TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Steven: I use an Epson at home and an auto feed high end HP at work, but rarely scan color items at higher than 360 dpi. Most color work comes out fine with a scan to jpg or tiff at 190 or 240 dpi. (I got these numbers after comparing the same 5 images scanned about 25 times each.) A 240 dpi jpg or tiff of photos or printed materials respectively has always worked well for me. Now when you get into line art or color illustrations that were printed at 2400 or 1200 dpi, then I'll boost to as much as 800 dpi, but never higher. When printed to a panther at 1200 dpi, the naked eye (mine) could not tell the difference between the 240 dpi and the 1200 dpi scans.
If you still want speed, be prepared to spend close to $400 up to $3,000.
No complaints yet!
Steven Oppenheimer wrote:
> I am surprised at how slow it seems to scan. To do a color scan (8 1/2
> by 11 color magazine page) at 600 dpi takes over three minutes. A
> color scan at 300 dpi takes nearly two minutes. A gray scale scan at
> 600 dpi takes about a minute and a half. Gray scale at 300 dpi takes
> 40 seconds.
> A color scan at 1200 dpi takes at least five minutes, if not longer.
> 2400 dpi takes forever. Of course, I'm not sure I really need to scan
> anything at 1200 dpi -- I'm scanning old ad copy to put in .pdf files
> to send to clients, and at 1200 dpi the files are already humongous.
> But it would be nice if 600 dpi scanning (or even 300 dpi scanning)
> was two or three times faster.
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot- Visit http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.