Auto-fed Scanners: You Call That a Selection?

[Jason Dunn]

My grandmother is turning 80 this year, so my wife and I are working on a "this is your life" project. We have over 300 photos to scan and turn into a Ken Burns-style presentation, and then we're going to take some of those photos and turn them into a hardcover book. We're really excited about this project, but getting those photos scanned is a big chore. Right now we have two scanners in the house: a Canoscan 656U and the multifunction HP psc 2510. The problem is that the Canoscan attached to my wife's computer is painfully slow at the 400 and 600 dpi resolutions we're scanning at. I only want to do this scanning process once, so I'm opting to go with higher resolution scans.

At first I thought the slow scanning was from the fact that it's a USB 1.1 scanner, but when I compared it to the HP psc 2510, I had some second thoughts. The HP scanner is being accessed via 802.11b WiFi, so figure about 6 mbps of real-world bandwidth. USB 1.1 is 11 mbps, so it probably works out to about the same bandwidth. Yet the HP scanner is much faster, so I think the Canoscan is simply slow. I stopped by a local computer store and was checking out what they had to offer, and realized for the first time how little information there is about the speed of the scanner. You'd think it's be easy: "4x6 scans a 200 dpi take 30 seconds" or something similar. Yet none of the boxes mentioned anything about speed. HP has some speed information on their Web site for each scanner, but it simply says "4 x 6 scans in 60 seconds" without any mention of resolution. So how does that help me? :roll: <!>

The sales guy recommended the HP Scanjet 5530 Photosmart scanner because it had a photo feeder, so they're transferring one from another store in the city for me. In the meantime, I've read a review of the Scanjet 5530 (http://www.trustedreviews.com/article.aspx?page=857&head=63) and I'm not exactly blown away. I was hoping that a $399 CAD scanner would be impressive, but other than the auto-feeder, this scanner doesn't exactly excel in quality or speed. In fact, it's about as slow as the current Canoscan - the difference is that you don't have to be there to witness how slow it is, so therefor it's "fast". That's relativity that would make Einstein proud. :lol:

I figured I'd see what Canon and Epson had to offer, but guess what? Neither company makes a scanner with an auto feeder! This blows me away - there has to be a huge market potential there for people with hundreds if not thousands of 4x6 photos that they'd like to have digital copies of. Yet between the "big three" of scanners, only one company has one model? In a word, that sucks.

Any suggestions for scanners that are fast and/or have auto feeders but also do great quality scans?

[James Fee]

Jason, try and find a 11x17 sheet scanner!

About 1997, I bought one for our company (I think it was HP, but not sure) and remember there were lots of choices.

What I think is people use their copiers to do this now. We actually use our copier as a scanner, printer, fax machine and of course a copier. Maybe that is why there isn't much choice anymore???

[Doug Johnson]

One thing to consider...

When I am scanning hundreds of photos, I usually put 2-3 (or more if I can) on the scanner at a time. For 4x6, two rotated portrait placed side by side at the top, and one landscape just below it. I scan all photos at once, and separate them using a copy/new/paste/save operation (the keystroke sequence has become automatic). Doing it this way is a lot faster than scanning each photo individually; last project I had about 400 pictures and scanned, separated, and cleaned up in a couple hours.

Also, make sure you aren't scanning at too high a DPI setting. 300 DPI is WAY MORE than enough for on-screen presentation. Scanning at higher DPI slows the scans down considerably.

[Kevin Jackson]

I can relate to your frustration/confusion. The company I work for sells document scanners (primarily Enterprise grade, but some low- to mid-range Professional grade as well -- not really consumer grade). The problem is that most companies give you a scan speed (like your example of "4x6 scan in 60 seconds"), but don't tell you the resolution. Generally this is because they don't want to tell you that that is the fastest speed for the lowest quality scan (lowest resolution, single-sided, no color) -- the higher the resolution, color depth, etc., the slower the scan time. Usually the only way to find out the "true" scan speed is by trying it out or finding someone who has reviewed the scanner and has done extensive testing. We have documentation at our disposal for the scanners that we sell, but the information is so extensive that we try to focus on the area that our customers will be most interested in, which varies by application.

As far as auto-feed scanners, unless you move up a level (low- to mid-range professional grade scanners), you will have trouble finding anything other than flatbed only. Canon make a good quality color low-end Professional scanner (DR-2080C) that is auto-feed only, SCSI or USB 2.0 compatible. I just did some testing with a 2080 that I have on my desk and I scanned a 4x6 at 600dpi at 24-bit color and it took about 30 seconds for the scan while 400dpi took 15 seconds.

I know this probably doesn't clear much up for you, but rest assured that you are not alone.

[Kacey Green]

Have you looked at microtek? http://www.microtek.com

[Tim Williamson]

I was contemplating starting a business that would scan in people's old photos then organize them onto a CD/DVD for archive purposes. Are there any companies out there that do anything like that?

[Kevin Jackson]

300 DPI is WAY MORE than enough for on-screen presentation.

But if your planning on printing them out in a book format (as Jason is), he is better off with a higher resolution.

[Jason Dunn]

Have you looked at microtek? http://www.microtek.com

I tend to be leery of that brand name - many problems in the past - but they don't seem to have a auto-fed scanner anyway, do they?

[Jason Dunn]

When I am scanning hundreds of photos, I usually put 2-3 (or more if I can) on the scanner at a time. For 4x6, two rotated portrait placed side by side at the top, and one landscape just below it. I scan all photos at once, and separate them using a copy/new/paste/save operation...

Yeah, we've done that for other projects, but IMO it's agonizing.

Also, make sure you aren't scanning at too high a DPI setting. 300 DPI is WAY MORE than enough for on-screen presentation. Scanning at higher DPI slows the scans down considerably.

Yes, but as I explained, I'm printing these images so I need a higher resolution. Some of the photos are over 50 years old, so this will be a permanent digital archive of them - if I need to print an 8 x 10 ten years from now, I don't want to be cursing the fact that I scanned the photos in at 75 dpi. I already let that happen with one project and don't plan to let it happen again. ;-)

[James Fee]

What about sending them out for scanning Jason?

[OSUKid7]

Isn't USB 1.1 12 Mbps, not 11?

[Jason Dunn]

Isn't USB 1.1 12 Mbps, not 11?

Um, why yes, yes it is. :oops: :lol:

[Doug Johnson]

But if your planning on printing them out in a book format (as Jason is), he is better off with a higher resolution.
Just one example... Most people I know with scanners don't even know what DPI is, and end up scanning at way too high a DPI for their application. 8)

[Jason Dunn]

Just one example... Most people I know with scanners don't even know what DPI is, and end up scanning at way too high a DPI for their application. 8)

Yes, but I'm not most people, now am I? ;-)

Anyway, I bought the HP 5350, and it's working fairly well. The software desperately needs an overhaul - I don't know how they test this stuff, but it does some irritating things. The good news is that the automated process, while not fast, works very well - I can scan 4x6 images at 600 dpi and save them as BMP files for editing, and I don't have to touch a thing. It does this really lame thing though: it doesn't put the scans into the target folder until AFTER all of the scans are finished - which means you have a hellish amount of disk trashing as it moves 600 MB (24 pictures at 25 MB each) into the target folder.

[Zack Mahdavi]

What about sending them out for scanning Jason?

That's a good idea. I don't think it'd be that expensive if you took it to a local print shop to get all your photos scanned. It might cost max $30..

Of course, I'd avoid Kinko's if you don't need it in a hurry. They always like to charge a premium for their speed. :)

[kagayaki1]

I thought it would be worth pointing out the PC World article related to this topic from a few months ago. They review a Microtek, Epson, and the HP scanners designed for photo restoration. Quick read.

http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/article/0,aid,113653,00.asp

Jason, are you having the same "jamming" problems that some others are experiencing with thier 5530? Also, how do you accomodate NON-4x6 pictures in the feeder?

[Jason Dunn]

Jason, are you having the same "jamming" problems that some others are experiencing with thier 5530? Also, how do you accomodate NON-4x6 pictures in the feeder?

I've had it jam on a couple 4x6 images, nothing too serious, but when scanning smaller 3 x 4 photos, that's when it "jams" most often. You can tell it was really engineered for 4x6 images, nothing else. I'm scanning the smaller ones in manually - thankfully there aren't that many.

[Jonathon Watkins]

When I am scanning hundreds of photos, I usually put 2-3 (or more if I can) on the scanner at a time. For 4x6, two rotated portrait placed side by side at the top, and one landscape just below it. I scan all photos at once, and separate them using a copy/new/paste/save operation...

Yeah, we've done that for other projects, but IMO it's agonizing.

If you use Photoshop CS it has an automatic "Crop and straighten Photos" function that will do this work for you. Just put a bunch of photos on the scanner, scan them, go to "File, Automate, Crop and straighten Photos" and Bob's your uncle! 8)

[Suhit Gupta]

Jason, why weren't you happy with the 5530? Last year I was stuck in a similar situation where I wanted to scan in almost 1500 photographs and I used the HP 5500 series to do it. I scanned them all in using the photo feeder in less than 4 days which is pretty impressive if I should say so myself. It gave good colors, and the scan resolution/sharpness/quality was quite good IMHO.

Suhit

[Jason Dunn]

Jason, why weren't you happy with the 5530?

Well, I'm happy with it, but not "blown away" like I was hoping to be on a $400 CND scanner. The software is clunky and badly designed, but the scanner itself is pretty good. I think what I'm most disappointed with is how horrifically bad old consumer-level 35mm cameras were. There's such a stunning lack of detail...(note I said CONSUMER LEVEL - I know that 35mm is capable of fantastic detail and quality in the hands of a professional).

[Suhit Gupta]

Jason, why weren't you happy with the 5530?

Well, I'm happy with it, but not "blown away" like I was hoping to be on a $400 CND scanner. The software is clunky and badly designed, but the scanner itself is pretty good. I think what I'm most disappointed with is how horrifically bad old consumer-level 35mm cameras were. There's such a stunning lack of detail...(note I said CONSUMER LEVEL - I know that 35mm is capable of fantastic detail and quality in the hands of a professional).
But neither of the reasons you give show a problem with the scanner :?. And the software that comes with the unit is not bad given the other really crappy scanning software out there. Hmm, maybe I just had a really good experience with it ;-).

Suhit

[Jason Dunn]

But neither of the reasons you give show a problem with the scanner :?.

Ok, let me re-state this: my "out of the box experience" with the scanner wasn't all that I was hoping it would be. Does that make more sense now? I tend to dislike the "this software will do everything" approach. HP's software does stupid things like starting up the HP Photo & Imaging software when you do a scan with the HP Director - why? It also doesn't save the photos to the target directory until all of the images have been scanned from the feeder - again, why?

[Lotto]

I am looking toward this daunting task myself with hundreds, maybe thousands of very old family photos. My mother in law passed away, and rather than have family tear the pictures apart and argue, I figured to scan and place on cd's for everyone involved. The oldest sibling then getting possession of the actual photos (heck I didn't want to have to store this many!)

I was debating just what dpi I should scan at.


I think what I'm most disappointed with is how horrifically bad old consumer-level 35mm cameras were. There's such a stunning lack of detail...(note I said CONSUMER LEVEL - I know that 35mm is capable of fantastic detail and quality in the hands of a professional).

Is it probably that scanning at 600 dpi like you did only exaggerated this, like a magnification? I realize you did this with the possibilty of blowing a picture up to an 8x10 at a future time.

If I was to scan a very old 4x6....and planned on only ever recreating it as a 4x6...what dpi do you suggest? Would 300 or 400 dpi be adequate in your experience? Those that seem extra special (like group pictures) I could then increase the dpi to 600 dpi.

[Jason Dunn]

Is it probably that scanning at 600 dpi like you did only exaggerated this, like a magnification? I realize you did this with the possibilty of blowing a picture up to an 8x10 at a future time.

Yes, that's absolutely the reason - I was just amazed though at the lack of detail in consumer-level 35mm shots from decades ago when compared to a digital photo of today.

If I was to scan a very old 4x6....and planned on only ever recreating it as a 4x6...what dpi do you suggest? Would 300 or 400 dpi be adequate in your experience? Those that seem extra special (like group pictures) I could then increase the dpi to 600 dpi.

400 dpi would give you plenty to work with - I don't have an image handy, but I'm sure at 400 dpi you could do a 5x7 and even an 8x10 and it would look quite good.

[Lotto]

Very helpful, thanks for the tip! :)