At the rate I’m wearing out scanners from doing thousand and thousands of scans each month as every page needs somewhere between 2 to 4 and sometimes even 6 scans to complete.
I decided to grab a couple more spare scanners, especially since I found a good deal on these and I can only use the Lide 210 and 220 models which have stopped production years ago.
Just €80 for both including shipping.
Hopefully, they will last me for a while.
Well, it's not so much that these are the be-all and end-all scanners for magazine scans.
But more so that I'm locked into the specific way the scans look.
You see, each and every model, even from the same company tends to work a bit differently, coupled with the scan software that they use, the colour values, white highlights and shadow detail can and do vary wildly.
The 210 and 220 are pretty close, and yet still have serious colour variations.
But about a decade ago, I spend a whole summer trying to perfect the overall look of my scans compared to the actual magazines in real life and under sunny conditions.
It took a ton of experimenting until I was happy with the results, which is what you can see in the work on the site now.
So my settings for these two models are basically "dialled in".
If I were to use another model, like I did with the Lide 300 and 400, which I've both tried, I run into issues where the scans look nowhere near as nice as the ones on my older model.
@outofprintarchive My experience with scanners and Linux has taught me that even when you have same manufacturer's seemingly same line of devices that even look the same, what's inside the box can be completely different. Back in the days I bought so many scanners with the mentality of "Oh, the Brand Model 410 is supported, it's safe to buy the 420" and then learn it's not supported because it has different chip set.
I'm not a scanner mega consumer like you, but I do scan pinball manuals into my archive if I stumble upon something new and my very old Canon Lide 80 has served me very well for a long time, despite being a dumpster diving find.
It's really frustrating that these companies don't seem to care at all about consistency.
While most people just buy one of these to scan some documents every now and then, it kinda makes sense I guess.
But from a quality standpoint, it leaves a lot to be desired, to put it mildly.
I actually think that the new line of Lide scanners are a big step backwards from the 220 and 210s.
I thought I'd be able to just do the colour correction thing and, while it may take a bit of time to get them exactly where I wanted them to be, the overall detail and clarity of them didn't match up to the 220.
So I completely abandoned the thought of going with a 300 or 400 and started buying some more 220's, which all have given up the ghost now.
@outofprintarchive I don't know if it's just in my head, but in general at least when it comes to mid-range consumer scanners, it feels like no one even tries any more.
I used to laugh at all the "scanner" apps for phones, but for black and white manual scans where I can take the manual apart into flat pages, the mobile app can actually produce better results than a cheap scanner. There's always minor striping with scanners.
YMMV with "proper" scans.
@outofprintarchive @apzpins all the money you've spent over the years replacing worn out cheapo consumer scanners, it probably would've worked out cheaper to buy a business class scanner like a Fujitsu fi series. we use those at work and they last for years of heavy daily use in our scanning team, and as they are business class devices they have spares and maintenance kits available
they have TWAIN drivers etc so you don't need to fork out for expensive KOFAX licenses, too
All the ones I'm seeing are with document feeders, so I would need to cut up all the magazines to be able to feed them in there.
While a flatbed scanner isn't ideal either, due to the stress on the plate from having to push down the lid to get pages scanned without any blur, and thus wearing our the mechanism a lot faster.
They are excellent for doing the extra scans needed as you can do 3 or 4 strips needed to edit pages, where you'd have to do it one by one in an autofeeder and then hope for the best.
It's always a bit of a gamble as well since I did buy 2 new models from Canon, the 300 and 400 when they released, but despite being the brand new line, the quality of the scans just wasn't up to what I'm happy with.
The old ones really do magazines scans beautifully. While it looks like the new ones just focus on documents.
No matter of calibration could get them up to the standard I was looking for.
So it's easier and safer to go with the thing I know and have used for well over 10 years now.
No surprises, no fuss, everything just works in how I set up my workflow.
Out of Print Archive (meppi64)
Luke G
Ari [APz] Sovijärvi
COMPU73E ❄️