Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
All in one printer (scanner) versus dedicated scanner?
- Thread starter waloshin
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You have to evaluate this on a model-by-model basis. There's no inherent reason for a dedicated scanner to be "better" than an all-in-one. There's one basic rule of thumb - a $200 all-in-one isn't likely to deliver the same quality as a $200 dedicated scanner.
The model you mention happens to have better scanning specs than Epson's all-in-ones. However, the cheaper dedicated scanners in the Epson product line are comparable to some of their all-in-ones.
There is the question as to whether your personal requirements demand that kind of quality. Considering all the ways color can be inaccurately rendered during the photographic process (do you calibrate your monitor and printer?), it may not be necessary to spend extra on accuracy. (And if you have to ask this question at all, it suggests that you don't need that kind of accuracy - people who have to deliver highly-accurate graphics in fields like print publishing and science already know what to look for on the spec sheet.)
To be honest with you I don't have a straightforward answer. Just guessing:
1. The maximum scan resolution of V550 and V600 is the same: 12,800 dpi.
2. V550 is capable of DI: http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/...e=FAQ&oid=231162&prodoid=63097270&foid=240813
The V550 is capable of DI though only for film scans. The V600 is capable of DI with film and pictures.
I see, thanks for clarifying.
The reason why I wonder if other than that the scanners are identical. I just bought the V550 for $119 on sale and the V600 is still selling for $229 so inwoukd rather keep the V550 and be able to scan images with DI too.
I can understand your dilemma. Most probably I would keep the V550 too as the price difference is considerable.
then the V550 probably doesn't have the necessary infrared lamp set up for the whole flatbed but just for the film scanner
The question is what do you plan to scan, and how much detail do you really need. You need huge TIFF files only if you plan to use them for sophisticated image editing. You need 1200 PPI scans (or higher) only if you need to make poster sized reprints. For most practical purposes, 300 PPI is good enough.
Apart from scan resolution and image fidelity, scanner functions also differ. e.g. document feeder tray, ability to scan film negatives, or to scan multiple photos simultaneously and automatically crop / save as individual JPGs, scan multiple page documents and save them as a single PDF file, automatic edge detection and perspective correction etc. etc.
In addition to a hardware scanner, also try out document and photo scanner apps. These are great for any time / anywhere scanning. Document scanner apps are good for digitizing receipts, expense claims, bound documents etc.
Apart from scan resolution and image fidelity, scanner functions also differ. e.g. document feeder tray, ability to scan film negatives, or to scan multiple photos simultaneously and automatically crop / save as individual JPGs, scan multiple page documents and save them as a single PDF file, automatic edge detection and perspective correction etc. etc.
In addition to a hardware scanner, also try out document and photo scanner apps. These are great for any time / anywhere scanning. Document scanner apps are good for digitizing receipts, expense claims, bound documents etc.
Last edited by a moderator:
I would mainly be scanning reflective photos and either enlarging them or re printing them. So I want as much detail as I can get. The beat color.accuracy I can get and the sharpest picture I can get.
If I want to enlarge wallet sized photos to 8x10 wouldn't I need at least a 1200 DPI scan?
Thanks
Last edited by a moderator:
Let's first see how many pixels you need to make a decent quality print. I'll say 180 DPI is the minimum, 300 DPI very good.
Note that it's dots per inch (DPI) when we talk about printing, and pixels per inch (PPI) when we talk about scanning
but here let's take each printer dot as 1 square pixel. So 8x10 means 8 x 10 x 300 x 300 = 7,200,000 or 7.2 MP should be the size of your scanned file.Not sure what exactly is wallet size, but assuming 2.5 x 3.5, divide 7,200,000 by (2.5 x 3.5) then take square root - and you get 900 PPI
Reviving this old thread for those who land here via a google search:
Another important consideration is the bit-depth.
For example my Canon MG3620 only supports 8 bits per color output. That means each color can only take one of 256 values. It is good enough for documents but sub-par for photos and artwork.
Meanwhile my Lide 300 supports 16 bits per color, and produces much more life like images.
Ofcourse a more expensive AIO might have good bid depth too. But even checking the specs of a new and expensive Pixma TS8320 is limited to a 8 bit depth (artificially, the hardware is 16bit).
You also have to be careful with reading the manufacturer specs. They are less than honest. For instance canon advertises the TS 8320 as "16 bit/ 8 bit" which means 16bit internal, 8 bit output.
Another important consideration is the bit-depth.
For example my Canon MG3620 only supports 8 bits per color output. That means each color can only take one of 256 values. It is good enough for documents but sub-par for photos and artwork.
Meanwhile my Lide 300 supports 16 bits per color, and produces much more life like images.
Ofcourse a more expensive AIO might have good bid depth too. But even checking the specs of a new and expensive Pixma TS8320 is limited to a 8 bit depth (artificially, the hardware is 16bit).
You also have to be careful with reading the manufacturer specs. They are less than honest. For instance canon advertises the TS 8320 as "16 bit/ 8 bit" which means 16bit internal, 8 bit output.