up a
>> lot less space than 1200, and scans much faster. 150 works for most of
>> my documents. At 1200 the output is better but is 24x the size of the
>> 300 scan.
>
> Are you kidding me? Is "readable" the highest level of your discernment.
>
> "I have no idea why anyone needs to have anything to eat better than
> McDonald's".
>
> That explains a lot of your inability to see the issues with Windows:
>
> You have no taste.
>
>>
>> I ran a 1200/color dpi scan on a document printed off the web, a
>> national parks map. Enlarged, that picked up the pixels from the
>> original!
>>
>> Enlighten me on what purpose 4800 dpi serves for scanning to a pdf.
>> Those files would be HUGE.
>
> You are an idiot, Liarboy. Straight up an idiot.
>
> Just because a scanner CAN do 4800dpi, doesn't mean you have to use 4800
> dpi all the time.
>
Readable, and very much so. I scan FBO aircraft fuel receipts on a
weekly basis at 300 DPI and deposit scanned checks too. Never had an
issue, and 300 dpi is a lot faster than 600 or 1200. I do eat McDonald's
fare, but tonight it was boneless rib-eye on the grill. Yummy.

On 2024-09-10 16:01, Tom Elam wrote:
> On 9/7/2024 11:05 AM, Alan wrote:
>> On 2024-09-07 07:09, Tom Elam wrote:
>>> On 9/6/2024 1:18 PM, -hh wrote:
>>>> On 9/6/24 11:03 AM, Tom Elam wrote:
>>>>> On 9/2/2024 12:24 PM, Alan wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-09-02 05:13, Tom Elam wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/1/2024 7:25 PM, -hh wrote:
>>>>>>>> Looking at replacing an old Canon 'CanoScan LiDE 110' that seems
>>>>>>>> to be fading away (bulb's going yellow).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Its USB connected; I use it quite a bit w/MacOS's "Image
>>>>>>>> Capture" app, and documents to PDF.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Looking around at equivalents, I think I've narrowed it down to
>>>>>>>> two:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> * Canon CanoScan LiDE 400
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> * Epson Perfection V39 II
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It looks like both are currently supported in MacOS Sonoma 14.x
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Any particular plus/minus or other observations?  Cost
>>>>>>>> difference is negligible ($80 vs $90).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A couple of things that I've found:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> * Epson is USB-2 (disappointing) & has separate power supply
>>>>>>>> * Canon claims USB-C but not which flavor/version thereof.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> * Documentation isn't clear if the Epson supports scan-to-PDF.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -hh
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why a single purpose scanner when for a little more your can
>>>>>>> scan, print on paper/photo, and fax? Why USB? HP and others have
>>>>>>> all-in-one wireless devices with document feed for scanning
>>>>>>> multiple pages or can be used as a flatbed. My HP all-in-one
>>>>>>> supports 1200 dpi scans, do you really need more or is it an
>>>>>>> issue with the size of the scan bed?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As usual, you spout off as if your situation is teh ony one that
>>>>>> could be relevant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1200dpi is certainly more than adequate for printed documents, but
>>>>>> only a complete ignoramus could be unaware of the fact that HH has
>>>>>> been taking many, many photographs for many, many years.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And while I'm suspect (I was going to right "sure" there, but
>>>>>> unlike you, I don't pretend to omniscience) that almost all the
>>>>>> pictures he takes today are taken digitally, it seems likely that
>>>>>> he has at least some pictures taken the old-fashioned way that he
>>>>>> might want to scan in digital form.
>>>>>
>>>>> Except that in the statement above he says "I use it quite a bit w/
>>>>> MacOS's "Image Capture" app, and documents to PDF." and
>>>>> "Documentation isn't clear if the Epson supports scan-to-PDF." This
>>>>> indicates that he is more concerned about scanning documents, not
>>>>> pictures.
>>>>
>>>> As its primary use case, sure.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 1200 dpi works for printed pictures unless you really want to blow
>>>>> them up.
>>>>
>>>> It depends on the original media & intended application, of course,
>>>> but I consider 1200 to be marginal and 1990s technology; I'd want a
>>>> flatbed to be capable of at least 4800, which matches an older Epson
>>>> scanner that can do transparencies ... I forget how long ago I got
>>>> that one but for carbon-dating purposes, it has a dual USB +
>>>> Firewire 400 interface!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -hh
>>>
>>> No idea why anything above 150-300 DPI is required for a PDF. I use
>>> 300/color for some documents and the output is readable, takes up a
>>> lot less space than 1200, and scans much faster. 150 works for most
>>> of my documents. At 1200 the output is better but is 24x the size of
>>> the 300 scan.
>>
>> Are you kidding me? Is "readable" the highest level of your discernment.
>>
>> "I have no idea why anyone needs to have anything to eat better than
>> McDonald's".
>>
>> That explains a lot of your inability to see the issues with Windows:
>>
>> You have no taste.
>>
>>>
>>> I ran a 1200/color dpi scan on a document printed off the web, a
>>> national parks map. Enlarged, that picked up the pixels from the
>>> original!
>>>
>>> Enlighten me on what purpose 4800 dpi serves for scanning to a pdf.
>>> Those files would be HUGE.
>>
>> You are an idiot, Liarboy. Straight up an idiot.
>>
>> Just because a scanner CAN do 4800dpi, doesn't mean you have to use
>> 4800 dpi all the time.
>>
> Readable, and very much so. I scan FBO aircraft fuel receipts on a
> weekly basis at 300 DPI and deposit scanned checks too. Never had an
> issue, and 300 dpi is a lot faster than 600 or 1200. I do eat McDonald's
> fare, but tonight it was boneless rib-eye on the grill. Yummy.

I never said it wasn't "readable", Liarboy.

And there are different use cases than scanning receipts.

See, this is where you regularly show your ass to the world:

You assume that everyone has to live by what YOU think is important and
unimportant.