Re: scanner recommendation
On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 14:59:12 -0400
Default User <hunguponcontent@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks to all for the information.
>
> In regard to Brian's request for more information, my use case is
> mostly just trying to digitize decades of personal paper documents,
> such as letters, pictures, greeting cards, etc.
> And also to occasionally satisfy the demand of a company or other
> institution, for some business-related or legal matter.
>
> After some thought, I am leaning toward just getting another
> stationary flatbed scanner only, rather than a multi-function device
> or mobile scanner. I don't plan to take it on the road. And often,
> simpler is better. And I like the idea of device modularity, i.e.,
> that if my scanner goes out, my separate printer would still work
> fine. And vice-versa.
I've stayed out of this so far as I have just one old single-purpose
scanner. It hasn't been heavily used, but it's just coming up to 20
years old, which is a reliability datum. It's a Canon Lide 20. I also
prefer single-function devices. A minor point here: my wife uses a
printer for craft work, and needs to use heavy media i.e. 250-300gsm.
This implies as straight a paper path as possible, hence a top-feed
printer, hence not one with a scanner on the top.
>
> I do NOT need a device that will send faxes, make phone calls, or make
> coffee in the morning.
>
> I DO need something that should be reliable, last a while, and work
> under Debian (64-bit) with a minimum of configuration. In that
> regard, note that Simple-Scan worked fine for me, but Xsane seems
> maybe too complicated for my needs currently.
Yes, I use Simple Scan. XSane will do all kinds of wonderful things, but
I prefer to do them in Gimp, which is even more versatile. If a scanner
driver could actually alter the gamma of the pickup devices, that would
tilt the balance, but they can't, it's all processing.
>
> Unfortunately, I have some other, more important things going on right
> now that require my attention and have higher priority than replacing
> the scanner.
Indeed. I'd like something a bit quicker, but I'm not willing to pay
the current price for standalone scanners, so I'll carry on with this
antique as long as it's willing.
--
Joe
Reply to: