On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 1:13 PM Fred Cisin via cctalk <cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Jul 2019, Jason T via cctalk wrote: > > 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. > 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
