Sheet-feed scanners

From: Jim Battle <frustum_at_pacbell.net>
Date: Tue Dec 16 03:03:17 2003

Tom Jennings wrote:

> Well both of the model numbers mentioned in this thread (Ricoh 520 and
> HP 6390c) are no longer available, though I suppose I might find used
> (vintage? :-)
>
> It really surprises me that there is no such product for < $1000.
> Automatic sheet feed is the key. For manual scanning < $100 is
> eeeeeeasy. It's the SHEET FEED > 25+ SHEETS that is the problem. I've
> done a 18"-wide shelf of tube data books, it was a major undertaking
> using a the manual page-flipping method. I've got 20' plus of stuff to
> scan, all of it old enough, hand-set that it doesn't OCR.
>
> I store stuff at 150 dpi jpeg, maybe that's not enough resolution, but
> it prints out OK and reproduces detail OK.
>
> tomj

I recently bought a epson perfection 3170 scanner. it has a USB 2
interface. 3200x6400 resolution native, suposedly. it costs $199.
There is an ADF option for $199 more. The ADF handles 30 pages, which
technically is more than your 25+, but the cost ($400 total) is well
under your $1000 ceiling.

I have to say that the software driving it is crap. It is a combination
of epson software and stripped down newsoft's paperport. It all works,
but it is unbelievably slow. The scan itself takes a few seconds, but
the rest is glacial.

For instance, launching the program takes 11 seconds on my 667 MHz
machine (running XP with 512 MB of RAM). OK, but that is just a thin
front end. Then I select "scan to application". 16 seconds more go by
before I get the control panel. Scan -- 5-10 seconds. Click done. 10
seconds more before I get a thumbnail view of what I just scanned.
Click OK, 10 seconds more before I get a panel showing me three or four
apps that are registered to process the image. Bleh. Want to process
another page? OK, do it all again, except you don't have to pay the
price of the first 11 seconds launching the front end. Yes, 50 seconds
more.

I sent their tech support an email with my problem (on the off chance it
was some known snafu and not just cruddy software), but no response a
week later.
Received on Tue Dec 16 2003 - 03:03:17 GMT