Date:         Sat, 3 Nov 2001 09:02:55 -0700
Reply-To:     Karl Wolz <wolzphoto@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Karl Wolz <wolzphoto@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
Subject:      Re: Good Flatbed Scanner for about $100
Comments: To: John Rodgers <jhrodgers@CHARTER.NET>

John,

Scanning for internet publication above 72 dpi is actually not any nicer
than scanning AT 72dpi, since that's about the maximum resolution of the
computer screen.  Anything finer doesn't look any better, but as you pointed
out, does take longer to load.

Karl Wolz

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Rodgers" <jhrodgers@CHARTER.NET>
To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2001 7:43 AM
Subject: Re: Good Flatbed Scanner for about $100


> Joe wrote:
>
> >                 Can someone here recommend a good Flatbed Scanner for
about $100? Any
> >
> > warnings of models to keep away from? Any help appreciated.
>
> Joe, I ran into the Same problem with Kinko's. I need a bunch of pictures
scanned. They
> wanted like $110 for the job. I went next door to CompUSA and found a
parallel
> interface UMAX Astra scanner for $79. You can probably bet a USB interface
unit for the
> same money nowadays.
>
> It's sitting on my desk now and works great. It is plain and simple. No
whistles and
> bells. No scan button on the front. Everything is software actuated. But
it gets the
> job done. If I want it to, it scans with a resolution far greater than any
that I will
> ever use unless I want to have an image published. Most color scans that I
work with
> are done at 300 dpi and that is plenty. For black and white scanned
records 150 dpi is
> plenty.
>
> Anything you want to publish on the Net works best at 72 to 96 pixels
because of the
> speed of loading. Any greater resolution, while nice, takes forever to
load. But for
> faxing purposes, if you scan at 150 dpi the records should be fine.
>
> Good luck.
>
> John Rodgers
> 88 Gl Driver
>