cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Scanner too slow

juliasdream
Grafter
Posts: 260
Registered: 09-06-2007

Scanner too slow

I have a Canon 3200f scanner which works well but its too slow for me
I have to scan around 4000+ images and what I need is a fast scanner
At the moment each image takes around 30 seconds and thats just the scan
Ideally, apart from scanning faster I would like it to scan to a specific size and preferably as a jpeg file
At the moment after each scan I have to click save as, choose jpg and then resize it giving it a file name
It would all be far less time consuming if it would scan directly as a jpg naming it by consecutive numbers and to the size I already preset
Stores like PC World or Staples seem to be pretty useless. I have the impression that my need is so rare they haven't a clue
I don't want o spend an arm and a leg so preferably well under £100
Can anyone help
Thanks
14 REPLIES
Community Veteran
Posts: 14,469
Registered: 30-07-2007

Re: Scanner too slow

You are not going to get a fast scanner at that price point. For the volume you suggest you need a multi-page scanner (not a flat bed one) but you will need to pay £300->£500 for it.
See http://www.tradescanners.com/canon/dr2010c.php as an example.
Also jpg images are not good if you want to retain quality. You really need a loss-less image format like TIFF or even convert them to PDF documents.
MrC
Grafter
Posts: 523
Thanks: 2
Registered: 17-07-2008

Re: Scanner too slow

As Peter says you're not going to get a scanner to meet your requirements at that price point. If this is a one-off requirement you might be better off looking at scanning services although I've no idea how much they charge - try Googling for "scanning services" and give some of them a ring for quotes?
juliasdream
Grafter
Posts: 260
Registered: 09-06-2007

Re: Scanner too slow

I've had the Canon 3200f for a very long time. I'm sure that technology has advanced in that time that even the cheaper ones must work a little faster
I accept that if I look for one that scans in a couple of seconds its going to cost a lot
Even if I get one that is just a bit faster it would be fine
What would be good, even if it wasnt faster would be one that would scan directly to a jpg and all I'd need to do next would be "save"
Most of the time consuming bit is due to clicking on "save as" then scrolling down "Image types"  out of a list to select jpg, then giving it a file name.
It would be so much easier with a single click.
Technical Question:
The scanner does its scan quite quickly only when it's finished the physical scan it sits there while the image info is being loaded and can take a while to reach 100% before its ready for the next scan
Is that due to the scanner hardware or is it software?
If its software then is there alternative sofrware that could do the job better?
I am using Paint Shop Pro 7 and the twain driver installed as part of Canon's Scan gear
Community Veteran
Posts: 26,432
Thanks: 684
Fixes: 8
Registered: 10-04-2007

Re: Scanner too slow

To put it in perspective, the scanner I use at work runs at about 80 images a minute when doing A4 colour images. Cost - £20,000+
I'd suggest you look at scanning services.
jelv (a.k.a Spoon Whittler)
   Why I have left Plusnet (warning: long post!)   
Broadband: Andrews & Arnold Home::1 (FTTC 80/20)
Line rental: Pulse 8 Home Line Rental (£13/month)
Mobile: iD mobile (£4/month)
Lurker
Grafter
Posts: 1,867
Registered: 23-10-2008

Re: Scanner too slow

I'd also suggest looking at scanning services - our does 40 scans per minute (full colour A4 > TIFF) and is a bit cheaper than Jelvs as a result. (Only around £6,000)
A couple of hours of somebody's time could see the job complete for you, and a few DVDs or an external HDD with your images on instead.
I'd expect you would be able to find somebody to do it for your £100 - and of course you have all the time saved that you would have spent doing it...
VileReynard
Seasoned Pro
Posts: 10,645
Thanks: 204
Fixes: 9
Registered: 01-09-2007

Re: Scanner too slow

You could always employ someone (minimum wage) to spend a week or two with the slow scanner.

Lurker
Grafter
Posts: 1,867
Registered: 23-10-2008

Re: Scanner too slow

Not for £100 you couldn't...
MrC
Grafter
Posts: 523
Thanks: 2
Registered: 17-07-2008

Re: Scanner too slow

Quote from: A
You could always employ someone (minimum wage) to spend a week or two.....

*chuckle*
£100 is about 17.25 or 20.7 or 28 hours depending on age. Those on the lower rates would likely need a lot of hand holding and output checking.
johpal
Grafter
Posts: 550
Registered: 20-04-2008

Re: Scanner too slow

Your scanner provides a USB 2.0 connector; buying a similar scanner probably won't deliver higher speeds. Previous postings indicate that you would have to pay much more for speed.
What resolution are you scanning at (the unit can go up to at least 1200 dpi)?. Do you need a greater resolution than 300 dpi? That may reduce scanning times (and file storage space on your hard disk). Also, you are importing images via Paint Shop Pro 7. Would it not be quicker and easier to simply use the CanoScan Toolkit, provided with the scanner? From memory (I'm not at home), it will automatically increment the number of a file with each scan (filename001, filename002, etc.), produce scans in a folder with the scan date, among other things (if required). I can't recall if it produces JPEGs directly, but certainly it will produce TIFF (compressed or otherwise) images and even PDF files directly.
The scanner software can also be set to autocrop images and you may be able to predefine an output image size. I'll happily take a look later, when I arrive home.
juliasdream
Grafter
Posts: 260
Registered: 09-06-2007

Re: Scanner too slow

Quote from: A
You could always employ someone (minimum wage) to spend a week or two with the slow scanner.
Its not as straight forward as that.
Some images differ by a few millimetres and need extra attention with cropping.
I cant believe that computer technology has advanced so much over this period that I've had this scanner yet according to what I hear scanner technology hasn't moved on at all.
Can that be true?
VileReynard
Seasoned Pro
Posts: 10,645
Thanks: 204
Fixes: 9
Registered: 01-09-2007

Re: Scanner too slow

You could try looking in a skip - that's where I got my HP flat-bed scanner from. Grin
Using Linux, XSane will perform a quick scan and place a rectangle around what it thinks is the border.
You can adjust this, if necessary, then click on the scan proper - which is slower.
You look at the preview, and click once more if you want to save it to disk.

johpal
Grafter
Posts: 550
Registered: 20-04-2008

Re: Scanner too slow

Now home.
I have a Canon 5500F scanner. To affirm, the CanoScan Toolbox (v4.1)software, supplied with it, or downloadable from the Canon website, will scan images directly in BMP, TIFF, JPEG or PDF formats. If you do not manually change the first scan filename, the software automatically increments successive file numbers (001, 002, etc.). There is an autocrop button on the ScanGear software, or the scan size can be preset (and moved manually). Rulers can be overlaid on a preview image to assist cropping.
It won't solve all your needs, but it would be quicker than using the PaintShop Pro 7 interface. I now use PaintShop Pro 12, but I think 7 also supports "scripting" (batch files). It would seem sensible to scan all the images first, then use a script to batch process the images if adjustment was necessary. Still, 4000 images is a daunting task.  Cry
Incidentally, at work, I use fast document scanners (A4 in 2 seconds), but there is still a delay whilst the data is transferred to the PC. Flatbed scanner technology seems to have resulted in ever slimmer units. Speed seems to be the domain of document feed type devices.
Lurker
Grafter
Posts: 1,867
Registered: 23-10-2008

Re: Scanner too slow

The difficulty is the transfer of data.
Typically a USB scanner will simply send a [large] stream of raw data to the PC, which will then be interpreted by the software running on that machine, and converted to the format required.
So even if you are eventually going to create a relatively small format, like a jpeg, you still have to move a huge amount of data from the scanner to the computer.
Economically it makes no sense for a manufacturer to go to the trouble of putting a large buffer on a cheap scanner, since it would just result in a more expensive unit, that could scan something quickly, but could then do nothing else until the data had been moved across (and what would happen if the data got corrupted somewhere?) The preferred model for cheap scanners is to scan at about the rate that the data can be transferred.
The larger machines Jelv and I refer to have built in hard drives and on-board processing.
They can do everything themselves, and only need to deliver the final compressed data, and even then will tend to use high speed networking 100/1000Mb for delivery.
Document feeders do help the process, but it is rather that the speed of processing makes it viable to fit a feeder, rather than being the feeder which makes scanning faster per se. (Although I concede its easier to roll media past the scanner than it is to move the scanner past the media etc)
Community Veteran
Posts: 26,432
Thanks: 684
Fixes: 8
Registered: 10-04-2007

Re: Scanner too slow

Actually the scanners we use don't have their own hard drives. The older one has a dedicated Kofax interface board that does a lot of the processing, the newer does a lot of the processing in the scanner (it's a VRS scanner) and connects to the PC using SCSI which is a lot faster than USB.
jelv (a.k.a Spoon Whittler)
   Why I have left Plusnet (warning: long post!)   
Broadband: Andrews & Arnold Home::1 (FTTC 80/20)
Line rental: Pulse 8 Home Line Rental (£13/month)
Mobile: iD mobile (£4/month)