I'm looking to replace my Canon 656U (same as 650U other than silver
case), which has developed the fault that whenever powered (by USB), it
starts to track, until it reaches the end where it keeps going, making
an unhappy noise. (It went through a phase where I could, by
unplugging/replugging it and/or fiddling with the software, when I could
stop it doing that and take a scan, but that seems to not work now.) If
anyone knows what to do to fix that, please share ...

Obviously, I want something that works with Windows 7 (32 bit).

Looking at what's available, then going to Canon's website to make sure
I can get drivers for 7-32 (that's another thing: with previous
computers, such sites have usually diagnosed my OS correctly, but this
time Canon and others think I'm running some version of W10), I find a
vast number of models:

LiDE 20/25/35/60/90/100/200/210/220/400, and 4400F/5200F/8600F, all seem
to have drivers for 7-32 [please tell me if anyone knows that any of
those _don't_]. (LiDE 30/50, and N640P/N670U/N1240U/D1250U2 seem not to
have 7-32 drivers.)

Any idea why there are so many models? Obviously there are various
resolutions (and I think the F models - not LiDE, whatever that is -
have film-handling hardware), but it seems a very large number of
models!

Also, I read in one of the reviews that for most home-type scanners,
there's little point in having a resolution above a certain level (and
I'm talking about optical resolution, not that silly interpolated
thing), as the quality of the optics is such that you won't get any
improvement above a certain level (1200 or 2400, I think), just a bigger
file. Anyone have any view?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I admire him for the constancy of his curiosity, his effortless sense of
authority and his ability to deliver good science without gimmicks.
- Michael Palin on Sir David Attenborough, RT 2016/5/7-13

On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 15:10:27 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>I'm looking to replace my Canon 656U (same as 650U other than silver
>case), which has developed the fault that whenever powered (by USB), it
>starts to track, until it reaches the end where it keeps going, making
>an unhappy noise. (It went through a phase where I could, by
>unplugging/replugging it and/or fiddling with the software, when I could
>stop it doing that and take a scan, but that seems to not work now.) If
>anyone knows what to do to fix that, please share ...

Are you using Canon's scanning software? If so, you might fare better with VueScan. I think
there is a free trial.

--
croy

On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 15:10:27 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
wrote:

>I'm looking to replace my Canon 656U (same as 650U other than silver
>case), which has developed the fault that whenever powered (by USB), it
>starts to track, until it reaches the end where it keeps going, making
>an unhappy noise. (It went through a phase where I could, by
>unplugging/replugging it and/or fiddling with the software, when I could
>stop it doing that and take a scan, but that seems to not work now.) If
>anyone knows what to do to fix that, please share ...
>
>Obviously, I want something that works with Windows 7 (32 bit).
>
>Looking at what's available, then going to Canon's website to make sure
>I can get drivers for 7-32 (that's another thing: with previous
>computers, such sites have usually diagnosed my OS correctly, but this
>time Canon and others think I'm running some version of W10), I find a
>vast number of models:
>
>LiDE 20/25/35/60/90/100/200/210/220/400, and 4400F/5200F/8600F, all seem
>to have drivers for 7-32 [please tell me if anyone knows that any of
>those _don't_]. (LiDE 30/50, and N640P/N670U/N1240U/D1250U2 seem not to
>have 7-32 drivers.)
>
>Any idea why there are so many models? Obviously there are various
>resolutions (and I think the F models - not LiDE, whatever that is -
>have film-handling hardware), but it seems a very large number of
>models!
>
>Also, I read in one of the reviews that for most home-type scanners,
>there's little point in having a resolution above a certain level (and
>I'm talking about optical resolution, not that silly interpolated
>thing), as the quality of the optics is such that you won't get any
>improvement above a certain level (1200 or 2400, I think), just a bigger
>file. Anyone have any view?
I feel your pain. I have a few scanners and they all have limited
driver support. It seems like they want you to buy a new scanner every
time you get a different OS. The hardware doesn't seem to change, just
the drivers.
That Vue Scan does support lots of old scanners but it might just be
cheaper to get a new scanner.

In message <r33qridh7vm4p98uti5ts9nb653iblkup7@4ax.com> at Fri, 2 Feb
2024 07:40:20, croy <croy@spam.invalid.net> writes
>On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 15:10:27 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>
>>I'm looking to replace my Canon 656U (same as 650U other than silver
>>case), which has developed the fault that whenever powered (by USB), it
>>starts to track, until it reaches the end where it keeps going, making
>>an unhappy noise. (It went through a phase where I could, by
>>unplugging/replugging it and/or fiddling with the software, when I could
>>stop it doing that and take a scan, but that seems to not work now.) If
>>anyone knows what to do to fix that, please share ...
>
>Are you using Canon's scanning software? If so, you might fare better
>with VueScan. I think
>there is a free trial.
>
For my requirements, whatever comes will do - I nearly always scan into
IrfanView anyway. I'm aware of VueScan, whose main selling point seems
to be the support of older scanners on newer OSs than the ones current
when they were; although it may have better scanning features too, that
(keeping old kit usable) seems to be its main selling point.
Unfortunately, through no fault of their own, they're too small
(Australian company IIRR?) to be cheap, and most people who've moved up
an OS and found their old scanner will no longer work, find the cost
(about 30 pounds IIRR) is more than the cost of a second-hand scanner at
least as good as the older one that does work with their "new" OS. Of
course, those with scanners with a special ability - maybe some film
ones - and/or expensive resolutions, that probably doesn't apply.

The bottom mostly fell out of the standalone flatbed scanner market, I
suspect, when printer manufacturers started incorporating them. And
printers last even less long than OSs these days.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

In the beginning, Emacs created God.

On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 10:53:23 -0500, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

>On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 15:10:27 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>I'm looking to replace my Canon 656U (same as 650U other than silver
>>case), which has developed the fault that whenever powered (by USB), it
>>starts to track, until it reaches the end where it keeps going, making
>>an unhappy noise. (It went through a phase where I could, by
>>unplugging/replugging it and/or fiddling with the software, when I could
>>stop it doing that and take a scan, but that seems to not work now.) If
>>anyone knows what to do to fix that, please share ...
>>
>>Obviously, I want something that works with Windows 7 (32 bit).
>>
>>Looking at what's available, then going to Canon's website to make sure
>>I can get drivers for 7-32 (that's another thing: with previous
>>computers, such sites have usually diagnosed my OS correctly, but this
>>time Canon and others think I'm running some version of W10), I find a
>>vast number of models:
>>
>>LiDE 20/25/35/60/90/100/200/210/220/400, and 4400F/5200F/8600F, all seem
>>to have drivers for 7-32 [please tell me if anyone knows that any of
>>those _don't_]. (LiDE 30/50, and N640P/N670U/N1240U/D1250U2 seem not to
>>have 7-32 drivers.)
>>
>>Any idea why there are so many models? Obviously there are various
>>resolutions (and I think the F models - not LiDE, whatever that is -
>>have film-handling hardware), but it seems a very large number of
>>models!
>>
>>Also, I read in one of the reviews that for most home-type scanners,
>>there's little point in having a resolution above a certain level (and
>>I'm talking about optical resolution, not that silly interpolated
>>thing), as the quality of the optics is such that you won't get any
>>improvement above a certain level (1200 or 2400, I think), just a bigger
>>file. Anyone have any view?
>
>I feel your pain. I have a few scanners and they all have limited
>driver support. It seems like they want you to buy a new scanner every
>time you get a different OS. The hardware doesn't seem to change, just
>the drivers.
>That Vue Scan does support lots of old scanners but it might just be
>cheaper to get a new scanner.

I don't think so. VueScan Standard is $49.95, and the cheapest scanner
I see on Amazon is the Canon LiDE at $57.58, and I don't know whether
it supports Windows 7. I've only used the trial version of VueScan
with my Canon LiDE 400 and so far I like what I see; it seems easier
to use than what comes with the scanner, and I may soon buy the
standard version. It comes with a 30-day trial version, but that
overlays its scans with a notice that it's the trial version, so it's
only good to see if you like it.

In message <lo3qrid1qeat8bp388fi32rheotto9f3fd@4ax.com> at Fri, 2 Feb
2024 10:53:23, gfretwell@aol.com writes
>On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 15:10:27 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
>wrote:
[]
>>Also, I read in one of the reviews that for most home-type scanners,
>>there's little point in having a resolution above a certain level (and
>>I'm talking about optical resolution, not that silly interpolated
>>thing), as the quality of the optics is such that you won't get any
>>improvement above a certain level (1200 or 2400, I think), just a bigger
>>file. Anyone have any view?

(Any thoughts on that?)
>
>I feel your pain. I have a few scanners and they all have limited
>driver support. It seems like they want you to buy a new scanner every
>time you get a different OS. The hardware doesn't seem to change, just
>the drivers.
>That Vue Scan does support lots of old scanners but it might just be
>cheaper to get a new scanner.

In my case, it's for once that the scanner has died (at least, nine
times out of ten - or more - when connected, it runs up to the end and
keeps going, making unhappy noises). First time - that I can remember,
anyway - I've actually had one actually fail. (I'm guessing the fault is
trivial - probably just a track sensor loose - but am wary of trying to
open it, lest tiny bits fall where they shouldn't; there doesn't seem to
be a YouTube video, though the plethora of models doesn't help.) But
there seem to be plenty of s/h scanners for which a 7-32 driver _is_
available, for less than I think VueScan costs (let me just check: basic
edition 24.95 pounds) - yes, I can get a LiDE 20/25/35/60 or a 5200F for
less than that. (Anyone got any of those and got good/bad stories?)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

In the beginning, Emacs created God.

On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 09:26:11 -0700, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 10:53:23 -0500, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 15:10:27 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>I'm looking to replace my Canon 656U (same as 650U other than silver
>>>case), which has developed the fault that whenever powered (by USB), it
>>>starts to track, until it reaches the end where it keeps going, making
>>>an unhappy noise. (It went through a phase where I could, by
>>>unplugging/replugging it and/or fiddling with the software, when I could
>>>stop it doing that and take a scan, but that seems to not work now.) If
>>>anyone knows what to do to fix that, please share ...
>>>
>>>Obviously, I want something that works with Windows 7 (32 bit).
>>>
>>>Looking at what's available, then going to Canon's website to make sure
>>>I can get drivers for 7-32 (that's another thing: with previous
>>>computers, such sites have usually diagnosed my OS correctly, but this
>>>time Canon and others think I'm running some version of W10), I find a
>>>vast number of models:
>>>
>>>LiDE 20/25/35/60/90/100/200/210/220/400, and 4400F/5200F/8600F, all seem
>>>to have drivers for 7-32 [please tell me if anyone knows that any of
>>>those _don't_]. (LiDE 30/50, and N640P/N670U/N1240U/D1250U2 seem not to
>>>have 7-32 drivers.)
>>>
>>>Any idea why there are so many models? Obviously there are various
>>>resolutions (and I think the F models - not LiDE, whatever that is -
>>>have film-handling hardware), but it seems a very large number of
>>>models!
>>>
>>>Also, I read in one of the reviews that for most home-type scanners,
>>>there's little point in having a resolution above a certain level (and
>>>I'm talking about optical resolution, not that silly interpolated
>>>thing), as the quality of the optics is such that you won't get any
>>>improvement above a certain level (1200 or 2400, I think), just a bigger
>>>file. Anyone have any view?
>>
>>I feel your pain. I have a few scanners and they all have limited
>>driver support. It seems like they want you to buy a new scanner every
>>time you get a different OS. The hardware doesn't seem to change, just
>>the drivers.
>>That Vue Scan does support lots of old scanners but it might just be
>>cheaper to get a new scanner.
>
>
>I don't think so. VueScan Standard is $49.95, and the cheapest scanner
>I see on Amazon is the Canon LiDE at $57.58, and I don't know whether
>it supports Windows 7. I've only used the trial version of VueScan
>with my Canon LiDE 400 and so far I like what I see; it seems easier
>to use than what comes with the scanner, and I may soon buy the
>standard version. It comes with a 30-day trial version, but that
>overlays its scans with a notice that it's the trial version, so it's
>only good to see if you like it.

I bought the Basic Edition, which is only $25. The only important
thing it's lacking for me is the ability to save as pdf. But since
there are several free online jpg to pdf converters available (I tried
one and it worked fine), I saved the extra $25 for the standard
edition.

"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

> I'm looking to replace my Canon 656U (same as 650U other than silver
> case), which has developed the fault that whenever powered (by USB), it
> starts to track, until it reaches the end where it keeps going, making
> an unhappy noise. (It went through a phase where I could, by
> unplugging/replugging it and/or fiddling with the software, when I could
> stop it doing that and take a scan, but that seems to not work now.) If
> anyone knows what to do to fix that, please share ...
>
> Obviously, I want something that works with Windows 7 (32 bit).
>
> Looking at what's available, then going to Canon's website to make sure
> I can get drivers for 7-32 (that's another thing: with previous
> computers, such sites have usually diagnosed my OS correctly, but this
> time Canon and others think I'm running some version of W10), I find a
> vast number of models:
>
> LiDE 20/25/35/60/90/100/200/210/220/400, and 4400F/5200F/8600F, all seem
> to have drivers for 7-32 [please tell me if anyone knows that any of
> those _don't_]. (LiDE 30/50, and N640P/N670U/N1240U/D1250U2 seem not to
> have 7-32 drivers.)
>
> Any idea why there are so many models? Obviously there are various
> resolutions (and I think the F models - not LiDE, whatever that is -
> have film-handling hardware), but it seems a very large number of
> models!
>
> Also, I read in one of the reviews that for most home-type scanners,
> there's little point in having a resolution above a certain level (and
> I'm talking about optical resolution, not that silly interpolated
> thing), as the quality of the optics is such that you won't get any
> improvement above a certain level (1200 or 2400, I think), just a bigger
> file. Anyone have any view?

I had a Canon LiDe scanner several years ago. I thought all the LiDe
models were skinny, so you could slide them into a desk drawer (I had
mine in the middle drawer which has the least height since it's over my
legs). I'd take it out and connect when I wanted to scan instead of
always taking up space atop the desk. I also thought all the LiDe
models got their power only from a USB port, so not a lot of power
available (USB 2 is 1/2 watt). That puts all the LiDe models in one
category: skinny models that fit in a drawer, USB powered. Decide if
you want skinny to put in a drawer, or something that's fat atop the
desk. As I recall, mine broke when its light bar wouldn't move. I'd
hear the motor, but the bar barely jiggled.

When I went to the Canon site, took a bit to find any LiDe scanners.
Not listed under their Consumer category. Found 2 models under their
Office category: 300 and 400. The difference is the 400 at $20 more is
2 seconds faster to scan than the 300, and the 400's resolution is
4800x4800 versus the 300 at 2400x2400 (those are probably not true
resolutions, but interpolated). For documents, you'll probably not need
more than 300 dpi, but might go to 600. They call them "photo" scanners
instead of others they call document scanners. Interestingly they use
superscript footnote numbers on several statements in the product
description, but there are no matching footnotes to know their slant on
their claims.

The 300 download section lists Windows drivers for 11, 10, 8, 7, Vista,
Me, XP, 98, 95, and many Server versions. Same for the 400 model.

I guess the next category is multi-function. Do you want a scanner that
is separate of your printer, so if one fails the other still works?

The next category is whether or not you want an automatic document
feeder. I had a MP w/feeder desktop unit, and used the feeder maybe
twice (other than when I got it and just had to play with it).

Do you want a MP unit that also had faxing capability? Most computers
theses days don't come with an analog modem that can do faxing. You'd
have to buy a fax card to occupy a mobo slot. Or you get a standalone
unit that does the faxing (and printing, and scanning, and feeding).
You've told what you have or had, but not want you want in a new unit.
Your old Canon 656U is similar to their LiDe units: skinny, USB powered.
If that is what you want to stick with, there are only 2 models Canon is
selling now: 300 and 400 ($79 and $99, respectively, at Newegg, and $58
on sale now and $96, respectively, at Walmart). What added features you
want dictates what other models you get, like combining with a printer,
added a document feeder, adding faxing, increasing the document size,
like to legal.

As far as there being so many models for drivers, Canon has been in
business a long time, they have lots of old models out there, and they
provide drivers for all those old models (as long as the OS is still
supported). I'm sure you'd find a large number of drivers for HP and
Epson, too. Rather than "so many models" over so many years, go to
Canon's web site to see what they're selling now. You can find lots of
their old models on sale, but do you want to start with an old model?

[snip]

> The bottom mostly fell out of the standalone flatbed scanner market, I
> suspect, when printer manufacturers started incorporating them. And
> printers last even less long than OSs these days.

I usually don't like combination devices, although a printer/scanner
combination does make it easy to make copies.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"Few people can be happy unless they hate some other person, nation or
creed." [Bertrand Russell]

In message <ra5qrih8huci6nq46gktrrrk1grp9s5pgf@4ax.com> at Fri, 2 Feb
2024 09:26:11, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> writes
[]
>I don't think so. VueScan Standard is $49.95, and the cheapest scanner

24.95 pounds here for "basic".

>I see on Amazon is the Canon LiDE at $57.58, and I don't know whether

(That could be one of at least a dozen models of course!)

I'd almost certainly be buying second-hand - there are a few below 24.95
(including postage).

>it supports Windows 7. I've only used the trial version of VueScan
>with my Canon LiDE 400 and so far I like what I see; it seems easier
>to use than what comes with the scanner, and I may soon buy the

I'm watching a couple of 400s - auctions ending Sunday and Monday. It
looks like a neat scanner. If I'm reading the Canon page correctly,
drivers for 7-32 _are_ available for it.

>standard version. It comes with a 30-day trial version, but that
>overlays its scans with a notice that it's the trial version, so it's
>only good to see if you like it.

Yes, I've tried VueScan in the past (years ago, when someone had moved
from IIRR XP to 7), but don't think it gives me more than I'd want from
the manufacturer's driver.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

There is no honour to be had in not knowing a thing that can be known -
Danny Baker

In message <md7qri12uh6op9ok3k7g807afqvschh7jk@4ax.com> at Fri, 2 Feb
2024 09:55:30, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> writes
[]
>I bought the Basic Edition, which is only $25. The only important
>thing it's lacking for me is the ability to save as pdf. But since
>there are several free online jpg to pdf converters available (I tried
>one and it worked fine), I saved the extra $25 for the standard
>edition.

And there are plenty of PDF "printers" - I use PDF995; I think some
later versions of Office (and Windows, but I know we're in the 7 'group)
come with one, too. So I'd just "print" the JPEG (almost certainly from
IrfanView) to that.

I've never seen the advantage of PDF for _images_, and find it tedious
when people have (or send me) them as that; I end up doing the opposite
of you, and using an online (usually) PDF to image converter!
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

There is no honour to be had in not knowing a thing that can be known -
Danny Baker

In message <Ne9vN.56351$5Hnd.38815@fx03.iad> at Fri, 2 Feb 2024
11:02:37, Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> writes
>[snip]
>
>> The bottom mostly fell out of the standalone flatbed scanner market,
>>I suspect, when printer manufacturers started incorporating them. And
>>printers last even less long than OSs these days.
>
>I usually don't like combination devices, although a printer/scanner
>combination does make it easy to make copies.
>
Me neither, because if one part fails, you're stuck with either having
to replace the lot, or having to keep an only-partly-working device.
(And "fails" can include "doesn't work with ..." as well as actually
failing.) And I _believe_ in the case of _some_ printer/scanners, they
won't scan if there's no ink in one of the cartridges.

OK, the copying ability is handy. But not on the whole at the expense of
having to use an ink printer. (There _are_ a few laser/scanner models,
but very few.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

There is no honour to be had in not knowing a thing that can be known -
Danny Baker

On 02/02/2024 15:40, croy wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 15:10:27 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>
>> I'm looking to replace my Canon 656U (same as 650U other than silver
>> case), which has developed the fault that whenever powered (by USB), it
>> starts to track, until it reaches the end where it keeps going, making
>> an unhappy noise. (It went through a phase where I could, by
>> unplugging/replugging it and/or fiddling with the software, when I could
>> stop it doing that and take a scan, but that seems to not work now.) If
>> anyone knows what to do to fix that, please share ...

I have a CanoScan LiDE 300 with a similar problem, but with mine, once
it gets to the far end, it just stops, becoming completely unresponsive.
See notes appended for a detailed history of this complex fault, as well
as a review of my current best scanner.

Here I will summarise some considerations when choosing a scanner ...

1) What is your source material? In particular ...

A) Do you need to scan photographic material, particularly negatives
& slides, and if either of these, what sizes are they? Problem sizes
are old 120 film sizes and larger. Mid-price scanners may have some
sort of attachment that can scan 35mm film and perhaps smaller such as
Instamatic, but not anything larger, to get which, you may have to go up
market.

B) Do you need to scan large quantities of similar sized material
where an Automatic Document Feeder mechanism would be useful? Note that
most ADFs tend to be geared to standard paper sizes, usually A4/Letter.

C) Do you need to scan large documents, such as old legal documents,
piecemeal and stitch the results together? If so, absolutely you must
be able to completely remove the lid of the scanner.

2) What do you want from the results? In particular ...

A) Do you want to reproduce family photo albums, either virtually or
physically, and if virtually, what sort of format are you going to use?
A common one is PDF, so it might be useful if the scanning software can
produce PDF output directly.

B) Do you want to produce text output? If so, you need Optical
Character Recognition (OCR) as an output option from the software.

Etc, etc ... This is probably not a comprehensive list, search online
for other considerations. In the end I replaced my CanoScan at some
extra-than-originally-intended expense with an Epson V900, which has
turned out pretty well, notwithstanding some minor issues. Here's the
Amazon review of it I wrote, which also mentions aspects of my old HP
scanner as well as the CanoScan ...

https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/customer-reviews/R23V41X74KLJ7U/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B002OEBMRU

> Are you using Canon's scanning software? If so, you might fare better with VueScan. I think
> there is a free trial.

Almost certainly it's a hardware fault, in which case I'm afraid this
suggestion won't make an iota of difference ...

I suspect the problems with my CanoScan LiDE 300 were at least partly
self-induced, in three ways:
1) Failure to lock the mechanism before transport in the car;
2) In its original box, probably it was upside down in the car;
3) Unwisely removing an apparently 'useless' internal label.

They began when I travelled to relatives hoping to scan their stuff for
the family archive, only to find that I'd forgotten to lock the
transport mechanism of the CanoScan before packing it for the journey,
and further, though in its original packaging, probably it was upside
down in the car. Not only was the underside of the glass covered in
dust from ancient documents I'd scanned in the past, but so also was the
scanner head, because I was getting lines, not just specks, across all
the scans. I tried dismantling and cleaning it. Afterwards, some of
the plastic surround no longer locked properly back into place, though I
didn't think I'd broken any catches, certainly I'd tried to be careful
not to do so, rather I think the problem was the thing was actually held
together by double-sided sticky tape, which I'd had to remove. FFS!!!
can't we go back to using screws to assemble things???!!! Worse still,
although the cleaning had got rid of the specs & the worst of the lines,
it had not removed the faintest of the lines, and further each scan was
pausing one or two times and then restarting, thus tripling the time
being taken for each scan. Note that at this point the machine was
still working, but only just.

Thus I had to bring all the relatives' documents home to scan them with
my old HP scanner and the new Epson one purchased since as described,
but, when I got home, I had another longer look at the CanoScan ...

I dismantled it again, and underneath the plastic lip overlapping the
glass at the front of the scanner, there was piece of strange white tape
with a black mark, which, being apparently slightly damaged, I decided
to remove completely. After I'd cleaned the insides thoroughly again, I
re-assembled it, and that's when I first had the problem of the carriage
progressing all the way to the back, stopping, and the machine being
completely unresponsive thereafter.

So I wondered if the tape has been some sort of marker which the
firmware was looking for to determine where was the start of the
scanning area and therefore where to park the head when idle and whence
to measure everything when working. I tried replacing it as best I
could, but the problem persisted. Despite the failure of the attempted
fix, I still think there may be something to this theory. However,
apparently behaviour of this sort is a common problem with CanoScans.
Try searching online for something appropriate[*], and you'll get lots
of hits, including where it happened with entirely new machines.

* I did try searching my browser history to see if my searches were
still there as suggestions for you to try, but they weren't.

So it was time to get a replacement, after some deliberation I went
first for a CanoScan LiDE 400, a newer model than the one I'd already
got, on the ground of ease of use, which then was cheapest in Argos,
even after driving 300 miles to Fraserburgh & back to collect the
nearest one. However that developed faint stripes in the scan during its
first session of use, leading me to wonder if the faintest stripes in my
LiDE 300 had been there a long time, maybe even ex-factory, but, due to
them only being visible on unusually dark photographic source material,
simply I'd never noticed them before (they're where the side arrows
indicate, very faint but definitely there, and definitely from the
scanner, as the first test shows; note that each file is about 13-15MB,
so will take time to load):

Brand new CanoScan LiDE 400, source material hard up against one side of
the glass ...

www.macfh.co.uk/Temp/CanoScanLiDE400Scanner_1.png

.... but move it to the other side of the glass and the line has moved on
the picture, but stayed in the same position relative to the glass, so
it's a feature of the scanner, not the source material ...

www.macfh.co.uk/Temp/CanoScanLiDE400Scanner_2.png

.... and the old one was even worse, this was the scan where I'd first
noticed the problem, taken when the scanner was still just about
working, at my relatives:

www.macfh.co.uk/Temp/CanoScanLiDE300Scanner.png

So the new one went back to Argos, and I got my money back, and bought
the Epson mentioned above, which has given me pretty good results.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

In message <7dndv1ywp8z9$.dlg@v.nguard.lh> at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 11:02:31,
VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> writes
>"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
[]
>> Also, I read in one of the reviews that for most home-type scanners,
>> there's little point in having a resolution above a certain level (and
>> I'm talking about optical resolution, not that silly interpolated
>> thing), as the quality of the optics is such that you won't get any
>> improvement above a certain level (1200 or 2400, I think), just a bigger
>> file. Anyone have any view?

(Any thoughts on that?)
>
>I had a Canon LiDe scanner several years ago. I thought all the LiDe
>models were skinny, so you could slide them into a desk drawer (I had

They seem to be.

>mine in the middle drawer which has the least height since it's over my
>legs). I'd take it out and connect when I wanted to scan instead of
>always taking up space atop the desk. I also thought all the LiDe
>models got their power only from a USB port, so not a lot of power
>available (USB 2 is 1/2 watt). That puts all the LiDe models in one

The ones where I've figured out what the supply is, do seem to be - some
with the type B connector (like a printer), which I prefer as it's more
robust, some with a small one.

>category: skinny models that fit in a drawer, USB powered. Decide if
>you want skinny to put in a drawer, or something that's fat atop the
>desk. As I recall, mine broke when its light bar wouldn't move. I'd
>hear the motor, but the bar barely jiggled.

Maybe a stripped gear or snapped belt. But opening them up looks a pain.
>
>When I went to the Canon site, took a bit to find any LiDe scanners.
>Not listed under their Consumer category. Found 2 models under their

I'm looking under the support section, where I'm not having much
difficulty finding them.

>Office category: 300 and 400. The difference is the 400 at $20 more is
>2 seconds faster to scan than the 300, and the 400's resolution is
>4800x4800 versus the 300 at 2400x2400 (those are probably not true
>resolutions, but interpolated). For documents, you'll probably not need

I think the 400 at least really is that. From what I've been able to
determine: 20 600×1200, 25/35/50/60 1200×2400, 90/100 2400×4800, 220
2400×4800 or 4800×4800 (not sure), 400 4800×4800.

>more than 300 dpi, but might go to 600. They call them "photo" scanners
>instead of others they call document scanners. Interestingly they use
>superscript footnote numbers on several statements in the product
>description, but there are no matching footnotes to know their slant on
>their claims.

Not unusual!
>
>The 300 download section lists Windows drivers for 11, 10, 8, 7, Vista,
>Me, XP, 98, 95, and many Server versions. Same for the 400 model.

All the ones above - and the 200/210 and 4400F/5200F/8600F, whose
resolution I don't have - have 7-32 drivers (some "ScanGear CS", some
model-specific).

I don't use the scanner much - mainly for keeping copies of documents,
for which as you say 300 is usually sufficient. I do scan the odd photo,
where more would be good - though for the prints I have, the quality is
such that _much_ more than, I don't know, 1200?, would just make larger
files for no benefit. Plus, that point that higher resolutions - even
optical - may not be worthwhile as the optics aren't that good; any
thoughts on that?
>
>I guess the next category is multi-function. Do you want a scanner that
>is separate of your printer, so if one fails the other still works?

Yes. I have a big old industrial colour laser printer (Samsung 775).
>
>The next category is whether or not you want an automatic document
>feeder. I had a MP w/feeder desktop unit, and used the feeder maybe
>twice (other than when I got it and just had to play with it).

I agree, sounds like a nice toy but can't think I'd use it often enough
for the space and extra unreliability, and that's before considering
cost.
>
>Do you want a MP unit that also had faxing capability? Most computers
>theses days don't come with an analog modem that can do faxing. You'd
>have to buy a fax card to occupy a mobo slot. Or you get a standalone
>unit that does the faxing (and printing, and scanning, and feeding).

I don't think I've ever sent a fax on my own account - from home,
anyway; when in work I did a few, but not often. (I think there are
services who'll do faxes for you - OK, not cheap, but given how few I
send [0 so far], probably affordable.) And I work from laptop, so no
mobo slots. (You can probably get USB fax - you could MoDem.)
[]
>As far as there being so many models for drivers, Canon has been in
>business a long time, they have lots of old models out there, and they
>provide drivers for all those old models (as long as the OS is still
>supported). I'm sure you'd find a large number of drivers for HP and

I was surprised (and pleased) to see they still seemed to be supporting
7-32 across so many; the only ones (of those I found for sale) that
seemed not to were/are LiDE 30 and 50, N640P, N670U, N1240U, and
D1250U2.

>Epson, too. Rather than "so many models" over so many years, go to
>Canon's web site to see what they're selling now. You can find lots of
>their old models on sale, but do you want to start with an old model?

Well, it isn't a matter of "starting" - for the small amount of scanning
I do, a replacement for the 656 will be fine - if it's one of the LiDE
models, it'll probably be newer than the 656 was anyway (except possibly
the 20 and 25).

For interest, I've experimented with two other kinds of scanners. I had
(still have) one of the ones like a wand/rod you scrape over the
document; that worked reasonably well, though tended to produce slightly
curved results on a full A4 or bigger document. The other sort is a
"mouse scanner" - Logitech, model 100 or 150. These are like a mouse -
actually, without the software running they _are_ a mouse - but with a
(just guessing by looking) 2 by ½ inch window in the bottom: you drag
them over a document. Obviously it's the software that does it really:
it joins together the drags, presumably by video processing. Doesn't
sound too hopeful, but actually I've been very impressed with how the
swipes suddenly snap into position when it realises part of a swipe
overlaps with a part you've already done. Trouble is it takes quite a
while and fiddling to scan a full A4 page (I think it can do up to A3!),
and the software sometimes crashes on me as well. Actually, just have a
look at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9Oj02ZVE_Y&t=100 (ignore some
of his waffling) to get the idea. I'm quite impressed with it, and of
course it's very portable (comes with a cloth bag to keep it in, which
helps to keep the window clean).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

There is no honour to be had in not knowing a thing that can be known -
Danny Baker

In message <upj8jv$2mldp$1@dont-email.me> at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 17:26:23,
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> writes
>On 02/02/2024 15:40, croy wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 15:10:27 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>> I'm looking to replace my Canon 656U (same as 650U other than
>>>silver
[]
>I have a CanoScan LiDE 300 with a similar problem, but with mine, once
>it gets to the far end, it just stops, becoming completely
>unresponsive. See notes appended for a detailed history of this complex
>fault, as well as a review of my current best scanner.
>
>Here I will summarise some considerations when choosing a scanner ...
>
>1) What is your source material? In particular ...
>
> A) Do you need to scan photographic material, particularly negatives
>& slides, and if either of these, what sizes are they? Problem sizes
>are old 120 film sizes and larger. Mid-price scanners may have some
>sort of attachment that can scan 35mm film and perhaps smaller such as
>Instamatic, but not anything larger, to get which, you may have to go
>up market.

For negatives and slides, I have (at least two I think, because I bought
one "new" when it was reduced to something ridiculously low and it
seemed daft not to get it as a backup) scanners specifically for those.
I don't think I've ever actually used them yet, but I know I have the
negatives so they're in the "to do" cloud! (I definitely don't have
enough tuits for my remaining lifespan!)

I've often wondered - within the budget/medium price range, _do_ you get
better results from scanning the negatives, or from scanning prints made
when the photo-processing industry was at its height? From one point of
view, you ought to always get better results from the original
negatives, and certainly less cropping (prints from the average
high/main street shop were _always_ not from the whole negative); but
from the other point of view, unless you have a _very_ expensive
negative scanner, you'll get more pixels - and thus more detail - from
the print. For the average picture anyway - I know for dark or light
images the print may have lost shadow or highlight detail.

I don't have any large-format negatives like 120. (I do have one strip
of three negatives in the format (828 I think it's called) my dad's old
camera took - 35mm wide film, but _without_ perforations, so the images
were bigger than normal "35mm" film (I think that normal format is
actually called 135).

You say "smaller such as Instamatic". "Instamatic" actually covered two
formats, both coming in a cartridge you just dropped into the camera (no
placing perforations over sprockets): 126 and 110. 126 was the default
budget format throughout the 1970s, and for that reason, I'm puzzled
that most "negative scanners" don't handle it properly. Normal 135
format film uses 35mm wide film, with perforations down both sides, and
(IIRR) 18 by 24mm images down the middle between the perforations. 126
also uses 35mm wide film, but _without_ perforations down both sides -
it has one, smaller, hole, once per frame, on one (the "bottom") side
only. (The cameras had a pawl that detected that, to detect/determine
whether the film had been would on to the next frame position.) The
images were square, 28mm wide, extending from just above the (smaller)
hole, almost to the opposite edge of the film. Thus, the negative
holders that come with most such scanners - which have plastic that
covers where the perforations would be along both edges - blank off (a
little strip at the bottom and) a lot of the top of the image, and also
tend to have a problem with the width. _Some_ scanners come with
126-format holders, but very few. (I think a lot of them have a sensor -
basically a camera - that only _looks_ at the central 18 by 24 mm area
anyway.) 110 format was a miniature version of the same idea - used I
think 16mm film, but again not perforated like 16mm movie film but one
hole per frame at one side only (the images were rectangular though, not
square). It made for very small cameras, at least compared to the normal
135 and 126 format ones of the day! I had a Pentax SLR for the format, a
lovely little thing (unfortunately the small film format meant it didn't
do it justice).
>
> B) Do you need to scan large quantities of similar sized material
>where an Automatic Document Feeder mechanism would be useful? Note
>that most ADFs tend to be geared to standard paper sizes, usually
>A4/Letter.

No, I don't have need for such.
>
> C) Do you need to scan large documents, such as old legal documents,
>piecemeal and stitch the results together? If so, absolutely you must
>be able to completely remove the lid of the scanner.

I don't _think_ that will be a problem.
>
>2) What do you want from the results? In particular ...
>
> A) Do you want to reproduce family photo albums, either virtually or
>physically, and if virtually, what sort of format are you going to use?
>A common one is PDF, so it might be useful if the scanning software can
>produce PDF output directly.

If I did want to do such a thing, I'd almost certainly want to edit it
first, so I'd do that in a word processor (probably Word, sorry - though
I do use the 2003 version), and then "print" it to PDF (I use PDF995,
but there are several such "printer"s).
>
> B) Do you want to produce text output? If so, you need Optical
>Character Recognition (OCR) as an output option from the software.

I _think_ that comes with most of them these days - but if it didn't,
there are both free and paid-for OCR utilities around. I can't at the
moment think of anywhere I'd want to do that anyway - certainly it won't
affect my choice of scanner at this point.
>
>Etc, etc ... This is probably not a comprehensive list, search online
>for other considerations. In the end I replaced my CanoScan at some
>extra-than-originally-intended expense with an Epson V900, which has
>turned out pretty well, notwithstanding some minor issues. Here's the
>Amazon review of it I wrote, which also mentions aspects of my old HP
>scanner as well as the CanoScan ...
>
>https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/customer-reviews/R23V41X74KLJ7U/ref=cm_cr_dp
>_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B002OEBMRU

Thanks - interesting.
>
>> Are you using Canon's scanning software? If so, you might fare
>>better with VueScan. I think
>> there is a free trial.
>
>Almost certainly it's a hardware fault, in which case I'm afraid this
>suggestion won't make an iota of difference ...

Yes, definitely a hardware fault - it does it as soon as I apply power
(with the USB cable) to it, before I've invoked the software.

VueScan is a Good Thing in that it enables old scanners to continue to
be used; however, in my case, my old scanner has died, and the number of
scanner models that _do_ have W7-32 drivers available is such that
choosing one that _doesn't_, and then getting VueScan to make it go,
wouldn't be cost-effective. (Yes, I know VueScan also offers an extra -
and/or better - "scanning experience", but it's its
make-old-scanners-work feature that's its main thing.)
>
>I suspect the problems with my CanoScan LiDE 300 were at least partly
[]
>all the scans. I tried dismantling and cleaning it. Afterwards, some

I looked at my 656, but couldn't see how to dismantle it, without
applying more force in places I wasn't willing to, plus the concern that
if I did open it, something might move that I didn't spot, and
thenceforward not work properly.
[]
>actually held together by double-sided sticky tape, which I'd had to

Or stickle-sided dubby tape, as a late friend called it!

>remove. FFS!!! can't we go back to using screws to assemble

Very much agree! (Another dislike is snap-together things.)
[]
>I dismantled it again, and underneath the plastic lip overlapping the
>glass at the front of the scanner, there was piece of strange white
>tape with a black mark, which, being apparently slightly damaged, I
>decided to remove completely. After I'd cleaned the insides thoroughly
>again, I re-assembled it, and that's when I first had the problem of
>the carriage progressing all the way to the back, stopping, and the
>machine being completely unresponsive thereafter.

I reckon I have something similar - it's not detecting some
index/feedback mark.
[]
>apparently behaviour of this sort is a common problem with CanoScans.

That's worrying, as the majority of the machines I'm looking at are
CanoScans.
[]
>So it was time to get a replacement, after some deliberation I went
>first for a CanoScan LiDE 400, a newer model than the one I'd already

On 2/2/2024 10:10 AM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> I'm looking to replace my Canon 656U (same as 650U other than silver case), which has developed the fault that whenever powered (by USB), it starts to track, until it reaches the end where it keeps going, making an unhappy noise. (It went through a phase where I could, by unplugging/replugging it and/or fiddling with the software, when I could stop it doing that and take a scan, but that seems to not work now.) If anyone knows what to do to fix that, please share ...
>
> Obviously, I want something that works with Windows 7 (32 bit).
>
> Looking at what's available, then going to Canon's website to make sure I can get drivers for 7-32 (that's another thing: with previous computers, such sites have usually diagnosed my OS correctly, but this time Canon and others think I'm running some version of W10), I find a vast number of models:
>
> LiDE 20/25/35/60/90/100/200/210/220/400, and 4400F/5200F/8600F, all seem to have drivers for 7-32 [please tell me if anyone knows that any of those _don't_]. (LiDE 30/50, and N640P/N670U/N1240U/D1250U2 seem not to have 7-32 drivers.)
>
> Any idea why there are so many models? Obviously there are various resolutions (and I think the F models - not LiDE, whatever that is - have film-handling hardware), but it seems a very large number of models!
>
> Also, I read in one of the reviews that for most home-type scanners, there's little point in having a resolution above a certain level (and I'm talking about optical resolution, not that silly interpolated thing), as the quality of the optics is such that you won't get any improvement above a certain level (1200 or 2400, I think), just a bigger file. Anyone have any view?

The resolution, could be a function of the optics, but more normally
it's a function of the subject matter.

Newsprint for example, has a very coarse dot pitch. For Nyquist sampling
at 2x the dot pitch, you don't need much. The next level up, would be
the dot pitch of a "fine art" book. There are books of photographs
at the book store, which are "printed on better paper" and they use
a finer printing process. Maybe 300 to 600 DPI is good enough for those.

The picture quality does not improve all that much,
when sampling above Nyquist.

For film scanning, there isn't a dot pitch. It's "grain size" that
affects the scanning choice. And at some point the optical path
is the limitation, and so increasing the scanner resolution then
is mismatched with optics. If you have shit optics, maybe you
don't need to go above 4800, because there would be no improvement
in results by doing so.

How much of the film grain industry remains ? People with slide
collections sometimes convert them, and that would be one source of
demand.

An LIDE should be good enough for paper scanning, but for film,
you might want something else. Some people buy the old shoe-box
slide scanners off Ebay, for a one-off conversion project.

The D of the scanner is Density. It's a log scale. A D of 3.2 is typical
for commodity scanners. A D of 4.0 might be a better one, which can
"pull detail from shadows" in film scanning. That would be a contrast
ratio of 10,000.

The BPP depends on the ADC connected to the scanning device.
8 BPP is normal for commodity scanners, giving say, a 24 bit BMP image.
But scanners also claim to scan 16 BPP, and that's only possible if
there is a good ADC. I can offer 16BPP and do this 1010101010000000.
That's a 10 bit ADC with 6 bits "nailed to zero" :-) They've also
done that to audio paths, pretend to offer HD qualities, then nail
the LSBs to zero.

A CMOS scanner has no depth of field, and can't scan into the binding
of a book. A CCD scanner has better depth of field. But the text still
might not be captured all the way to the binding. Mine is a CCD, but
then, the scanning resolution isn't all that impressive, so what of it.

There might still be drum scanners (with a laser head), but those require
the stock to conform to the curvature of the drum. The drum rotates at
high speed, as the scanning head steps across the drum width. You may find
some review articles where an ordinary scanner, is compared to a drum scan,
to show what the flat bed is "missing".

Paul

In message <upjghc$2o2if$1@dont-email.me> at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 14:41:32,
Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> writes
>On 2/2/2024 10:10 AM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> I'm looking to replace my Canon 656U (same as 650U other than silver
>>case), which has developed the fault that whenever powered (by USB),
[]
>> Obviously, I want something that works with Windows 7 (32 bit).

And that's _all_ I'm after, really - I was just a bit startled there
were so many models!
[]
>> Also, I read in one of the reviews that for most home-type scanners,
>>there's little point in having a resolution above a certain level (and
>>I'm talking about optical resolution, not that silly interpolated
>>thing), as the quality of the optics is such that you won't get any
>>improvement above a certain level (1200 or 2400, I think), just a
>>bigger file. Anyone have any view?
>
>The resolution, could be a function of the optics, but more normally
>it's a function of the subject matter.
>
>Newsprint for example, has a very coarse dot pitch. For Nyquist sampling
[]
>The picture quality does not improve all that much,
>when sampling above Nyquist.

I know Nyqist (I even have - somewhere! - a copy of his paper ["Certain
topics affecting telegraph theory", IIRR]. Not that I claim to
understand some of it!); much of my audio collection is half or quarter
the size it started out as because on examination it contained nothing
above 10 kHz (some 5), so I resaved it at 22050 or 11025 Hz (and as mono
if it was, despite being originally 44100 Hz stereo, as virtually
everything on YouTube is).
>
>For film scanning, there isn't a dot pitch. It's "grain size" that
>affects the scanning choice. And at some point the optical path
>is the limitation, and so increasing the scanner resolution then
>is mismatched with optics. If you have shit optics, maybe you
>don't need to go above 4800, because there would be no improvement
>in results by doing so.

The implication of what I read was that the optics in most scanners is
sufficiently shit that, in effect, there's no point in going better than
- unfortunately, I forget whether it was 1200 or 2400. Even if the
_mechanics_ are capable of stepping at 4800 or higher (finer?).
[]
>An LIDE should be good enough for paper scanning, but for film,
>you might want something else. Some people buy the old shoe-box
>slide scanners off Ebay, for a one-off conversion project.

For negatives and slides, I have dedicated devices; the flatbed would be
used for documents and the odd print.
[]
>A CMOS scanner has no depth of field, and can't scan into the binding
>of a book. A CCD scanner has better depth of field. But the text still

That's interesting, and explains why they specify. Though I'm still
puzzled how - with the same optics - different sensor types could have a
different depth of field - surely they're just pixels of a fixed size?
Or are you saying the type of sensor _determines_ some aspect of the
optics?
[]
>There might still be drum scanners (with a laser head), but those require
>the stock to conform to the curvature of the drum. The drum rotates at
>high speed, as the scanning head steps across the drum width. You may find
>some review articles where an ordinary scanner, is compared to a drum scan,
>to show what the flat bed is "missing".

Like the old facsimile machines! I don't think I've seen anything like
that for years if not decades, though as I don't work in publishing I
probably wouldn't know. But not really relevant to "which old flatbed
scanner should I buy" (-:! Interesting, though.
>
> Paul
John
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"... all your hard work in the hands of twelve people too stupid to get off
jury duty." CSI, 200x

On 02/02/2024 19:22, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>
> In message <upj8jv$2mldp$1@dont-email.me> at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 17:26:23,
> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> writes
>>
>> On 02/02/2024 15:40, croy wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 15:10:27 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver"
>>> <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  I'm looking to replace my Canon 656U (same as 650U other than silver
> []
>> I have a CanoScan LiDE 300 with a similar problem, but with mine, once
>> it gets to the far end, it just stops, becoming completely
>> unresponsive. See notes appended for a detailed history of this
>> complex fault, as well as a review of my current best scanner.
>>
>> Here I will summarise some considerations when choosing a scanner ...
>>
>> 1)  What is your source material?  In particular ...
>>
>>  A)  Do you need to scan photographic material, particularly negatives
>> & slides, and if either of these, what sizes are they?  Problem sizes
>> are old 120 film sizes and larger.  Mid-price scanners may have some
>> sort of attachment that can scan 35mm film and perhaps smaller such as
>> Instamatic, but not anything larger, to get which, you may have to go
>> up market.
>
> For negatives and slides, I have (at least two I think, because I bought
> one "new" when it was reduced to something ridiculously low and it
> seemed daft not to get it as a backup) scanners specifically for those.
> I don't think I've ever actually used them yet, but I know I have the
> negatives so they're in the "to do" cloud! (I definitely don't have
> enough tuits for my remaining lifespan!)
>
> I've often wondered - within the budget/medium price range, _do_ you get
> better results from scanning the negatives, or from scanning prints made
> when the photo-processing industry was at its height? From one point of
> view, you ought to always get better results from the original
> negatives, and certainly less cropping (prints from the average
> high/main street shop were _always_ not from the whole negative); but
> from the other point of view, unless you have a _very_ expensive
> negative scanner, you'll get more pixels - and thus more detail - from
> the print. For the average picture anyway - I know for dark or light
> images the print may have lost shadow or highlight detail.

In my experience, as long as both are in equal condition (in other words
without either being degraded markedly by time), you'll get better
results from the negative. There's the cropping that you mention, but
also the fact that in many prints the images were constructed from a dot
pattern that interacts with the resolution of the scanner. Here's an
example cropped from a family wedding photo (I can't show the whole
photo because I'd have to ask the permission of the people involved)
which I will have to rescan next time I visit those relatives:

https://www.macfh.co.uk/Temp/Print_Scan_Strobe.png

A similar thing can happen with photos in old newspaper cuttings &
printed illustrations in old books.

> I don't have any large-format negatives like 120. (I do have one strip
> of three negatives in the format (828 I think it's called) my dad's old
> camera took - 35mm wide film, but _without_ perforations, so the images
> were bigger than normal "35mm" film (I think that normal format is
> actually called 135).

I have something similar in the negatives taken by my old Brownie camera.

> You say "smaller such as Instamatic". "Instamatic" actually covered two
> formats, both coming in a cartridge you just dropped into the camera (no
> placing perforations over sprockets): 126 and 110. 126 was the default
> budget format throughout the 1970s, and for that reason, I'm puzzled
> that most "negative scanners" don't handle it properly. Normal 135
> format film uses 35mm wide film, with perforations down both sides, and
> (IIRR) 18 by 24mm images down the middle between the perforations. 126
> also uses 35mm wide film, but _without_ perforations down both sides -
> it has one, smaller, hole, once per frame, on one (the "bottom") side
> only. (The cameras had a pawl that detected that, to detect/determine
> whether the film had been would on to the next frame position.) The
> images were square, 28mm wide, extending from just above the (smaller)
> hole, almost to the opposite edge of the film. Thus, the negative
> holders that come with most such scanners - which have plastic that
> covers where the perforations would be along both edges - blank off (a
> little strip at the bottom and) a lot of the top of the image, and also
> tend to have a problem with the width. _Some_ scanners come with
> 126-format holders, but very few. (I think a lot of them have a sensor -
> basically a camera - that only _looks_ at the central 18 by 24 mm area
> anyway.) 110 format was a miniature version of the same idea - used I
> think 16mm film, but again not perforated like 16mm movie film but one
> hole per frame at one side only (the images were rectangular though, not
> square). It made for very small cameras, at least compared to the normal
> 135 and 126 format ones of the day! I had a Pentax SLR for the format, a
> lovely little thing (unfortunately the small film format meant it didn't
> do it justice).

You're probably right. Although I once worked in a photo-processing lab
as a gap year job, it was so long ago that I'm forgetting details like
the Instamatic sizes.

The new Epson does 35mm, the Brownie, & 120 negs all very well, but I
think the only Instamatic stuff I still have is from my ex-wife's camera
- of a Scottish walking holiday we took together, and a few of us
fooling about at home - which I scanned with the old HP, and probably
won't bother to rescan on the new machine.

>>  B)  Do you need to scan large quantities of similar sized material
>> where an Automatic Document Feeder mechanism would be useful?  Note
>> that most ADFs tend to be geared to standard paper sizes, usually
>> A4/Letter.
>
> No, I don't have need for such.
>
>>  C)  Do you need to scan large documents, such as old legal documents,
>> piecemeal and stitch the results together?  If so, absolutely you must
>> be able to completely remove the lid of the scanner.
>
> I don't _think_ that will be a problem.
>
>> 2)  What do you want from the results?  In particular ...
>>
>>  A)  Do you want to reproduce family photo albums, either virtually or
>> physically, and if virtually, what sort of format are you going to
>> use? A common one is PDF, so it might be useful if the scanning
>> software can produce PDF output directly.
>
> If I did want to do such a thing, I'd almost certainly want to edit it
> first, so I'd do that in a word processor (probably Word, sorry - though
> I do use the 2003 version), and then "print" it to PDF (I use PDF995,
> but there are several such "printer"s).

Yes, I use PDF-XChange Viewer, but there's some ability to do more than
just view. For example, it can OCR (see next point) which can be very
useful for scans of old historical printed sources which sometimes have
been made available online as raw scans, without having been OCR-ed.

>>  B)  Do you want to produce text output?  If so, you need Optical
>> Character Recognition (OCR) as an output option from the software.
>
> I _think_ that comes with most of them these days - but if it didn't,
> there are both free and paid-for OCR utilities around. I can't at the
> moment think of anywhere I'd want to do that anyway - certainly it won't
> affect my choice of scanner at this point.
>
>> Etc, etc ...  This is probably not a comprehensive list, search online
>> for other considerations.  In the end I replaced my CanoScan at some
>> extra-than-originally-intended expense with an Epson V900, which has
>> turned out pretty well, notwithstanding some minor issues.  Here's the
>> Amazon review of it I wrote, which also mentions aspects of my old HP
>> scanner as well as the CanoScan ...
>>
>> https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/customer-reviews/R23V41X74KLJ7U/ref=cm_cr_dp
>> _d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B002OEBMRU
>
> Thanks - interesting.
>
>>> Are you using Canon's scanning software?  If so, you might fare
>>> better with VueScan.  I think
>>> there is a free trial.
>>
>> Almost certainly it's a hardware fault, in which case I'm afraid this
>> suggestion won't make an iota of difference ...
>
> Yes, definitely a hardware fault - it does it as soon as I apply power
> (with the USB cable) to it, before I've invoked the software.
>
> VueScan is a Good Thing in that it enables old scanners to continue to
> be used; however, in my case, my old scanner has died, and the number of
> scanner models that _do_ have W7-32 drivers available is such that
> choosing one that _doesn't_, and then getting VueScan to make it go,
> wouldn't be cost-effective. (Yes, I know VueScan also offers an extra -
> and/or better - "scanning experience", but it's its
> make-old-scanners-work feature that's its main thing.)
>>
>> I suspect the problems with my CanoScan LiDE 300 were at least partly
> []
>> all the scans.  I tried dismantling and cleaning it.  Afterwards, some
>
> I looked at my 656, but couldn't see how to dismantle it, without
> applying more force in places I wasn't willing to, plus the concern that
> if I did open it, something might move that I didn't spot, and
> thenceforward not work properly.
> []
>> actually held together by double-sided sticky tape, which I'd had to
>
> Or stickle-sided dubby tape, as a late friend called it!
>
>> remove.  FFS!!! can't we go back to using screws to assemble
>
> Very much agree! (Another dislike is snap-together things.)
> []
>> I dismantled it again, and underneath the plastic lip overlapping the
>> glass at the front of the scanner, there was piece of strange white
>> tape with a black mark, which, being apparently slightly damaged, I
>> decided to remove completely.  After I'd cleaned the insides
>> thoroughly again, I re-assembled it, and that's when I first had the
>> problem of the carriage progressing all the way to the back, stopping,
>> and the machine being completely unresponsive thereafter.
>
> I reckon I have something similar - it's not detecting some
> index/feedback mark.
> []
>> apparently behaviour of this sort is a common problem with CanoScans.
>
> That's worrying, as the majority of the machines I'm looking at are
> CanoScans.
> []
>> So it was time to get a replacement, after some deliberation I went
>> first for a CanoScan LiDE 400, a newer model than the one I'd already
>
> A couple of the ones I'm monitoring are 400s. It looks pleasing
> aesthetically.
>
>> got, on the ground of ease of use, which then was cheapest in Argos,
>> even after driving 300 miles to Fraserburgh & back to collect the
>
> Ouch! No online supplier willing to post to you? 300 miles is a lot of
> fuel! (Or were you going that way anyway, for something else?)

"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

> VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> *WROTE*:
>
>>"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Also, I read in one of the reviews that for most home-type scanners,
>>> there's little point in having a resolution above a certain level (and
>>> I'm talking about optical resolution, not that silly interpolated
>>> thing), as the quality of the optics is such that you won't get any
>>> improvement above a certain level (1200 or 2400, I think), just a bigger
>>> file. Anyone have any view?
>
> (Any thoughts on that?)

I only care about the true resolution. Interpolation is okay for text
documents using simple fonts, or when the original is a bit grainy (but
interpolation can make the copy better or worse). For photos, I never
used the scanner for those. Only images in documents might be included,
and I might go up to 600 dpi for those. If a document is going to
rescanned and rescanned, I use the highest native resolution available
when saving into a file. Interpolation is a means to bloat the specs,
and as you mention will bloat the output file to save all those extra
pixels.

Interpolation works by adding more pixels between the existing ones, and
overlapping to provide graduation. The extra pixels are an average
(there are different algorithms) between the real pixels in the CCD
array of the scanner's light bar.

If you use your own camera to take photos, it may have a higher
resolution than your scanner's true resolution. Using the scanner's
true resolution which is smaller would make your photo look more grainy.
However, for most pics you get from the web, they're less than 600, and
more like 72 dpi. Monitors are in the range of 67-100 dpi. So what you
could scan into a file isn't what you'll get to see on your monitor.

The standard DPI in Windows is 96. When you get a monitor with higher
resolution, the same number of pixels are used for each character, so
the characters look smaller on a high resolution monitor. To make text
more legible, you up the DPI, so more pixels are used to paint a
character at the same size. I upped DPI in my Windows installs to 150%
(144 DPI). There are still some non-DPI aware programs that don't work
well with a higher DPI. Text gets truncated, windows get truncated,
etc. I'm not talking about monitor resolution which you should always
set at the monitor's native resolution; else, you end up with artifacts,
like fuzziness and color tinging again due to interpolation. I'm
talking about DPI (dots per inch) which is how many pixels are used
within the same sized dimension.

Interpolation with scanners, just like with monitors, is averaging more
pixels where they weren't before.

https://computer.howstuffworks.com/scanner3.htm

Buy based on true resolution. Interpolated resolution can be handy, but
don't expect to it do miracles on less-than-perfect originals. It might
a scanned copy look better than the original, but if you scan it again
the results may not be so good. You're scanning fuzz atop more fuzz.

>>category: skinny models that fit in a drawer, USB powered. Decide if
>>you want skinny to put in a drawer, or something that's fat atop the
>>desk. As I recall, mine broke when its light bar wouldn't move. I'd
>>hear the motor, but the bar barely jiggled.
>
> Maybe a stripped gear or snapped belt. But opening them up looks a pain.

You'd see a broken belt laying on the inside floor of the scanner. If
it isn't broke, the motor is probably too weak. There could also be
positioning sensors to detect to location of the light bar that have
failed, or misaligned.

>>When I went to the Canon site, took a bit to find any LiDe scanners.
>>Not listed under their Consumer category. Found 2 models under their
>
> I'm looking under the support section, where I'm not having much
> difficulty finding them.

Yep, for lots of old models. Are you planning on buying a Canon scanner
that has already been discontinued?

> I don't use the scanner much - mainly for keeping copies of documents,
> for which as you say 300 is usually sufficient. I do scan the odd photo,
> where more would be good - though for the prints I have, the quality is
> such that _much_ more than, I don't know, 1200?, would just make larger
> files for no benefit. Plus, that point that higher resolutions - even
> optical - may not be worthwhile as the optics aren't that good; any
> thoughts on that?

Digital 35mm has a resolution of 5.6K (5600x3620 pixels), or about 20
megapixels. On my old LG V20, it's camera has 8 MP. The Samsung Galaxy
S24 Ultra lists 4 resolutions:

https://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_galaxy_s24_ultra-12771.php

A scanner claiming 2400x2400 is only 5.7 MP, and that's interpolated.
What's the resolution of the device that sources the photo?

>>Do you want a MP unit that also had faxing capability? Most computers
>>theses days don't come with an analog modem that can do faxing. You'd
>>have to buy a fax card to occupy a mobo slot. Or you get a standalone
>>unit that does the faxing (and printing, and scanning, and feeding).
>
> I don't think I've ever sent a fax on my own account - from home,
> anyway; when in work I did a few, but not often. (I think there are
> services who'll do faxes for you - OK, not cheap, but given how few I
> send [0 so far], probably affordable.) And I work from laptop, so no
> mobo slots. (You can probably get USB fax - you could MoDem.)

Way back when I had a Winmodem DSP analog modem card in a mobo slot, I
did some faxing. The recipients I can remember were gov't agencies.
They're very old school. Forget trying to convince that unencrypted
e-mail is more secure than unencrypted faxing. Hell, you mention e-mail
and they pause on the call.

Nowadays I don't do any local faxing. I use a faxing service, like eFax
(https://www.efax.com/efax-free). I have a free account. Any faxes
received will keep a copy in my online account, and a copy gets sent to
my e-mail address. I'm surprised the account is still alive (I just
checked) since it's been years since I last used it. That's just to
receive faxes for free up to 10 faxes per month. To send requires a
paid Plus service tier. Another I looked at was FaxZero. They
watermarked your sent fax (i.e., they spamify it), 5 fax sends per day,
and max of 1 cover page and 3 doc pages. They're for sending faxes, not
receiving, managing, or forwarding them. Another is GotFreeFax, but
just for sending, not receiving. You could combine services: eFax Free
for receiving, and one of the online fax send services. Just remember
that you're using a service to do faxing, and these are not encrypted
faxes (that requires cooperating matched encrypt fax machines at each
end), so anything in your received or sent faxes can be seen by the
service provider.

In message <upjk2g$2om7c$1@dont-email.me> at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 20:41:52,
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> writes
>On 02/02/2024 19:22, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
[]
>> I've often wondered - within the budget/medium price range, _do_ you
>>get better results from scanning the negatives, or from scanning
>>prints made when the photo-processing industry was at its height?
[]
>In my experience, as long as both are in equal condition (in other
>words without either being degraded markedly by time), you'll get
>better results from the negative. There's the cropping that you
>mention, but also the fact that in many prints the images were
>constructed from a dot pattern that interacts with the resolution of
>the scanner. Here's an example cropped from a family wedding photo (I
>can't show the whole photo because I'd have to ask the permission of
>the people involved) which I will have to rescan next time I visit
>those relatives:
>
>https://www.macfh.co.uk/Temp/Print_Scan_Strobe.png
>
>A similar thing can happen with photos in old newspaper cuttings &
>printed illustrations in old books.

Yes, I'm familiar with the dot patterns in (almost) any sort of images
printed with ink (very coarse in newspapers, fine in books), but prints
made from negatives? Is your wedding photo one made fairly recently,
where some electronic scanning was involved? I'm pretty sure all the
prints in my family's records will have been made by shining light
through the negatives onto photographic paper then developing it, i. e.
no dot _pattern_ - just the grain of the negative and paper.
[]
>You're probably right. Although I once worked in a photo-processing
>lab as a gap year job, it was so long ago that I'm forgetting details
>like the Instamatic sizes.

The common - 126 - Instamatic format produced square pictures; that was
the way to recognise it (AFAIK no other format did, apart from one
version of the 120 roll film [the other was rectangular], and I don't
think people would have been bringing 120 roll film into high/main
street print shops).
[]
>>though I do use the 2003 version), and then "print" it to PDF (I use
>>PDF995, but there are several such "printer"s).
[]
>> Have you used it just as a flatbed, or have you used the
>>negative/slide functionality?
>
>Yes, read the fairly comprehensive Amazon review that I linked in my OP.

I've read the one that starts "There's an unusual thing." and mentions
prompt delivery. (If that's not the right one, I don't know how to
search Amazon reviews for a specific.)
>
>> Basically, I'm just after a replacement for my old 656U, as long as
>>it works with 7-32; obviously, if I get something with extra features
>>(such as film/slide handling) I won't say no, but only within a low
>>price range: I've already got expensive toys I don't have time to
>>play with! (The latest being a Winait [same as Wolverine, Reflecta,
>>and other names] scanner for 8mm film.)
>
>The Epson may well be too expensive for you then, but read the review,

Wow, just looked at the new price on Amazon - 12 or more times what I'm
thinking of spending!

>and I'll answer any further questions you may have about it then, if I
>can, but read it first, because there's no point in my regurgitating it
>all here when most people won't be interested in reading it.
>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.
-Thomas Henry Huxley, biologist (1825-1895)

On 2/2/2024 11:24 AM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> In message <lo3qrid1qeat8bp388fi32rheotto9f3fd@4ax.com> at Fri, 2 Feb
> 2024 10:53:23, gfretwell@aol.com writes
>> On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 15:10:27 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
>> wrote:
> []
>>> Also, I read in one of the reviews that for most home-type scanners,
>>> there's little point in having a resolution above a certain level (and
>>> I'm talking about optical resolution, not that silly interpolated
>>> thing), as the quality of the optics is such that you won't get any
>>> improvement above a certain level (1200 or 2400, I think), just a bigger
>>> file. Anyone have any view?
>
> (Any thoughts on that?)
>>
>> I feel your pain. I have a few scanners and they all have limited
>> driver support. It seems like they want you to buy a new scanner every
>> time you get a different OS. The hardware doesn't seem to change, just
>> the drivers.
>> That Vue Scan does support lots of old scanners but it might just be
>> cheaper to get a new scanner.
>
> In my case, it's for once that the scanner has died (at least, nine
> times out of ten - or more - when connected, it runs up to the end and
> keeps going, making unhappy noises). First time - that I can remember,
> anyway - I've actually had one actually fail. (I'm guessing the fault is
> trivial - probably just a track sensor loose - but am wary of trying to
> open it, lest tiny bits fall where they shouldn't; there doesn't seem to
> be a YouTube video, though the plethora of models doesn't help.) But
> there seem to be plenty of s/h scanners for which a 7-32 driver _is_
> available, for less than I think VueScan costs (let me just check: basic
> edition 24.95 pounds) - yes, I can get a LiDE 20/25/35/60 or a 5200F for
> less than that. (Anyone got any of those and got good/bad stories?)
also depends on how many scans you make. I do only 2 or 3 per month so
use VueScan and an old Epson Perfection 1650 and then do screen copy to
save or print.

Another alternative if sending to someone else is a smart phone.

In message <oqurhpd0vnyj.dlg@v.nguard.lh> at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 15:02:10,
VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> writes
>"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>
>> VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> *WROTE*:
>>
>>>"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Also, I read in one of the reviews that for most home-type scanners,
>>>> there's little point in having a resolution above a certain level (and
>>>> I'm talking about optical resolution, not that silly interpolated
>>>> thing), as the quality of the optics is such that you won't get any
>>>> improvement above a certain level (1200 or 2400, I think), just a bigger
>>>> file. Anyone have any view?
>>
>> (Any thoughts on that?)
>
>I only care about the true resolution. Interpolation is okay for text

No, I wasn't talking about interpolation: IMO, interpolation is the
worst snake-oil to have ever hit scanners: doing something in the
scanner which could be done in the computer does nothing but make a
bigger file that has to be sent over the USB lead (or whatever). [OK,
the scanner firmware _may_ have a better interpolation _algorithm_. But
not by much.]

No, the thing I read was saying that in many scanners, the optics -
lenses, or whatever - in the scanner isn't of good enough quality that
having more optical resolution (sensor elements in the scanner bar,
and/or being able to move in tiny steps) doesn't produce any improvement
(just, again, a bigger file, same as interpolation, or almost the same).
I was wondering if anyone had any view on (or experience of) the
suggestion.
[]
>Buy based on true resolution. Interpolated resolution can be handy, but

I would never do anything else. But the above suggestion is that "true
resolution" may be more than is necessary for the quality of the optical
components.
[]
>> Maybe a stripped gear or snapped belt. But opening them up looks a pain.
>
>You'd see a broken belt laying on the inside floor of the scanner. If
>it isn't broke, the motor is probably too weak. There could also be
>positioning sensors to detect to location of the light bar that have
>failed, or misaligned.

Yes, a feedback track that has slipped (or the sensor that reads it).
>
>>>When I went to the Canon site, took a bit to find any LiDe scanners.
>>>Not listed under their Consumer category. Found 2 models under their
>>
>> I'm looking under the support section, where I'm not having much
>> difficulty finding them.
>
>Yep, for lots of old models. Are you planning on buying a Canon scanner
>that has already been discontinued?

I'm not worried about whether it's been discontinued - I'm using Windows
7, after all (look where we're discussing this!); I just want to be sure
drivers are available to make it work with my laptop.
>
>> I don't use the scanner much - mainly for keeping copies of documents,
>> for which as you say 300 is usually sufficient. I do scan the odd photo,
>> where more would be good - though for the prints I have, the quality is
>> such that _much_ more than, I don't know, 1200?, would just make larger
>> files for no benefit. Plus, that point that higher resolutions - even
>> optical - may not be worthwhile as the optics aren't that good; any
>> thoughts on that?
>
>Digital 35mm has a resolution of 5.6K (5600x3620 pixels), or about 20

I presume "Digital 35mm" means digital cameras with a sensor about the
same size as the picture area (18 by 24 mm I think) on "35mm" (135
format) film.

>megapixels. On my old LG V20, it's camera has 8 MP. The Samsung Galaxy
>S24 Ultra lists 4 resolutions:
>
>https://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_galaxy_s24_ultra-12771.php
>
>A scanner claiming 2400x2400 is only 5.7 MP, and that's interpolated.
>What's the resolution of the device that sources the photo?

The only photos I'd be scanning would be ones taken with film cameras
(and printed chemically). Where resolution has no meaning, until you get
to grain size.
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.
-Thomas Henry Huxley, biologist (1825-1895)

On 02/02/2024 21:38, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>
> In message <upjk2g$2om7c$1@dont-email.me> at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 20:41:52,
> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> writes
>>
>> On 02/02/2024 19:22, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>>
>>>  I've often wondered - within the budget/medium price range, _do_ you
>>> get  better results from scanning the negatives, or from scanning
>>> prints made  when the photo-processing industry was at its height?
>>
>> In my experience, as long as both are in equal condition (in other
>> words without either being degraded markedly by time), you'll get
>> better results from the negative.  There's the cropping that you
>> mention, but also the fact that in many prints the images were
>> constructed from a dot pattern that interacts with the resolution of
>> the scanner.  Here's an example cropped from a family wedding photo (I
>> can't show the whole photo because I'd have to ask the permission of
>> the people involved) which I will have to rescan next time I visit
>> those relatives:
>>
>> https://www.macfh.co.uk/Temp/Print_Scan_Strobe.png
>>
>> A similar thing can happen with photos in old newspaper cuttings &
>> printed illustrations in old books.
>
> Yes, I'm familiar with the dot patterns in (almost) any sort of images
> printed with ink (very coarse in newspapers, fine in books), but prints
> made from negatives? Is your wedding photo one made fairly recently,
> where some electronic scanning was involved? I'm pretty sure all the
> prints in my family's records will have been made by shining light
> through the negatives onto photographic paper then developing it, i. e.
> no dot _pattern_ - just the grain of the negative and paper.

I have enlargements from the 60s or 70s which show this effect.

>>> Have you used it just as a flatbed, or have you used the
>>> negative/slide  functionality?
>>
>> Yes, read the fairly comprehensive Amazon review that I linked in my OP.
>
> I've read the one that starts "There's an unusual thing." and mentions
> prompt delivery. (If that's not the right one, I don't know how to
> search Amazon reviews for a specific.)

That's the one, but then you should have known that I'd used the scanner
for slides.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

In message <upjs8u$2q0s8$1@dont-email.me> at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 23:01:50,
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> writes
>On 02/02/2024 21:38, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>
>> In message <upjk2g$2om7c$1@dont-email.me> at Fri, 2 Feb 2024
>>20:41:52, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> writes
[]
>>> In my experience, as long as both are in equal condition (in other
>>>words without either being degraded markedly by time), you'll get
>>>better results from the negative.  There's the cropping that you
>>>mention, but also the fact that in many prints the images were
>>>constructed from a dot pattern that interacts with the resolution of
>>>the scanner.  Here's an example cropped from a family wedding photo
>>>(I can't show the whole photo because I'd have to ask the permission
>>>of the people involved) which I will have to rescan next time I visit those relatives:
>>>
>>> https://www.macfh.co.uk/Temp/Print_Scan_Strobe.png
>>>
>>> A similar thing can happen with photos in old newspaper cuttings &
>>>printed illustrations in old books.
>> Yes, I'm familiar with the dot patterns in (almost) any sort of
[]
>>developing it, i. e. no dot _pattern_ - just the grain of the
>>negative and paper.
>
>I have enlargements from the 60s or 70s which show this effect.

Interesting! What do you think is the cause? I remember seeing - though
not from which decade - a sort of hexagon patterning in the emulsion on
some prints (deliberate - I think it was some deliberate effect - maybe
trying to look like canvas?), but I think that was a lot coarser than
the pattern you illustrated, which looks more like a very fine screen
matrix as used in printing.
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

She didn't strike me as much of a reader. It's never a good sign if someone
has a leaflet with a bookmark in it. - Sarah Millican in Rdio Times, 17-23
November 2012

On 02/02/2024 23:21, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> In message <upjs8u$2q0s8$1@dont-email.me> at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 23:01:50,
> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> writes
>> On 02/02/2024 21:38, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>>
>>> In message <upjk2g$2om7c$1@dont-email.me> at Fri, 2 Feb 2024
>>> 20:41:52,  Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> writes
> []
>>>> In my experience, as long as both are in equal condition (in other
>>>> words without either being degraded markedly by time), you'll get
>>>> better results from the negative.  There's the cropping that you
>>>> mention, but also the fact that in many prints the images were
>>>> constructed from a dot pattern that interacts with the resolution of
>>>> the scanner.  Here's an example cropped from a family wedding photo
>>>> (I  can't show the whole photo because I'd have to ask the
>>>> permission of  the people involved) which I will have to rescan next
>>>> time I visit  those relatives:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.macfh.co.uk/Temp/Print_Scan_Strobe.png
>>>>
>>>> A similar thing can happen with photos in old newspaper cuttings &
>>>> printed illustrations in old books.
>>>  Yes, I'm familiar with the dot patterns in (almost) any sort of
> []
>>> developing it, i. e.  no dot _pattern_ - just the grain of the
>>> negative and paper.
>>
>> I have enlargements from the 60s or 70s which show this effect.

Actually, TBF, those show a similar but slightly different problem, as
described below ...

> Interesting! What do you think is the cause? I remember seeing - though
> not from which decade - a sort of hexagon patterning in the emulsion on
> some prints (deliberate - I think it was some deliberate effect - maybe
> trying to look like canvas?), but I think that was a lot coarser than
> the pattern you illustrated, which looks more like a very fine screen
> matrix as used in printing.

I think it's particularly noticeable on those that were done on matt as
opposed to glossy paper. I preferred matt paper because with glossy
paper you tended to just see reflections of windows in the room, etc.
However, that preference proved a disadvantage when I came to scan the
photos many years later. While for most of them I still had the negs
which gave better results anyway, because having been kept tidied away
in the interim they tended to be less scratched, nevertheless there were
one or two for which the negs were missing - I think in the interim
I'd probably noticed that they'd degraded beyond use and had to throw
them away - and for those I have the dot pattern of the matt paper in
the resulting scan. Here's an example, the photo was taken in the early
'60s, but I think the enlargement that was scanned was most probably
made around 1970 when I was working at the photo-lab. The effect is
nothing like as noticeable as in the last example, but if you download
the image and zoom in to it far enough, you can see quite clearly the
dot pattern of the matt surface of the paper. This image took quite a
lot of cleaning up, and when doing so I had to ensure not only that the
colour copied from elsewhere in the image was a good match, but that the
dot pattern matched as well, otherwise the fix was significantly more
obvious:

www.macfh.co.uk/Temp/Pap_Of_Glencoe_From_Across_Loch_Leven.png

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk