Trying to scan a lot of photos on a flatbed scanner has exhausted my
patience so I've decided to buy something with an auto feed and a
straight paper path. The Fujitsu ScanSnap iX500 is favourite at the
moment - but there are lots out there to choose from. Any recommendations?

Have you considered a scanning service? I used an outfit called Pixsave for hundreds of old slides and negatives.

Ant.

On Fri, 24 Nov 2017 22:08:50 +0000, bin wrote:

Trying to scan a lot of photos on a flatbed scanner has exhausted my
patience so I've decided to buy something with an auto feed and a
straight paper path. The Fujitsu ScanSnap iX500 is favourite at the
moment - but there are lots out there to choose from. Any
recommendations?

I was bought an ix500 for a task at work. I loved it.

So much so that I bought one for myself, and have scanned about 60,000
pages with it. These were things from my office that I wanted to keep but
didn't have room for when I 'retired'.

The software is excellent, not a low quality add-on like so much else
tends to be.

I guess my only (small) reservation is that it scans only to PDF and JPEG
- no lossless scanning.



--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On 24/11/2017 22:08, wrote:
Trying to scan a lot of photos on a flatbed scanner has exhausted my
patience so I've decided to buy something with an auto feed and a
straight paper path. The Fujitsu ScanSnap iX500 is favourite at the
moment - but there are lots out there to choose from. Any recommendations?

Have you considered photographing them? The set-up takes a while but
then it's very quick. I use a greenhouse as a studio and choose a cloudy
day. I've done thousands of archive pictures that way.

Bill

A bit on the chilly side at the moment though I'd imagine.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Bill Wright" wrote in message
news
On 24/11/2017 22:08, wrote:
Trying to scan a lot of photos on a flatbed scanner has exhausted my
patience so I've decided to buy something with an auto feed and a
straight paper path. The Fujitsu ScanSnap iX500 is favourite at the
moment - but there are lots out there to choose from. Any
recommendations?

Have you considered photographing them? The set-up takes a while but then
it's very quick. I use a greenhouse as a studio and choose a cloudy day.
I've done thousands of archive pictures that way.

Bill

On 24/11/2017 23:12, Bob Eager wrote:
On Fri, 24 Nov 2017 22:08:50 +0000, bin wrote:

Trying to scan a lot of photos on a flatbed scanner has exhausted my
patience so I've decided to buy something with an auto feed and a
straight paper path. The Fujitsu ScanSnap iX500 is favourite at the
moment - but there are lots out there to choose from. Any
recommendations?

I was bought an ix500 for a task at work. I loved it.

So much so that I bought one for myself, and have scanned about 60,000
pages with it. These were things from my office that I wanted to keep but
didn't have room for when I 'retired'.

The software is excellent, not a low quality add-on like so much else
tends to be.

I guess my only (small) reservation is that it scans only to PDF and JPEG
- no lossless scanning.



That's good to hear. Some reviews say flesh tones have a slight pinky
tinge compared to the original, have you noticed anything like that?

Most of my pics are family snaps, destined for display on a digital
picture frame - and from what I've read (which isn't very much) JPEGs at
300x300 are OK for that. Does that sound reasonable?

On 25/11/2017 02:53, Bill Wright wrote:
On 24/11/2017 22:08, wrote:
Trying to scan a lot of photos on a flatbed scanner has exhausted my
patience so I've decided to buy something with an auto feed and a
straight paper path. The Fujitsu ScanSnap iX500 is favourite at the
moment - but there are lots out there to choose from. Any
recommendations?

Have you considered photographing them? The set-up takes a while but
then it's very quick. I use a greenhouse as a studio and choose a cloudy
day. I've done thousands of archive pictures that way.

Bill
I did, but I've only got a phone camera. Also, the faff of having to lay
them all out on some sort of grid didn't really appeal

On Saturday, 25 November 2017 10:23:26 UTC, wrote:
Most of my pics are family snaps, destined for display on a digital
picture frame - and from what I've read (which isn't very much) JPEGs at
300x300 are OK for that. Does that sound reasonable?

If you're going to the effort of scanning, at least scan them at a reasonable resolution.

At some point you will want to look at them on something bigger than a 4" screen.

Owain

On Sat, 25 Nov 2017 10:23:22 +0000, bin wrote:

On 24/11/2017 23:12, Bob Eager wrote:
On Fri, 24 Nov 2017 22:08:50 +0000, bin wrote:

Trying to scan a lot of photos on a flatbed scanner has exhausted my
patience so I've decided to buy something with an auto feed and a
straight paper path. The Fujitsu ScanSnap iX500 is favourite at the
moment - but there are lots out there to choose from. Any
recommendations?

I was bought an ix500 for a task at work. I loved it.

So much so that I bought one for myself, and have scanned about 60,000
pages with it. These were things from my office that I wanted to keep
but didn't have room for when I 'retired'.

The software is excellent, not a low quality add-on like so much else
tends to be.

I guess my only (small) reservation is that it scans only to PDF and
JPEG - no lossless scanning.



That's good to hear. Some reviews say flesh tones have a slight pinky
tinge compared to the original, have you noticed anything like that?

Most of my pics are family snaps, destined for display on a digital
picture frame - and from what I've read (which isn't very much) JPEGs at
300x300 are OK for that. Does that sound reasonable?

I have mainly scanned documents, but haven't had trouble with colours.
Always adjustable afterwards, anyway.

The post-scan tools are pretty good, although they don't go as far as
colour manipulation.




--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On Sat, 25 Nov 2017 17:49:41 +0000, pamela wrote:

On 23:12 24 Nov 2017, Bob Eager wrote:

On Fri, 24 Nov 2017 22:08:50 +0000, bin wrote:

Trying to scan a lot of photos on a flatbed scanner has exhausted my
patience so I've decided to buy something with an auto feed and a
straight paper path. The Fujitsu ScanSnap iX500 is favourite at the
moment - but there are lots out there to choose from. Any
recommendations?

I was bought an ix500 for a task at work. I loved it.

So much so that I bought one for myself, and have scanned about 60,000
pages with it.

60,000 pages is very impressive. Must have taken a lot of time.

Actually 63,201 to date (just checked). And that's sheets, not sides -
nearly twice that in sides, as it's auto duplex (scans both sides at
once). It does 25 sheets/minute.



--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On 25/11/2017 10:29, wrote:

Have you considered photographing them? The set-up takes a while but
then it's very quick. I use a greenhouse as a studio and choose a
cloudy day. I've done thousands of archive pictures that way.

Bill
I did, but I've only got a phone camera. Also, the faff of having to lay
them all out on some sort of grid didn't really appeal

OK.

Bill

On 25/11/2017 19:58, Bob Eager wrote:
On Sat, 25 Nov 2017 17:49:41 +0000, pamela wrote:

On 23:12 24 Nov 2017, Bob Eager wrote:

On Fri, 24 Nov 2017 22:08:50 +0000, bin wrote:

Trying to scan a lot of photos on a flatbed scanner has exhausted my
patience so I've decided to buy something with an auto feed and a
straight paper path. The Fujitsu ScanSnap iX500 is favourite at the
moment - but there are lots out there to choose from. Any
recommendations?

I was bought an ix500 for a task at work. I loved it.

So much so that I bought one for myself, and have scanned about 60,000
pages with it.

60,000 pages is very impressive. Must have taken a lot of time.

Actually 63,201 to date (just checked). And that's sheets, not sides -
nearly twice that in sides, as it's auto duplex (scans both sides at
once). It does 25 sheets/minute.

I'm getting more tempted by the minute, but I can't find any good deals
on it at the moment.

On Sat, 25 Nov 2017 10:29:47 +0000, wrote:


Have you considered photographing them? The set-up takes a while but
then it's very quick. I use a greenhouse as a studio and choose a cloudy
day. I've done thousands of archive pictures that way.

Bill
I did, but I've only got a phone camera. Also, the faff of having to lay
them all out on some sort of grid didn't really appeal

I think you mis-understand. Why would you need to lay them out? Just
photograph them one at a time. Better if you can put the phone in a
clamp to hold it in place. Be mutch faster than scanning. Be even
better if you could borrow a proper camera, even a compact one. The
lens/quality would be much better.

On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 10:46:47 +0000, Peter Johnson wrote:

On Sat, 25 Nov 2017 10:29:47 +0000, wrote:


Have you considered photographing them? The set-up takes a while but
then it's very quick. I use a greenhouse as a studio and choose a
cloudy day. I've done thousands of archive pictures that way.

Bill
I did, but I've only got a phone camera. Also, the faff of having to lay
them all out on some sort of grid didn't really appeal

I think you mis-understand. Why would you need to lay them out? Just
photograph them one at a time. Better if you can put the phone in a
clamp to hold it in place. Be mutch faster than scanning. Be even better
if you could borrow a proper camera, even a compact one. The
lens/quality would be much better.

I would dispute 'much faster than scanning'. The scanner we've been
discussing is a c ase of 'stick the item in the top, press the button,
repeat'.




--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 10:46:47 +0000, Peter Johnson wrote:

On Sat, 25 Nov 2017 10:29:47 +0000, wrote:


Have you considered photographing them? The set-up takes a while but
then it's very quick. I use a greenhouse as a studio and choose a
cloudy day. I've done thousands of archive pictures that way.

Bill
I did, but I've only got a phone camera. Also, the faff of having to lay
them all out on some sort of grid didn't really appeal

I think you mis-understand. Why would you need to lay them out? Just
photograph them one at a time. Better if you can put the phone in a
clamp to hold it in place. Be mutch faster than scanning. Be even better
if you could borrow a proper camera, even a compact one. The
lens/quality would be much better.

I would dispute 'much faster than scanning'. The scanner we've been
discussing is a c ase of 'stick the item in the top, press the button,
repeat'.

Yes but cameras take a photo in a fraction of a second whereas scanners only
"see" a narrow strip (maybe one pixel wide) at any instant so they have to
move the scanning head over the photo. This means that the time between
pressing the button and being able to remove the photo and replace it with
another one will be several seconds - maybe 20-30 for a large photo and high
resolution. But the quality will probably be better - no geometric
distortion and less chance of reflections off the surface of the photo.

The same moving head scanning applies to photocopiers where a light
illuminates a narrow strip of the original which it focussed onto the drum
as it rotates. However I remember the photocopier we had at university used
a Xenon flash and exposed the whole of the original in a brief flash, which
suggests that the photo-sensitive material was on a flat plate rather than a
drum. Made damn good photocopies, too.

On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 12:08:53 +0000, NY wrote:

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 10:46:47 +0000, Peter Johnson wrote:

On Sat, 25 Nov 2017 10:29:47 +0000, wrote:


Have you considered photographing them? The set-up takes a while but
then it's very quick. I use a greenhouse as a studio and choose a
cloudy day. I've done thousands of archive pictures that way.

Bill
I did, but I've only got a phone camera. Also, the faff of having to
lay them all out on some sort of grid didn't really appeal

I think you mis-understand. Why would you need to lay them out? Just
photograph them one at a time. Better if you can put the phone in a
clamp to hold it in place. Be mutch faster than scanning. Be even
better if you could borrow a proper camera, even a compact one. The
lens/quality would be much better.

I would dispute 'much faster than scanning'. The scanner we've been
discussing is a c ase of 'stick the item in the top, press the button,
repeat'.

Yes but cameras take a photo in a fraction of a second whereas scanners
only "see" a narrow strip (maybe one pixel wide) at any instant so they
have to move the scanning head over the photo. This means that the time
between pressing the button and being able to remove the photo and
replace it with another one will be several seconds - maybe 20-30 for a
large photo and high resolution. But the quality will probably be better
- no geometric distortion and less chance of reflections off the surface
of the photo.

The scanner to which I refer runs at 25 pages/minute. So about 2.5
seconds for the physical scan. A bit slower for very high resolution.



--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On 26/11/2017 13:40, Bob Eager wrote:
On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 12:08:53 +0000, NY wrote:

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 10:46:47 +0000, Peter Johnson wrote:

On Sat, 25 Nov 2017 10:29:47 +0000, wrote:


Have you considered photographing them? The set-up takes a while but
then it's very quick. I use a greenhouse as a studio and choose a
cloudy day. I've done thousands of archive pictures that way.

Bill
I did, but I've only got a phone camera. Also, the faff of having to
lay them all out on some sort of grid didn't really appeal

I think you mis-understand. Why would you need to lay them out? Just
photograph them one at a time. Better if you can put the phone in a
clamp to hold it in place. Be mutch faster than scanning. Be even
better if you could borrow a proper camera, even a compact one. The
lens/quality would be much better.

I would dispute 'much faster than scanning'. The scanner we've been
discussing is a c ase of 'stick the item in the top, press the button,
repeat'.

Yes but cameras take a photo in a fraction of a second whereas scanners
only "see" a narrow strip (maybe one pixel wide) at any instant so they
have to move the scanning head over the photo. This means that the time
between pressing the button and being able to remove the photo and
replace it with another one will be several seconds - maybe 20-30 for a
large photo and high resolution. But the quality will probably be better
- no geometric distortion and less chance of reflections off the surface
of the photo.

The scanner to which I refer runs at 25 pages/minute. So about 2.5
seconds for the physical scan. A bit slower for very high resolution.



I've ordered one (an ix500) and will report back

On 25/11/2017 10:23, wrote:
On 24/11/2017 23:12, Bob Eager wrote:
On Fri, 24 Nov 2017 22:08:50 +0000, bin wrote:

Trying to scan a lot of photos on a flatbed scanner has exhausted my
patience so I've decided to buy something with an auto feed and a
straight paper path. The Fujitsu ScanSnap iX500 is favourite at the
moment - but there are lots out there to choose from. Any
recommendations?

I was bought an ix500 for a task at work. I loved it.

So much so that I bought one for myself, and have scanned about 60,000
pages with it. These were things from my office that I wanted to keep but
didn't have room for when I 'retired'.

The software is excellent, not a low quality add-on like so much else
tends to be.

I guess my only (small) reservation is that it scans only to PDF and JPEG
- no lossless scanning.

That is odd on most scanners they usually offer PNG lossless as well.

That's good to hear. Some reviews say flesh tones have a slight pinky
tinge compared to the original, have you noticed anything like that?

Most of my pics are family snaps, destined for display on a digital
picture frame - and from what I've read (which isn't very much) JPEGs at
300x300 are OK for that. Does that sound reasonable?

If you are going to the trouble of scanning them then 600dpi is worth it
and if the original is in any way precious saved as a lossless format.
If it is something rare an was a contact print off a large negative then
an even higher resolution might be justified to capture all the detail.

JPEGs you need to decide on a quality and a chroma subsampling strategy.
If the image contains fine black detail on blue or red then no
subsampling will produce a visibly better result. JPEG Quality allows
everything from nearly perfect rendition to surreal cubism at the other
extreme. I'd recommend using highest quality for original scans.

Images will look better if downsampled to the native size of the display
you intend to show them on Irfanview will automate that.

For moderate numbers of images a tripod and a decent camera will be
faster, but you will need to do some post processing either way if you
want to get the best representation of the orginals.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 09:33:47 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:

The software is excellent, not a low quality add-on like so much else
tends to be.

I guess my only (small) reservation is that it scans only to PDF and
JPEG - no lossless scanning.

That is odd on most scanners they usually offer PNG lossless as well.

Just telling you how it is!

If you are going to the trouble of scanning them then 600dpi is worth it
and if the original is in any way precious saved as a lossless format.
If it is something rare an was a contact print off a large negative then
an even higher resolution might be justified to capture all the detail.

The ix500 will do 600dpi colour, 1200dpi B&W.

JPEGs you need to decide on a quality and a chroma subsampling strategy.
If the image contains fine black detail on blue or red then no
subsampling will produce a visibly better result. JPEG Quality allows
everything from nearly perfect rendition to surreal cubism at the other
extreme. I'd recommend using highest quality for original scans.

The scanner software doesn't give numbers, but allows 5 levels of
compression.

--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2017-11-27, Martin Brown wrote:

[30 lines snipped]

If you are going to the trouble of scanning them then 600dpi is worth it
and if the original is in any way precious saved as a lossless format.
If it is something rare an was a contact print off a large negative then
an even higher resolution might be justified to capture all the detail.

I scanned some family ancestor portrait watercolours (*)(about A4 sized)
at 1200dpi lossless PNG, although when I took them to be printed the print
shop said "Can we have JPGs?". Sigh. Although, once framed, the copies
were indistinguishable from the originals at normal viewing distance.


Most software can vary the amount of JPEG compression. I wonder how much
information is lost in JPEG with minimum compression (maximum file size)
compared with a lossless compression format like PNG or TIFF - or BMP which
is not compressed at all (lossily or losslessly) so an m x n file is always
exactly m x n x bit-depth bytes long (excluding the header!).

Using Paint Shop Pro, I can't see any difference between JPEG with
compression of 1 (minimum compression) and PNG. Compression 10 may show
slight ringing. Anything above 30 is getting pretty repulsive.

On 27/11/2017 11:20, NY wrote:
"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2017-11-27, Martin Brown wrote:

[30 lines snipped]

If you are going to the trouble of scanning them then 600dpi is worth it
and if the original is in any way precious saved as a lossless format.
If it is something rare an was a contact print off a large negative then
an even higher resolution might be justified to capture all the detail.

I scanned some family ancestor portrait watercolours (*)(about A4 sized)
at 1200dpi lossless PNG, although when I took them to be printed the
print
shop said "Can we have JPGs?". Sigh. Although, once framed, the copies
were indistinguishable from the originals at normal viewing distance.

Most software can vary the amount of JPEG compression. I wonder how much
information is lost in JPEG with minimum compression (maximum file size)
compared with a lossless compression format like PNG or TIFF - or BMP
which is not compressed at all (lossily or losslessly) so an m x n file
is always exactly m x n x bit-depth bytes long (excluding the header!).

Using Paint Shop Pro, I can't see any difference between JPEG with
compression of 1 (minimum compression) and PNG. Compression 10 may show
slight ringing. Anything above 30 is getting pretty repulsive.

Just use PNG and convert it to JPEG later if required.

--
Max Demian