Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Best Scanner for my needs  (Read 3994 times)
marliz
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 13


« on: April 14, 2010, 11:51:28 PM »
ReplyReply

I hope this is the best forum to post this. My Epson 4870 is showing it's age. I still have boxes of prints, no slides or negatives, to scan.
Many prints are 4 X 6; Also many are 5 X 7. Many are five to ten years old (before I went digital).
I have a fairly large number of 50 to 100 year old black/white (tan to yellow now) photos of odd sizes (and a few of those in color). And of course a lot of middle aged prints.
I checked at a local camera shop about having them scanned and was disappointed, not only at the cost, but the fact that they only came digitalized in one size jpgs.

Main questions:

Is Digital Ice worth using for color prints? Is that trading speed for not much increase in quality? I use it now on older photos and it is slooooow.

Are there other options built into new scanners that reduce dust type noise? I'm thinking "Digital ICE and Digital ROC for photo prints, Digital ROC plug-in for color restoration, Digital SHOTM plug-in for revealing details of dark image-areas, and Digital GEM for noise and grain reduction."
I'm quoting and don't know what scanners would have these built in or if they are plugins for Photoshop. If plugins I'll read reviews to compare with the plugins I already have.

Is there enough information in prints to use the highest bit settings? (If not it is a time waster.)

I am currently scanning in 48 bit color (even for some black and white prints) at 360 resolution set for 5X7 (or thereabouts) output. (using an epson stylus pro 3800 printer).

I'm willing to pay for quality, but not to waste money buying a great scanner that can't give me better prints.

In short, would you please suggest a flatbed that will give me the highest quality I can get for my needs? I'm hoping for faster, but not at the expense of quality.

Thanks so much for any help. Also if this belongs in another forum, please let me know.

Peggy
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6884


WWW
« Reply #1 on: April 15, 2010, 08:08:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: marliz
I hope this is the best forum to post this. My Epson 4870 is showing it's age. I still have boxes of prints, no slides or negatives, to scan.
Many prints are 4 X 6; Also many are 5 X 7. Many are five to ten years old (before I went digital).
I have a fairly large number of 50 to 100 year old black/white (tan to yellow now) photos of odd sizes (and a few of those in color). And of course a lot of middle aged prints.
I checked at a local camera shop about having them scanned and was disappointed, not only at the cost, but the fact that they only came digitalized in one size jpgs.

Main questions:

Is Digital Ice worth using for color prints? Is that trading speed for not much increase in quality? I use it now on older photos and it is slooooow.

Are there other options built into new scanners that reduce dust type noise? I'm thinking "Digital ICE and Digital ROC for photo prints, Digital ROC plug-in for color restoration, Digital SHOTM plug-in for revealing details of dark image-areas, and Digital GEM for noise and grain reduction."
I'm quoting and don't know what scanners would have these built in or if they are plugins for Photoshop. If plugins I'll read reviews to compare with the plugins I already have.

Is there enough information in prints to use the highest bit settings? (If not it is a time waster.)

I am currently scanning in 48 bit color (even for some black and white prints) at 360 resolution set for 5X7 (or thereabouts) output. (using an epson stylus pro 3800 printer).

I'm willing to pay for quality, but not to waste money buying a great scanner that can't give me better prints.

In short, would you please suggest a flatbed that will give me the highest quality I can get for my needs? I'm hoping for faster, but not at the expense of quality.

Thanks so much for any help. Also if this belongs in another forum, please let me know.

Peggy

Hello Peggy,

Digital ICE is not meant for prints. It works on transparency materials. GEM and ROC are software plug-ins which together cost about 200 dollars on a stand-alone basis. You'd most likely be at leasat as well off if not better off using a scanning application such as Vuescan or SilverFast which has all this built-in and more (and the latter more than the former). You also have the option of making scans with minimal adjustment at the scanning stage and using Lightroom or Photoshop for working-up the scanned images. The most important thing to control in the scanner is exposure, because it is hardware based. SilverFast has a multi-exposure function which maximizes the possibility of eliciting additional shadow detail at the scan stage. The same function also serves to reduce grain and noise, much like multi-scanning would, but in less time. Vuescan also has a grain reduction filter. Beware that grain reduction softens the image with any software. I use a dedicated noise reduction program such as Noiseware, Noise Ninja or Neat Image post scanning for handling grain (before any sharpening) because these are specialized applications which give the user quite refined control over the trade-off between resolution and smoothing.

Bit depth has less to do with the resolution of the media (material to be scanned) than it has to do with the smoothness of tonal gradation in the scan itself. Higher bit depth provides more assurance of higher quality tonal transitions and subtler rendition of the different tones in the original.

You don't need the greatest scanner on earth for scanning most prints because they are larger (need less magnification), have more limited resolution and less dynamic range than offered by film media. But to recommend a scanner that can give you "the highest quality for your needs" is difficult without knowing more about your needs and your quality expectations - and there are a huge number of flatbed scanner models on the market. Decent scanners for reflective media are available for upwards of a couple of hundred dollars, but like for everything else, generally speaking features and quality improves with price. (I suggest you survey the market on-line and read reviews of various models to get a feel of the price-point and quality combination which may suit you, and buy from a source which allows returns), and then you need to think of the corresponding software - SilverFast and Vuescan both support a very large array of scanner models. I can definintely recommend the Epson V700 or V750 because I use the latter; it is fast and delivers high quality scans of reflective media (probably the best on the consumer market, but of course also not the cheapest). It also comes fully equipped to handle slides and negatives, though a high quality dedicated film scanner will eak-out more resolution than any flatbed I'm familiar with. It is also bundled with SilverFast SE, which is a good basic scanning application, up-gradeable to SilverFast Ai if you need added features. This is a very safe recommendation, but as I said, you may well find something for less money which serves your purpose.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2010, 08:10:00 AM by Mark D Segal » Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Philmar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353


WWW
« Reply #2 on: April 15, 2010, 09:30:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Mark D Segal
You don't need the greatest scanner on earth for scanning most prints because they are larger (need less magnification), have more limited resolution and less dynamic range than offered by film media.

Do you get better results from scanning a negative or a print from the negative?
Logged

An office drone pension administrator by day and a photo-enthusiast by night, week-end and on vacation who carries his camera when traveling the world:
Please have a chew on my photos:
http://www.fluidr.com/photos/phil_marion/sets
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6884


WWW
« Reply #3 on: April 15, 2010, 09:45:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Philmar
Do you get better results from scanning a negative or a print from the negative?

Without question, far better results scanning the negative - provided you know what you are doing. The dynamic range of the negative and its resolution far exceed anything on a print from that negative, so starting with such a rich source material you are best positioned to get the highest quality result if you do it right. You may refer to my article here: Scanning Negatives and here: Scanning with SilverFast and here: Scanning Old-New.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Pete Berry
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 269


« Reply #4 on: April 15, 2010, 10:54:14 AM »
ReplyReply


I'm willing to pay for quality, but not to waste money buying a great scanner that can't give me better prints.

In short, would you please suggest a flatbed that will give me the highest quality I can get for my needs? I'm hoping for faster, but not at the expense of quality.

Thanks so much for any help. Also if this belongs in another forum, please let me know.

Peggy
[/quote]


To answer your question, I think that the Epson V700/750 is still the benchmark for speed and quality flatbed scanning, and does a quite good job with negatives with its dual lens system. Price around $500 last year - I could have not finished a huge family reunion project a year ago without it's speed. And it's auto color correction is quite good. I found the Epson software, using the "Professsional" settings much more user-friendly than the included SilverFast.

Pete

Logged
PeterAit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1861



WWW
« Reply #5 on: April 15, 2010, 11:06:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: marliz
I hope this is the best forum to post this. My Epson 4870 is showing it's age. I still have boxes of prints, no slides or negatives, to scan.
Many prints are 4 X 6; Also many are 5 X 7. Many are five to ten years old (before I went digital).
I have a fairly large number of 50 to 100 year old black/white (tan to yellow now) photos of odd sizes (and a few of those in color). And of course a lot of middle aged prints.
I checked at a local camera shop about having them scanned and was disappointed, not only at the cost, but the fact that they only came digitalized in one size jpgs.

Main questions:

Is Digital Ice worth using for color prints? Is that trading speed for not much increase in quality? I use it now on older photos and it is slooooow.

Are there other options built into new scanners that reduce dust type noise? I'm thinking "Digital ICE and Digital ROC for photo prints, Digital ROC plug-in for color restoration, Digital SHOTM plug-in for revealing details of dark image-areas, and Digital GEM for noise and grain reduction."
I'm quoting and don't know what scanners would have these built in or if they are plugins for Photoshop. If plugins I'll read reviews to compare with the plugins I already have.

Is there enough information in prints to use the highest bit settings? (If not it is a time waster.)

I am currently scanning in 48 bit color (even for some black and white prints) at 360 resolution set for 5X7 (or thereabouts) output. (using an epson stylus pro 3800 printer).

I'm willing to pay for quality, but not to waste money buying a great scanner that can't give me better prints.

In short, would you please suggest a flatbed that will give me the highest quality I can get for my needs? I'm hoping for faster, but not at the expense of quality.

Thanks so much for any help. Also if this belongs in another forum, please let me know.

Peggy

The Epson V750 is really great (the V700 is probably just as good for most uses and less expensive). I just used the 750 to scan a slew of prints, slides, and negs. I did not use the Digital Ice, it is, as you know, very slow and I find that blowing off the original first is easier and a lot faster. But, there are probably less expensive scanners that will do everything you want as long as you are sure you will be scanning only prints.
Logged

Peter
"Photographic technique is a means to an end, never the end itself."
View my photos at http://www.peteraitken.com
marliz
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 13


« Reply #6 on: April 15, 2010, 11:30:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Mark, thank you so much for your in depth reply.  I have read reviews but they all seem to be more focused on how well the scanner works for negatives and slides. I read one good overview that mentioned Digital ICE didn't help much with "most" prints. No further explanation of what prints it might help.

I currently use SilverFast Ai's multi-exposure function but sometimes wonder if the results are worth the extra time. I am an amatur, though I've been scanning and using Photoshop for some time. To my untrained eye it seems on screen that there isn't much, if any difference using multi-exposure (I assume you mean where you set the number of times the print is scanned.) One thing I haven't done is actually print out the two results in a decent size, without touch up. It just occured to me now, reading your message. Duh! I will do that soon.

I do use noise reduction in Photoshop now since I wasn't happy with the results when adjusting in Silverfast:  Version 6 with the latest updates (which are pretty old now).

I've wanted to upgrade Silverfast, but knowing I need to invest in a new scanner, meant I needed to wait (since SF is scanner specific (or is it printer or both - It's been awhile since I've checked the specs.)

My needs are just photos that please me. Being a perfectionist, I don't like to think I could get a better print by doing more than throwing it on the scanner and using default settings. I profiled my scanner, but that was some time ago and I need to do it again -- this time with the new one!

I will read your last two links. Thanks!


Philmar, no one, including myself, had the foresight to keep negs and prints together. The slides were old and there were no matching prints to do the comparison. Good idea though.

Pete, thanks for the heads up on the V700/750. You guys have helped a lot. I liked the reviews I read on that scanner and am off to order it now!

Peggy

Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6884


WWW
« Reply #7 on: April 15, 2010, 11:58:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Peggy, as I mentioned Digital ICE is for transparencies and negatives, not prints, so no, it wouldn't show much.

There is a difference between multi-sampling and multi-exposure in SilverFast. Multi-sampling is just that. It re-scans the image for the number of times in succession that you set it for and then averages the results, which reduces grain and artifacts. Multi-exposure is different insofar as it scans twice at two different exposures: one intended for highlights and mid-tones, and the other for bringing out shadow detail. IF however you are using a high dynamic range scanner, if the scanner picks-up all the shadow detail it can without using multi-exposure, you won't see much difference with multi-exposure. But on scanners with less dynamic range, logically it should show merit. On an Epson V700 for many images you won't see much difference of shadow detail quality with versus without multi-exposure, but for some images there may be some visible improvement.

SilverFast is scanner-specific - has nothing to do with your printer.

The main differences between the V700, and the V750 are that the latter has a glass bed for wet-mounted scanning, the higher-end version of SilverFast, and what Epson calls "high-pass optics", which they say consists of anti-reflective lens coatings and a high-reflection mirror providing what they claim to be the highest level of image quality and faster scans. I have not personally been able to test the difference of results between the two models. There is quite a price difference between them.

In your capacity as a perfectionist, I agree - you cannot just throw a slide onto a scanner, use default settings and expect the best results. I find I generally need to tweak each image.

Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
marliz
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 13


« Reply #8 on: April 15, 2010, 12:18:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Mark D Segal
The main differences between the V700, and the V750 are that the latter has a glass bed for wet-mounted scanning, the higher-end version of SilverFast, and what Epson calls "high-pass optics", which they say consists of anti-reflective lens coatings and a high-reflection mirror providing what they claim to be the highest level of image quality and faster scans. I have not personally been able to test the difference of results between the two models. There is quite a price difference between them.

In your capacity as a perfectionist, I agree - you cannot just throw a slide onto a scanner, use default settings and expect the best results. I find I generally need to tweak each image.

Mark, showing my ignorance here: what is "wet-mounted scanning?" It sounds like it refers to scanning slides or negs, but that's just a guess.

As for the glass, do you know of any links to tests between the two. I'm wondering if the 750 glass would hold up better. No matter how careful I am, I end up with little scratches. Fixable with the healing brush, but they bug me. Also Am I imagining it or as a scanner ages does dust collect under the glass and would the "better" 750 glass reduce that over time?
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6884


WWW
« Reply #9 on: April 15, 2010, 01:59:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: marliz
Mark, showing my ignorance here: what is "wet-mounted scanning?" It sounds like it refers to scanning slides or negs, but that's just a guess.

As for the glass, do you know of any links to tests between the two. I'm wondering if the 750 glass would hold up better. No matter how careful I am, I end up with little scratches. Fixable with the healing brush, but they bug me. Also Am I imagining it or as a scanner ages does dust collect under the glass and would the "better" 750 glass reduce that over time?

Wet mounted scanning is when you actually wet the slide (out of its mount) or negative with an agent such as film cleaner and paste it on the glass, so that it is perfectly flat. This is said to improve overall sharpness of the scan. If the film is buckled or the scanner has very little depth of field, this can be helpful. For quite flat film and with good depth of field in the scanner, its benefit is less compelling. I tried it in the V750 I'm using here and saw no appreciable improvement with the media I was using (colour negatives that are fairly flat). The glass is the panel on which one does the wet-mounting. It is placed on top of the scanner glass, but does not touch it directly. That being the case it is yet another surface to protect from scratches and dust. So to answer your question, no the wet-mounting glass makes no contribution to the longevity of anything. Scanners should not collect dust under the scanner glass. On top - different matter.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
jerryrock
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 561



WWW
« Reply #10 on: April 15, 2010, 02:06:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: marliz
Mark, showing my ignorance here: what is "wet-mounted scanning?" It sounds like it refers to scanning slides or negs, but that's just a guess.

As for the glass, do you know of any links to tests between the two. I'm wondering if the 750 glass would hold up better. No matter how careful I am, I end up with little scratches. Fixable with the healing brush, but they bug me. Also Am I imagining it or as a scanner ages does dust collect under the glass and would the "better" 750 glass reduce that over time?


The Epson V-750 Pro comes with a tray for fluid mounting your negatives. The process involves using a quick evaporating fluid that is placed on the glass tray. The negative is then placed on the liquid with more fluid over the negative, then a clear mylar sheet is placed on top. The fluid around the negative fills in any scratches and eliminates air space allowing for a much better scan.

Note the glass cover of the V750 is easily removed for cleaning. There is nothing worse then outgassing from electronic components and plastic fogging the underside of the scanner glass with no way to get at it.
Logged

Gerald J Skrocki
skrockidesign.com
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6884


WWW
« Reply #11 on: April 15, 2010, 02:24:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jerryrock
The Epson V-750 Pro comes with a tray for fluid mounting your negatives. The process involves using a quick evaporating fluid that is placed on the glass tray. The negative is then placed on the liquid with more fluid over the negative, then a clear mylar sheet is placed on top. The fluid around the negative fills in any scratches and eliminates air space allowing for a much better scan.

Note the glass cover of the V750 is easily removed for cleaning. There is nothing worse then outgassing from electronic components and plastic fogging the underside of the scanner glass with no way to get at it.

Well, "allowing for a much better scan" is true in theory but not necessarily the case in practice, and doing it adds a lot of extra time and trouble - so to be done only when one thinks it's really necessary.

I have not yet encountered any out-gassing of electronic components or plastic affecting scanner glass in any of the scanners I've ever owned. Not to say it can't happen, and good that it is correctable.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
jerryrock
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 561



WWW
« Reply #12 on: April 15, 2010, 03:22:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Mark D Segal
Well, "allowing for a much better scan" is true in theory but not necessarily the case in practice, and doing it adds a lot of extra time and trouble - so to be done only when one thinks it's really necessary.

Think of older damaged B&W negatives in need of restoration.

Quote
I have not yet encountered any out-gassing of electronic components or plastic affecting scanner glass in any of the scanners I've ever owned. Not to say it can't happen, and good that it is correctable.

It does happen, already cleaned mine. ; )
Logged

Gerald J Skrocki
skrockidesign.com
marliz
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 13


« Reply #13 on: April 16, 2010, 10:50:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Mark, thanks again for the explanation.

Sorry I didn't get back sooner. I upgraded my desktop OS to Leopard a couple of days ago.. Stuck with Tiger because it worked perfectly and my scanner wouldn't work with Leopard (or maybe it was silverfast).

Anyhow I have been working with a mess for two days and it's getting worse instead of better. I don't know if you use Mac or Windows (I switched and do/did find it more stable) but if you do you know about "repairing permissions." I do that  fairly often and on Tiger had no problem. Leopard gives a list (on a clean install, a short list) on an upgrade install over 800 so-called repairs, taking a long time. Then when run again it says it's doing the same repairs over. I've reinstalled, found scripts to run from others on the web that's supposed to help, etc etc. Tech support says its a bug and nothing can be done about it. Just put up with it. Not an acceptable answer!

I don't want to upgrade to Snow Leopard which has it's own set of problems. Would be tempted to switch back to Windows if I hadn't just ordered the Mac upgrade for Photoshop. Though I'm almost at the point where it won't take much more to send me back to Windows and eat the cost of  a new copy of Photoshop. (Adobe only lets you do a cross over once.)

Anyhow, sorry for the rant. I just wish I could concentrate on the scanner and get back to work instead of spending hours on this upgrade (downgrade more like it). Very close to ordering it.


Gerald, thanks for the heads up on cleaning the glass. This scanner isn't as bad as my last two for fogging, but it does have some. There is no dust on top of the glass since I dust it with a soft rag and when necessary clean it with a water dampened rag, then dry with a soft rag. (staying away from the edges so no moisure will have a chance to seep under the class from cleaning. I'm afraid to use any other cleaner than distilled water.

Gerald, do you know if the V700 glass is also easily removed for cleaning?

I'm going to check whether the scanner and silverfast work on Tiger. It's still on my laptop and I use that for scanning so I can be working on my desktop while the scanner is working.

Again, sorry for the off topic rant and thank you everyone for your generous help.
Peggy
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6884


WWW
« Reply #14 on: April 16, 2010, 11:01:52 AM »
ReplyReply

For clarity - the glass for Epson V750 cannot be removed for cleaning the underside, and it DOES NOT fog - at least mine hasn't ever since I received it. Explicit instructions from EPSON: Do Not Open the Scanner Case. I don't know whether the V700 is any differnet in this respect but it would surprise me.

I am surprised by all the problems you are having switching to Mac. I am on Windows and thinking of switching to Mac based on all the advice from many people who use Mac. Your comments make me wonder now..........so thanks for sharing.

You should check with Lasersoft Imaging's website for software version compatibility, I have no doubt they are on top of this.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
jerryrock
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 561



WWW
« Reply #15 on: April 16, 2010, 11:24:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: marliz
Gerald, thanks for the heads up on cleaning the glass. This scanner isn't as bad as my last two for fogging, but it does have some. There is no dust on top of the glass since I dust it with a soft rag and when necessary clean it with a water dampened rag, then dry with a soft rag. (staying away from the edges so no moisure will have a chance to seep under the class from cleaning. I'm afraid to use any other cleaner than distilled water.

Gerald, do you know if the V700 glass is also easily removed for cleaning?

Peggy

Peggy, here is a link showing the assembly of the V700/V750 scanner. Note there are only four screws located under plastic plugs to remove the glass.

http://www.compassmicro.com/files/Perfecti...0V750%20Pro.pdf

Logged

Gerald J Skrocki
skrockidesign.com
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6884


WWW
« Reply #16 on: April 16, 2010, 11:57:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jerryrock
Peggy, here is a link showing the assembly of the V700/V750 scanner. Note there are only four screws located under plastic plugs to remove the glass.

http://www.compassmicro.com/files/Perfecti...0V750%20Pro.pdf

Yeah, that's fine and dandy, but here is the direct instructions from Epson's scanner manual, maintenance section, cleaning page. Please note the last point:

<<Caution:
 Do not press the glass surface of the document table with any force.

Be careful not to scratch or damage the glass surface of the document table, and do not use a hard or abrasive brush to clean it. A damaged glass surface can decrease the scan quality.

Never use alcohol, thinner, or corrosive solvent to clean the scanner. These chemicals can damage the scanner components and the case.

Be careful not to spill liquid into the scanner mechanism or electronic components. This could permanently damage the mechanism and circuitry.

Do not spray lubricants inside the scanner.

Never open the scanner case. >>


 
 
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
marliz
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 13


« Reply #17 on: April 16, 2010, 12:13:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Again I thank you both.

Mark, until now I have loved my Mac Pro (and little Macbook). It  has been incredibly stable and putting hard drives, ram, cards etc. inside is  a dream compared to Windows machines. No loose wires hanging all over. It is totally neat. I just ordered more ram to hold me over for awhile. Will probably spring for the new Mac eventually. It isn't out yet and Apple never gives release dates ahead of time. If you do get a Mac Pro wait for the new one. I haven't seen a lot of savings in buying the last model or even refurbished, though I might be looking in the wrong place.

The Leopard problem is admittedly a bug. I've always waited before upgrading anything, especially if what I have works. Snow Leopard would come on a new Mac and though some have problems with older software/hardware I think eventually new drivers or updates happen. (Though not always, sometimes you have to buy upgrades; true also for Windows.) You can always find people on the boards who are having problems with any software, but I'm guessing Snow Leopard would be OK on a new Mac. The cost of an OS upgrade compared to windows is extremely reasonable; I'm thinking $29 for Snow Leopard?

One thing I've noticed is that the people on the official Mac Forum are not always very helpful. But there are other Mac forums that are better.

I'll try one more upgrade on a Tiger clone (I could handle a few misreported disk permissions but the more I tried to fix it the worse it got.) One thing you might not like about the Mac is that the user is shut out from the inner OS workings. The ones we shouldn't be fooling with anyhow, unless we are brilliant geeks, and they can break in if they want.

Snow Leopard would have to be really bad before I'd switch back, even though I threaten. Sure hope Leopard isn't a trend!

Peggy
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6884


WWW
« Reply #18 on: April 16, 2010, 12:21:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Peggy thanks. This makes sense. I think one thing with Apple is that the hardware and software bundled with a new computer would be compatible with eachother. The new Macs with "Nehalem" processors, which they describe as follows:

<<The “Nehalem” advantage.
Many quad-core processors are composed of two separate dies, which means some cached data has to travel outside the processor to get from core to core. That’s an inefficient way to access information. Enter the Quad-Core Intel Xeon “Nehalem” processor. Its single-die, 64-bit architecture makes 8MB of fully shared L3 cache readily available to each of the four processor cores. The result is fast access to cache data and greater application performance. Combine that with the other technological advances and you get a Mac Pro that’s up to 1.9x faster than the previous generation.
>>

Now perhaps there is better yet coming - there always is, otherwise how would they keep going eh?
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
jerryrock
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 561



WWW
« Reply #19 on: April 16, 2010, 05:32:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Mark D Segal
Yeah, that's fine and dandy, but here is the direct instructions from Epson's scanner manual, maintenance section, cleaning page. Please note the last point:

Please note my point, I have safely removed and cleaned the scanner glass as many others have. It's not rocket science.

Logged

Gerald J Skrocki
skrockidesign.com
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad