Document Scanner Suggestions

[hollyperry92405]

Hello,
I would like to purchase a document scanner to rid my house of masses of accumulated "junk/clutter" that "someday" I might find useful.
I have been reading and the names that keep coming up are Fujitsu ScanSnap iX500, Doxie Go and NeatDesk.
For my purposes, I would like automatic sheet fed(so I don't have to sit there and baby sit... is that realistic?)
-I would like to do it with my MacBook Air(can do in bedroom or on couch), as opposed to our iMac (up in office, ugh)
-I am running OSX10.10 Yosemite
-I do have two external hard drives (1 1tb 1 2tb) that I use for photo storage and photo storage backups (kinda a freak about pictures) but have plenty of space left
-it will be LOTS of receipts, old college papers, old work files, recipes, magazine articles, etc.
Any recommendations, suggestions would be truly appreciated.

Thanks~~Holly

 

[mcaswell]

I have the smaller ScanSnap (the 1300), and am very happy with it. I considered the better model (S1500... predecessor to iX500), but I preferred the smaller footprint of the 1300, and because my projected regular scanning volume (after that initial scanning of hundreds of existing documents) would be modest, I decided against spending the extra money for the higher capacity/volume model.

There is, however, one feature that I would have liked... the S1500 (and iX500) have ultrasonic double-feed detection. The S1300 relies on document length to detect double-feeds (if an 11" long sheet catches the next sheet partway through the scan, the combined longer length of these two sheets would alert the scanner that a double-feed had occurred). This is not foolproof, however... if the two sheets feed at the same time (such as if a couple of sheets that had previously be stapled together, so the holes left behind cause the first sheet to snag the second sheet) and thus are directly stacked as they feed through, the length detection feature will not see this as a double-feed. Ultrasonic detection presumably would not be fooled by this.

The workaround to ensure no pages are missed by double-feeds is to count the sheets you are scanning to ensure the reported number of scanned sheets matches. For me, this is no big deal because I only scan a dozen or so documents a week. But if you scan more than that on a regular basis, and/or you don't want to have to worry as much about double-feeds during your initial scanning of old documents, go for the better model!

 

[glenthompson]

Hello,
I would like to purchase a document scanner to rid my house of masses of accumulated "junk/clutter" that "someday" I might find useful.
I have been reading and the names that keep coming up are Fujitsu ScanSnap iX500, Doxie Go and NeatDesk.
For my purposes, I would like automatic sheet fed(so I don't have to sit there and baby sit... is that realistic?)
-I would like to do it with my MacBook Air(can do in bedroom or on couch), as opposed to our iMac (up in office, ugh)
-I am running OSX10.10 Yosemite
-I do have two external hard drives (1 1tb 1 2tb) that I use for photo storage and photo storage backups (kinda a freak about pictures) but have plenty of space left
-it will be LOTS of receipts, old college papers, old work files, recipes, magazine articles, etc.
Any recommendations, suggestions would be truly appreciated.

Thanks~~Holly

I use the S1500m and it has been flawless. Runs fine under Yosemite. Sheet feed only holds 50 pages but you can easily scan larger documents. I think I have less than a dozen misfeeds in over 10k pages.

Make sure you have a good backup plan that includes offsite.

 

[mcaswell]

Funny... though I was perfectly happy with my S1300, this thread prompted me to take a look at the iX500. The faster speed and larger feed capacity were appealing, but not an absolute necessity for the relatively modest volume of scanning that I do.

I did like the idea of gaining ultrasonic double-feed detection, as I do find myself having to spend time taking manual precautions against pages being missed.

But honestly, the one feature that pushed me over the top was a point casually made in a review. With the S1300, let's say you scan a batch of 10 pages. When the physical scanning of the pages is complete, it then performs the OCR, which might take 20 more seconds or so, during which time the scanner is unavailable for proceeding with the next batch.

What the review mentioned was that the iX500's software seemed to work differently, processing the OCR as the scanning progressed so that there was very little wait time at the end of the scanning (rather than waiting for the scans to be finished before even starting on the OCR).

And it turns out that this is indeed the case. Even if I scan a few dozen pages, by the time all have been fed through and the box pops up showing the progress of OCR processing, it's already on the second to last page or so, leaving only a brief moment before completion.

 

[hrt]

Canon Imageformula P-215

I am using Canon Imageformula p-215, which is a portable scanner.

I operate the scanner with ExactScan, and then the documents get automatically sent to DevonthinkPro Office which performs OCR.

I am very happy with this setup. I mostly scan bills or receipts, generally not more than 20 pages a week.

Double feeding can sometimes be an issue but it is not such a big deal as I rarely need to scan documents that have more than a couple of pages.

 

[PsyOpWarlord]

I don't scan a lot, but I've been pretty happy with my Brother ADS-1500w Wireless Document Scanner.

 

[Velin]

Fujitsu Scansnap is the way to go.

 

[robgendreau]

I see the Canon was recommended; I have the earlier version and they've already scrapped support for Yosemite. I'd go with Fujitsu if I had to do it over again if you want the scanner to remain useful longer.

 

[Velin]

I see the Canon was recommended; I have the earlier version and they've already scrapped support for Yosemite.

So, what do you do in this situation. Is your Canon a brick because no 10.10 support?

Also, there should be a requirement for a generic scanner driver that provides at least basic functions, similar to what they have for printers, i.e. the universal postscript and PCL drivers that will work with many machines.

 

[flynz4]

So, what do you do in this situation. Is your Canon a brick because no 10.10 support?

Also, there should be a requirement for a generic scanner driver that provides at least basic functions, similar to what they have for printers, i.e. the universal postscript and PCL drivers that will work with many machines.

VueScan software can probably rescue the device.

BTW: I agree that buying a Fujitsu ScanSnap is the smart choice.

/Jim

 

[Basilfawltyone]

Fujitsu ScanSnap. Tried at least five others but nothing is even close when it comes to quality and no probs experiences.

We are totally paperless and use it several times a week since five years.

 

[hrt]

I see the Canon was recommended; I have the earlier version and they've already scrapped support for Yosemite. I'd go with Fujitsu if I had to do it over again if you want the scanner to remain useful longer.

I use my Canon with ExactScan.

Works perfectly.

 

[SpicyWings]

Have you tried out one of the many document scanner apps for iPhone? Give it a go for receipts, magazine clippings etc. before buying another piece of hardware.

You may still want a flatbed scanner if you need the multi-page feed function, but having another tool (or two) in your pocket could be quite handy, too.

 

[flynz4]

You may still want a flatbed scanner if you need the multi-page feed function, but having another tool (or two) in your pocket could be quite handy, too.

If you want multi-page feed... do not bother with flatbed. They are not full duplex, so they still require manual operation for dual side scanning... which is the most common use from what I have experienced.

Instead, get a full duplex sheet scanner like the Fujitsu.

Personally... I have pretty much given up on flatbed scanners. Mine has been in a closet for years now. I find my needs are:

99% Sheet scanning using a Fujitsu ScanSnap
1% iPhone scanning for irregular scanning that does not fit through a sheet scanner.

/Jim