Flatbed Scanner - From HP Scanjet IIc - To?

  • Thread starter Thread starter croy
  • Start date Start date
C

croy

I've been pretty happy with my HP Scanjet IIc, purchased not
long after they hit the market.

I like that it will scan 8.5" x 14".

I like that it still works as good as new.

I like that I was able, with a good bit of run-around, to
get it to work on Windows 7.


But...


I don't like that it won't do transparencies (at all).

I don't like that it's pretty old.

I don't like that it takes quite a while to get itself ready
to scan.

I don't like that I have to jump thru some hoops if the
scanner isn't turned on when the computer boots.

I don't like that it's SCSI only, and that seems to be a
fading interface.


I haven't even glanced at other scanners for well over a
decade. The features and prices vary by leaps and bounds. I
do NOT want to pay what I did for the Scanjet IIc!

I know that prices of scanners have generally come down, but
I don't know how to compare how it would "feel" to use
something more current.

For example, if a new scanner has a USB2 interface, would it
truly scan faster that the IIc?

What is the depth of field like on newer scanners--tighter?
More forgiving?

Do the flatbed scanners that will do transparencies do them
anywhere near as good as my Nikon LS-3000? Better?

I'm not sure if I would be willing to spend the money to get
something that would be just a little more convenient, but I
really don't know until I get some idea of how the modern
units stack up to what I have.

I'm hoping that a reader or two in this group could give
some guidance, without taking up much of their time.
 
I've been pretty happy with my HP Scanjet IIc, purchased not
long after they hit the market.

I like that it will scan 8.5" x 14".

I like that it still works as good as new.

I like that I was able, with a good bit of run-around, to
get it to work on Windows 7.


But...


I don't like that it won't do transparencies (at all).

I don't like that it's pretty old.

I don't like that it takes quite a while to get itself ready
to scan.

I don't like that I have to jump thru some hoops if the
scanner isn't turned on when the computer boots.

I don't like that it's SCSI only, and that seems to be a
fading interface.


I haven't even glanced at other scanners for well over a
decade. The features and prices vary by leaps and bounds. I
do NOT want to pay what I did for the Scanjet IIc!

I know that prices of scanners have generally come down, but
I don't know how to compare how it would "feel" to use
something more current.
Click to expand...
Subjective, but I feel the interface is better.
For example, if a new scanner has a USB2 interface, would it
truly scan faster that the IIc?
Click to expand...
I don't know how fast the HP is, but I'd guess modern USB scanners are
a bit faster.
What is the depth of field like on newer scanners--tighter?
More forgiving?
Click to expand...
Depends on the type of scanner. The very thin faltbeds have narrow
depth of fiels. TEH scanners with a substantual depth (about 2") seem
to have a good depth of field.
Do the flatbed scanners that will do transparencies do them
anywhere near as good as my Nikon LS-3000? Better?
Click to expand...

well, not nearly as good as my Coolscan IV, but surprisingly good on
large format film that won't fit the 35 mme only Coolscan IV.
I'm not sure if I would be willing to spend the money to get
something that would be just a little more convenient, but I
really don't know until I get some idea of how the modern
units stack up to what I have.
Click to expand...

Mine is an Epson Perfection V600 Photo. I really like it, it's pretty
quick, handles a lot of different types of content, and give
consistant results. I use it with Epson's software sometimes, and with
Vuescan sometimes.... works fine both ways.
 
Subjective, but I feel the interface is better.

I don't know how fast the HP is, but I'd guess modern USB scanners are
a bit faster.

Depends on the type of scanner. The very thin faltbeds have narrow
depth of fiels. TEH scanners with a substantual depth (about 2") seem
to have a good depth of field.


well, not nearly as good as my Coolscan IV, but surprisingly good on
large format film that won't fit the 35 mme only Coolscan IV.


Mine is an Epson Perfection V600 Photo. I really like it, it's pretty
quick, handles a lot of different types of content, and give
consistant results. I use it with Epson's software sometimes, and with
Vuescan sometimes.... works fine both ways.
Click to expand...

Your comments are much appreciated.
 
Back
Top