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?)

No, I wanted it in a hurry, and that was the nearest to Lairg, but it
turned out to be a question of more haste less speed, because I had to
return it, as described, although that at least was only to Inverness,
which I visit fairly regularly anyway.

>> 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.
>>
> 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.

> 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,
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.

--

Fake news kills!

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