21 Jul
2019
21 Jul
'19
2:03 p.m.
IN SCANNING PHOTOS FOR SMECC? IF? LARGE, I SCAN AT 300,? IF? SMALL AND? ?IN CASE? WE? WANT
TO MAKE LARGER,? ?SOMETIMES 600. ED#
ps 1200 SEENS? TO? GO? NO WHERE EXCEPT? SOMETIME? AD? WEIRDNESS
In a message dated 7/21/2019 1:58:45 PM US Mountain Standard Time, cctalk at
classiccmp.org writes:
On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 1:13 PM Fred Cisin via cctalk <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jul 2019, Jason T via cctalk wrote:
Yea, but there's an ROI issue, at least for me... I see no added value
about 600dpi for the intended use (people having the manuals to
troubleshoot/learn the old systems). 300->600 is a bit dubious as well, but
in that case the delta in terms of time to do and storage is so small that
I think the enhance resolution is worth it...
Then again, I have 20 years of bills and such I've scanned in at between
200dpi and 400dpi and for that purpose, those resolutions are fine. I may
kick it up to 600dpi + search indexing since I see how I can easily add
that and scansnap's OCR isn't terrible (and can actually do the old scans
years after the fact, which is nice for the huge unsorted files I end up
with when I don't have the time to sort by vendor)...
Warner
Warner
I don't know about the ScanSnap specifically,
but I suspect that
1200dpi mode may be interpolated, not true optical 1200.? In either
case, I've rarely seen any great benefit to using >600, at least on
any scanner I've used (my main workhorse now being a Fujitsu
fi-5750C).
It's like the difference between laser printing and real typesetting.
'course many people can't see the difference.
Below 2400dpi, the characters in the text are not as smooth.
Even 300DPI scans of 300DPI are unlikely to be lined up, to keep from
getting degradation.