can this scan a 6x4?

I need one of these but want a really good picture reproduction. Is this the one?

What are the advantages of using a dedicated photo scanner like this as opposed to the scanner in a multifunction machine?

Don't you hate when stuff is NOT Mac compatible? I do!

bmw66x wrote:Don't you hate when stuff is NOT Mac compatible? I do!

The description says it works with Macs with OS 10.5.

So it says it works up through Windows Vista... does that mean it won't work with Windows 7?

if it comes with the Basenji, I'm in. Oh wait, it doesn't...

smartheart wrote:What are the advantages of using a dedicated photo scanner like this as opposed to the scanner in a multifunction machine?

You can feed them through instead of lifting the glass between photos. If you are doing a big job, this makes big difference.

bmw66x wrote:Don't you hate when stuff is NOT Mac compatible? I do!

Listed in Specs:

Minimum System Requirements:

Windows 2000, XP, Vista or 7; Mac OS 10.5 or higher

$68 to $89 over at nextag
http://www.nextag.com/Vupoint-Solutions-PS-CA6-762940694/prices-html

Scan images with resolutions up to 300 dpi

That seems kinda low doesn't it?

Is this product a good choice or not so good choice to scan old family b & w photos from the 1930s and somewhat faded color photos from the 1950s?

Is it really a 4x6 scanner, That is a 4" wide scanner that will stop after feeding 6" of document, or can eat any length of paper for as long as it's 4" or smaller in width?

If it's the former - then it's credentials as "receipt scanner" would be very poor. I tell from experience - as somebody who scans their own receipts with one of those Neat Scanners Woot has every now and then... These beasts sometimes run for a few feet in length!

Nice customer review at Best Buy

Stilton wrote:The description says it works with Macs with OS 10.5.

Optical Character Recognition / OCR software allows you to easily convert your text to an editable format – OCR software is compatible with Windows 2000 SP4, XP, and Vista, but it is not Mac compatible

Hard to find reviews online for this one, especially when there are none at Amazon. Found some here though:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/727812-REG/VuPoint_Solutions_PS_CA6_VP_Digital_Photo_Scanner.html

Was just thinking about buying a scanner like this for old photos...you read my mind Woot. Nice work.

Stilton wrote:The description says it works with Macs with OS 10.5.

It's just the OCR that is not Mac compatible. But if you're going to use this for photos that doesn't matter.

Says it scans images with resolutions up to 300 dpi but also states an optical resolution of 1800 dpi. What gives? Why and what is the difference?

LEM- wrote:Is it really a 4x6 scanner, That is a 4" wide scanner that will stop after feeding 6" of document, or can eat any length of paper for as long as it's 4" or smaller in width?

If it's the former - then it's credentials as "receipt scanner" would be very poor. I tell from experience - as somebody who scans their own receipts with one of those Neat Scanners Woot has every now and then... These beasts sometimes run for a few feet in length!

I also want to know this - I'd buy one or maybe even two if it could take documents 4 inches wide by several feet long, for receipts.

marksfamily wrote:if it comes with the Basenji, I'm in. Oh wait, it doesn't...

I wish!

If I could get a red Basenji for $25! (Although, I'd rather have a black-n-white!)

steve

LEM- wrote:Is it really a 4x6 scanner, That is a 4" wide scanner that will stop after feeding 6" of document, or can eat any length of paper for as long as it's 4" or smaller in width?

If it's the former - then it's credentials as "receipt scanner" would be very poor. I tell from experience - as somebody who scans their own receipts with one of those Neat Scanners Woot has every now and then... These beasts sometimes run for a few feet in length!

I dunno but back in the old days when fax paper came on rolls I used to feed a long piece through the scan portion of the fax machine and then loop it back around so its like a belt around the scanner. Then, I would dial the fax number of a guy I knew and hit send.. that thing would run continually until the fax connection was interrupted.. He got big long faxes of blankness all over his floor that used up his whole roll of paper.

NightGhost wrote:Nice customer review at Best Buy

He had to have the Geek Squad install the software for him - can we really trust his opinion then?

cowboyesfan wrote:Scan images with resolutions up to 300 dpi

That seems kinda low doesn't it?

Very. Not to plug apple because f**k apple. But the iphone 4 has a screen resolution of 326 DPI. Also, my multifunction $25 hp printer scanner does 1200 DPI. Though maybe this has better color reproduction.

surfacing wrote:So it says it works up through Windows Vista... does that mean it won't work with Windows 7?

Minimum System Requirements:

* Windows 2000, XP, Vista or 7; Mac OS 10.5 or higher

smartheart wrote:Is this product a good choice or not so good choice to scan old family b & w photos from the 1930s and somewhat faded color photos from the 1950s?

I would say no. This feeds the photos through, so you risk damaging them. My recommendation would be to go with a good scanner/printer that comes with a flatbed.

a4tis wrote:He had to have the Geek Squad install the software for him - can we really trust his opinion then?

Too true.

Website does not have the product, not even a manual. The best I can do so far is the support page for questions:

http://www.vupointsolutions.com/support.php

Some helpful information on dpi:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/scanner.htm

smartheart wrote:What are the advantages of using a dedicated photo scanner like this as opposed to the scanner in a multifunction machine?

I don't think there are many advantages with something this low end. Except that it's $20, which might be an advantage if you don't already have a multifunction machine and don't want to spend $100 on one.

The real difference is between a multifunction device, where scanning is just a component, and a dedicated flatbed scanner that might have more photo features like slide and negative strip holders and better dynamic range.

smartheart wrote:Is this product a good choice or not so good choice to scan old family b & w photos from the 1930s and somewhat faded color photos from the 1950s?

That will depend on the condition of the paper. If the photo paper is fragile or already cracked and falling apart, the photos may not survive being squeezed through the rollers of this $20 bargain. An inexpensive flatbed scanner would let you gently place the prints on the scanner and lower the lid, which is a lot less wear and tear on the old prints. You would never want to have an old print break up and jam in this thing.

There is a special consideration with old photos. If your antique photos are badly faded/color shifted/scratched, a flatbed scanner and the software it comes with may be able to perform some digital corrections and cleanup like fade restoration, color rebalancing, and dust/scratch removal. I'm not sure if this thing does any of that. It is really set up for prints in great condition from the last 20-30 years, which are all on that nice glossy paper that should be in pretty good shape.

bj02454 wrote:I also want to know this - I'd buy one or maybe even two if it could take documents 4 inches wide by several feet long, for receipts.

Another note for receipts that is not in favor of this machine: the receipts you want to safekeep the most, such as those from repair shops, big electronics items, etc are often printed on full 8.5x11 pages, if not 8.5x14 legal size... This one would be pretty useless for these important receipts too....

But since MOST receipts out there would fit through a 4" slot, for as long as you have some sort of flatbed scanner for bigger ones - this one will probably expedite your daily scanning routine quite a bit for the bulk of them. But don't count on it exclusively.

marksfamily wrote:if it comes with the Basenji, I'm in. Oh wait, it doesn't...

Love my Basenjis. Always looking for more of those trouble makers.

NightGhost wrote:Nice customer review at Best Buy

It's surprising this guy could make it to the best buy website and post a review.

NightGhost wrote:Nice customer review at Best Buy

It's surprising this guy could make it to the best buy website and post a review.

froogled

omgwin wrote:Very. Not to plug apple because f**k apple. But the iphone 4 has a screen resolution of 326 DPI. Also, my multifunction $25 hp printer scanner does 1200 DPI. Though maybe this has better color reproduction.

You can get a decent print off of a 300 dpi image, though. A 300 dpi printer would look lousy, but 200-300dpi images look fine when printed on a 1200 dpi printer. That said, you'll get a MUCH higher scanning resolution from dedicated scanners these days, this isn't gong to let you enlarge photos, and it really looks like it's more of a business card scanner that might happen to do the occasional snapshot scan.

cowboyesfan wrote:Scan images with resolutions up to 300 dpi
That seems kinda low doesn't it?

Yup, that's purty dang low, all things considered. PLENTY for viewing on-screen, should be decent re-printed at same size, but any appreciable enlargement will suffer.

smartheart wrote:Is this product a good choice or not so good choice to scan old family b & w photos from the 1930s and somewhat faded color photos from the 1950s?

Really depends on what you'd like to accomplish... see my comment above. If you're looking to "restore" some of the faded/scratched/etc. photos, there is some nifty software out there that you could get in addition to the/a scanner.

phacopida wrote:Says it scans images with resolutions up to 300 dpi but also states an optical resolution of 1800 dpi. What gives? Why and what is the difference?

This explanation just confuses things further (from http://desktoppub.about.com/od/scannerbasics/qt/optical.htm):

about.com wrote:When evaluating a scanner, two terms you may encounter are its optical resolution and its interpolated resolution. The interpolated resolution may have the bigger number but it's not that important. Ignore it. The optical resolution is the true measure of how much information about the image the scanner can capture.
Interpolation just means the scanning software "makes up pixels" to fill the spaces - something that can generally be done much better in an image-editing program such as Photoshop - if it needs to be done at all.

dernst_ca1 wrote:I dunno but back in the old days when fax paper came on rolls I used to feed a long piece through the scan portion of the fax machine and then loop it back around so its like a belt around the scanner. Then, I would dial the fax number of a guy I knew and hit send.. that thing would run continually until the fax connection was interrupted.. He got big long faxes of blankness all over his floor that used up his whole roll of paper.

Well played sir. If it didn't waste a ton of paper, I'd say some kind of disturbing message repeated ad nauseum, or mayhaps a long meandering drawing with a good payoff would be in order.

cowboyesfan wrote:Scan images with resolutions up to 300 dpi

That seems kinda low doesn't it?

Dots per inch. I think most inkjets print 240dpi best. Commercial labs up to 300dpi. if scanning 4x6 to print at 4x6. Its just right :} I got one to scan old 110 up to 35mm BOXES full so this will make MUCH QUICKER work of it!

I have a whole drawer of pics I have been working through with this scanner... The quality is a bit grainy, but not bad... Its worth it to me to get those photos digital without having to lift a lid all the time.

It's pretty fast too... Just read the directions, use the sleeve and do the cleaning cycle between long sessions.

bmwjerry wrote:It's just the OCR that is not Mac compatible. But if you're going to use this for photos that doesn't matter.

That's what I meant. I'm just the "offended" party for tonight. Carry on!