Difference between Document Scanner and Photo Scanner ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter rankbeginner
  • Start date Start date
R

rankbeginner

Hello and thanks very much in advance.
Can someone(s) help me to understand the difference between a Document
Scanner and a Photo Scanner ?

For example, the difference between these 3 scanners, all of them
interest me:

# 1: Canon DR-1210C ( Maximum Optical Resolution 600 dpi)
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2158466,00.asp

# 2: Canon CanoScan LiDE 600F ( Maximum Optical Resolution 4800 x
9600 dpi)
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,2082555,00.asp

# 3: Canon CanoScan 8600F ( Maximum Optical Resolution 4800 dpi)
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2135651,00.asp

My main use will be scanning text from old books, and then using OCR
software: either the comes-with-scanner stuff, or I can get Abbey
FineReader OCR software.
But in addition to scanning text, at times I will want to scan some
photographs..

Three questions jump to mind:
A. Is the 600 dpit scanner good enough for photos? ...
B. Will the 4800 dpi scanners do a good job with my text documents for
OCR? ...
C. Is the ONLY difference between a "Document Scanner" and a "Photo
Scanner" the maximum resolution?

Also, for me, I won't need the sheet-feed option in scanner # 1,
above.

Thanks for any help you can provide,

RB
 
Hello and thanks very much in advance.
Can someone(s) help me to understand the difference between a Document
Scanner and a Photo Scanner ?

For example, the difference between these 3 scanners, all of them
interest me:

# 1: Canon DR-1210C ( Maximum Optical Resolution 600 dpi)
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2158466,00.asp

# 2: Canon CanoScan LiDE 600F ( Maximum Optical Resolution 4800 x
9600 dpi)
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,2082555,00.asp

# 3: Canon CanoScan 8600F ( Maximum Optical Resolution 4800 dpi)
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2135651,00.asp

My main use will be scanning text from old books, and then using OCR
software: either the comes-with-scanner stuff, or I can get Abbey
FineReader OCR software.
But in addition to scanning text, at times I will want to scan some
photographs..

Three questions jump to mind:
A. Is the 600 dpit scanner good enough for photos? ...
Yes

B. Will the 4800 dpi scanners do a good job with my text documents for
OCR? ...
Yes

C. Is the ONLY difference between a "Document Scanner" and a "Photo
Scanner" the maximum resolution?

Also, for me, I won't need the sheet-feed option in scanner # 1,
above.

Thanks for any help you can provide,

RB
Click to expand...

Most OCR scans should be done at 300 PPI, or if the print is very
small, 600 PPI. Scanning at too high a resolution actually makes it
harder to do decent OCR.

If you have a LOT of documents to scan I'd recommend you look at
features other than resolution or whether the scanner is called
"photo" or not. for example, how easy is it to place a book on the
scanner? If you can't get the book pages to lie flat, witll the
scanner still make s good scan, or will the pages not in contact with
the glass procuce out-of-focus characters? And finally, how fast does
the scanner make a typical scan of a book page?
 
Hello and thanks very much in advance.
Can someone(s) help me to understand the difference between a Document
Scanner and a Photo Scanner ?

For example, the difference between these 3 scanners, all of them
interest me:

# 1: Canon DR-1210C ( Maximum Optical Resolution 600 dpi)
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2158466,00.asp

# 2: Canon CanoScan LiDE 600F ( Maximum Optical Resolution 4800 x
9600 dpi)
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,2082555,00.asp

# 3: Canon CanoScan 8600F ( Maximum Optical Resolution 4800 dpi)
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2135651,00.asp

My main use will be scanning text from old books, and then using OCR
software: either the comes-with-scanner stuff, or I can get Abbey
FineReader OCR software.
But in addition to scanning text, at times I will want to scan some
photographs..

Three questions jump to mind:
A. Is the 600 dpit scanner good enough for photos? ...
B. Will the 4800 dpi scanners do a good job with my text documents for
OCR? ...
C. Is the ONLY difference between a "Document Scanner" and a "Photo
Scanner" the maximum resolution?

Also, for me, I won't need the sheet-feed option in scanner # 1,
above.

Thanks for any help you can provide,

RB
Click to expand...

Normally the difference is that "Photo" scanners have the ability to scan
negatives and slides in addition to Documents.

The Lide scanners use a system which has very limited Depth of Focus, so
that anything not touching the glass will be unfocussed.

Roy G
 
These are all flatbed scanners.

The difference between a document and photo scanner is NOT the
resolution. In fact, there is no real difference in photo and document
scanners, in fact Epson in quite a few cases sells a "document"
(sometimes called "Office") and a "photo" version of the exact same scanner.

A good document scanner will come with an automatic document feeder.

A "photo" scanner usually comes with accessories for scanning
transparencies (negatives and slides).

SOME "photo" scanners have "Digital ICE". [This is truly important IF
you will be scanning color negatives and some types of color slides]

There may be differences in the bundled sofware ("photo" scanners may
come with photo editing software, Office or document scanners with
document organizing software).

As far as scanning printed images or actual photographs, there isn't
much of a difference, however (the big difference comes when you start
talking about slides and negatives where, really, a dedicated product is
better than any flatbed with a transparency adapter).

"Maximum resolutions" given for scanners are often "interpolated"
resolutions, which are not "real" in the first place and which in my
view should be disregarded. Only true optical resolution counts, so be
sure that this is what you are comparing.

In my experience, there are VERY few times when you want to scan printed
images at more than 600 dpi, but a scanner with a MAXIMUM optical
resolution that LOW is really rare these days. 1,200, 2,400 or even
4,800 is more common in quality products.

[For text and documents, you very rarely want to scan at a resolution of
more than 300 dpi.]

If you are scanning negatives or slides, you want to be able to end up
with a minimum of about 3,000 x 2,000 pixels (pixels ... not pixels per
inch), which for a 35mm negative or slide will require about a 2,400 dpi
true hardware optical resolution.

If you are scanning documents, don't underestimate the ADF capability.
I used to think that they were a specialized item for businesses. Now I
would not have a scanner without one. Although agreed, they are not for
photographs (one thing you can do with them, however, is scan legal
documents on scanners that only have an 8.5" x 11" scanning glass, since
when using an ADF, the scanning head stays stationary and the document
moves and there is NO length limitation).

I've used a lot of scanners, including quite a few HP's that were very
specifically primarily designed for document use, and an Epson 4490
"photo" scanner (with digital ICE) and some Nikon film and slide
scanners. For printed photographs (meaning any photo on paper, be it a
magazine, inkjet print or a true chemically developed photograph), it
really makes no difference which scanner you use. However, for
negatives and slides, dedicated negative and slide scanners (like the
Nikon models) beat the pants off of even the best flatbed photo scanners
with transparency adapters, and don't even think of doing color negative
scanning on any scanner that does not have "Digital ICE".
 
Agreed that the original poster is FAR too fixated on resolution, which
in the end is among the least important characteristics of a scanner,
and all scanners in current production have enough resolution for almost
any task at all, photo or document.
 
Nikon models) beat the pants off of even the best flatbed photo scanners
with transparency adapters, and don't even think of doing color negative
scanning on any scanner that does not have "Digital ICE".
Click to expand...
Hi.

Your response was very concise.

However, I use a dedicated Film Scanner, mostly for Col Negative and find
that I very rarely ever need Digital ICE.

Having come from Wet Darkroom experience, I always made sure that my negs
were properly stored, and a quick run over with a mini battery vacuum just
before use, ensured dust was eliminated.

Scratched Slides and Negs are a sure sign of careless handling.

The same techniques work with a Scanner, and not using Dig ICE speeds up the
scan process more than a little.

Roy G
 
Hi.

Your response was very concise.

However, I use a dedicated Film Scanner, mostly for Col Negative and find
that I very rarely ever need Digital ICE.

Having come from Wet Darkroom experience, I always made sure that my negs
were properly stored, and a quick run over with a mini battery vacuum just
before use, ensured dust was eliminated.

Scratched Slides and Negs are a sure sign of careless handling.

The same techniques work with a Scanner, and not using Dig ICE speeds up the
scan process more than a little.

Roy G
Click to expand...


All well and good if you do your own film processing.

As far as I'm concerned digital "ICE" is nothing short of magic,
and for a few years it kept open the possibility of shooting film
while processing and printing digitally.

Before dICE was available, I'd become an expert at retouching
in Photoshop, but it was intensely time-consuming. I tried all
sorts of film-processing facilities -- including some professional
labs -- and there was no way to guarantee clean processing
and handling. Some of the worst offenses came from the
"professional" labs. It was almost always hit-or-miss.

I have some wet-darkoom experience (from about 35 years
ago) but it was almost all BW. In fact, that old Omega B22XL
enlarger is still in my basement. It probably was last used
around 1980, I'd guess. I experimented a bit with Ciba
chemistry and E6 processing, but it was too much of a
bother.

In any case, most of that is moot nowadays, as nearly all
of my casual shooting is digital. For my MF and LF film
scanning, I'd never consider a film scanner without dICE,
unless it was a drum scanner.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
 
Thanks, everyone. This discussion is especially useful to me, as a
scanning beginner.

I'm getting the idea that of the 3 Canons I found, the document
scanner is the right choice for me: I don't need the super-resolution
power of the photo scanners.

The document scanner I'm interested in, the Canon DR-1210C, has a duty
cycle of 400 scans per day.

Is that a lot or a little compared to the average scanner? ...

Thanks again ... RB
 
Re: "Scratched Slides and Negs are a sure sign of careless handling."

You must lead a charmed life. In my experience, while I really don't
necessarily disagree with your comment, scratched slides and negatives,
as well as dust are a sign of normal handling. [Please note that
careless and normal in this context in no way contradict each other.]
Also, you may be dealing with recent work, but most of what I have been
scanning is consumer negatives that are decades old (some more than 5
decades old). I would not buy a scanner for film scanning without
Digital ICE. Also, FWIW, on the Nikon scanners, the speed impact isn't
that great, as a separate pass is not required (there's another thread
 
I don't think that anyone ever worrys about duty cycle. In fact, I've
never seen it quoted.
 
I come from a wet darkroom background too, and dust was a pain in the ass.
I kept things properly, and cleaned before printing, but there was always a spec
or two that had to be chased down. That was tolerable if I was printing one
neg each Saturday morning, but I recently scanned a show of about 150 slides,
and it woulda looked like shit if not for Digital ICE. A HUGE attaboy.
 
Hello and thanks very much in advance.
Can someone(s) help me to understand the difference between a Document
Scanner and a Photo Scanner ?

For example, the difference between these 3 scanners, all of them
interest me:

# 1: Canon DR-1210C ( Maximum Optical Resolution 600 dpi)http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2158466,00.asp

# 2: Canon CanoScan LiDE 600F ( Maximum Optical Resolution 4800 x
9600 dpi)http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,2082555,00.asp

# 3: Canon CanoScan 8600F ( Maximum Optical Resolution 4800 dpi)http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2135651,00.asp

My main use will be scanning text from old books, and then using OCR
software: either the comes-with-scanner stuff, or I can get Abbey
FineReader OCR software.
But in addition to scanning text, at times I will want to scan some
photographs..

Three questions jump to mind:
A. Is the 600 dpit scanner good enough for photos? ...
B. Will the 4800 dpi scanners do a good job with my text documents for
OCR? ...
C. Is the ONLY difference between a "Document Scanner" and a "Photo
Scanner" the maximum resolution?

Also, for me, I won't need the sheet-feed option in scanner # 1,
above.

Thanks for any help you can provide,

RB
Click to expand...


Remember scanners are a, you get what you pay for item. Pay the extra
$s and you get a better built machine that will probably do a better
job for you, by being faster and more acurate. If you are scanning
books, well constructed scanner is imparitive as you sometimes have to
compress the book to get what is in the center seem (gutter?).
Resolution is often over blown, again for OCR you work at 300ppi, for
photos it depends on how large they are and what the reproduction size
will be. For the PowerPoint shows I set up I use 200-600ppi the latter
being with very small photos, the final destination is 8x10 @ 100ppi.
For negs and slides the new Epson scanners, V700, V750, come very
close to the Nikon film scanners. This is a flatbed that is not "blown
away" by dedicated film scanners, I have heard good things about the
Canon 8600 too. i use the V700 for my LF negs and transparencies, when
printing to 11x14 or 16x20 I can see grain in B&W, about as much as
traditional printing, so I'm happy with it.
I use digital ice sparingly, just because of the scan time factor, in
my job I often have 100s of slides to scan. If they come in in sleeves
I generally don't use DI, if they come in in trays, DI goes on. If I
run into a lot of dust of course I'll use DI, then it is the time
saver.

Tom
 
Talker said:
Re: "Scratched Slides and Negs are a sure sign of careless handling."

You must lead a charmed life. In my experience, while I really don't
necessarily disagree with your comment, scratched slides and negatives,
as well as dust are a sign of normal handling. [Please note that
careless and normal in this context in no way contradict each other.]
Also, you may be dealing with recent work, but most of what I have been
scanning is consumer negatives that are decades old (some more than 5
decades old). I would not buy a scanner for film scanning without
Digital ICE. Also, FWIW, on the Nikon scanners, the speed impact isn't
that great, as a separate pass is not required (there's another thread
.Snipped>>>
Nikon models) beat the pants off of even the best flatbed photo scanners
with transparency adapters, and don't even think of doing color negative
scanning on any scanner that does not have "Digital ICE".


Hi.

Your response was very concise.

However, I use a dedicated Film Scanner, mostly for Col Negative and find
that I very rarely ever need Digital ICE.

Having come from Wet Darkroom experience, I always made sure that my negs
were properly stored, and a quick run over with a mini battery vacuum just
before use, ensured dust was eliminated.

Scratched Slides and Negs are a sure sign of careless handling.

The same techniques work with a Scanner, and not using Dig ICE speeds up the
scan process more than a little.

Roy G
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree Barry, no matter how carefully negatives are
handled, there will always be some scratches. I found this to be the
case numerous times with negatives that were just obtained from the
photo developer. I took them out of the plastic sleeve (I wear lint
free gloves), and I placed the negatives in the scanning tray of the
slide scanner. Before I inserted the tray into the scanner, I blew
them off with compressed air. When I scanned them, they looked like
they had been laying around, loose, in a silverware drawer, for a few
years. The scratches were a real pain.
This has happened to me numerous times over the years, and I
can't help but wonder what they do to the pictures at the
developers.(several different ones.) Heck, I didn't have anywhere
near that many scratches when I developed film as a kid (12 years old)
in my basement, and back then, I used a developing kit with a plastic
developing drum for the negatives, and a cardboard box with a light
bulb stuck in the top of it, to expose the photo paper.<g>
Click to expand...

Hi Talker...

Another flashback.... I too developed my own back about 60 years ago,
in the windowless bathroom in the basement Guess I must have saved
a bit more of my allowance, 'cause I had a real contact printer :)

I think that's the key here, we used contact printing, so scratches
and dust on the film would have been miniscule on our prints - virtually
invisible.

Thanks for the flashback :)

Take care.

Ken
 
Re: "Scratched Slides and Negs are a sure sign of careless handling."

You must lead a charmed life. In my experience, while I really don't
necessarily disagree with your comment, scratched slides and negatives,
as well as dust are a sign of normal handling. [Please note that
careless and normal in this context in no way contradict each other.]
Also, you may be dealing with recent work, but most of what I have been
scanning is consumer negatives that are decades old (some more than 5
decades old). I would not buy a scanner for film scanning without
Digital ICE. Also, FWIW, on the Nikon scanners, the speed impact isn't
that great, as a separate pass is not required (there's another thread
Hi.

Your response was very concise.

However, I use a dedicated Film Scanner, mostly for Col Negative and find
that I very rarely ever need Digital ICE.

Having come from Wet Darkroom experience, I always made sure that my negs
were properly stored, and a quick run over with a mini battery vacuum just
before use, ensured dust was eliminated.

Scratched Slides and Negs are a sure sign of careless handling.

The same techniques work with a Scanner, and not using Dig ICE speeds up the
scan process more than a little.

Roy G
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree Barry, no matter how carefully negatives are
handled, there will always be some scratches. I found this to be the
case numerous times with negatives that were just obtained from the
photo developer. I took them out of the plastic sleeve (I wear lint
free gloves), and I placed the negatives in the scanning tray of the
slide scanner. Before I inserted the tray into the scanner, I blew
them off with compressed air. When I scanned them, they looked like
they had been laying around, loose, in a silverware drawer, for a few
years. The scratches were a real pain.
This has happened to me numerous times over the years, and I
can't help but wonder what they do to the pictures at the
developers.(several different ones.) Heck, I didn't have anywhere
near that many scratches when I developed film as a kid (12 years old)
in my basement, and back then, I used a developing kit with a plastic
developing drum for the negatives, and a cardboard box with a light
bulb stuck in the top of it, to expose the photo paper.<g>

Talker
 
Back
Top