Sometimes old tech is still better...

[Ral-Clan]

Yeah, to be sure - I already have a PCI SCSI card for PPC Mac, actually, I just haven't put it to use for lack of peripherals.

I would pull this PCI card out and have a look at it (for manufacturer numbers).  I suspect it is just an Adaptec SCSI card that would work in a Windows PC as well, but sold as an OEM part through Apple.  I think that's what my 2093B card was and it works fine with Windows XP built-in drivers.

[commodorejohn]

I believe it is Adaptec, but what I'm not sure about is that there's a socketed EPROM on the board labeled "Apple" which I expect is some kind of BIOS ROM; if that's necessary, I kind of doubt it'll work on an x86 machine without replacing that.

[Methuselas]

Those *ARE* awesome scanners. I had one, for years, before a power surge killed it. =C

[Dwyloc]

I believe it is Adaptec, but what I'm not sure about is that there's a socketed EPROM on the board labeled "Apple" which I expect is some kind of BIOS ROM; if that's necessary, I kind of doubt it'll work on an x86 machine without replacing that.

I used an Adaptec "Apple" PCI SCSI card card in a Windows 2000 Pro work PC for a number of years without problems the only issues was that the Apple EPROM from a PPC mac meant that my x86 PC could not boot off it, but as I was using it to connect a SCSI backup drive and a CD-Writer this was not a problem.  It may even have been possible to reflash the card to allow a PC to boot off it but I had no need to so I never tried.  

So the odds are reasonable that it will work if you load the correct driver under Windows :-)

[commodorejohn]

Okay, s'pose I'll give it a shot then. Don't think not being able to boot from a scanner should be an issue

[Ral-Clan]

Okay I did some scan comparisons.  The difference is not earthshattering - it's very subtle, but I think the E3 handles colour gradients (especially subtle ones) a little better.

First of all I scanned some black writing on a yellow background.  You can see that on the HP 3-in-on it creates a white line around the black writing that isn't there on the original.  I even turned off all software sharpening in the scanner software.  The image here is a zoomed in detail of the 300 dpi original scan (make sure your browser insn't scaling it down):

http://s11.postimage.org/u36ar96tf/scantest01.png

Next was a colour test.  This is a zoomed in section of a watercolour painting.  Again the difference isn't huge, but the E3 captures the colours the way they really look on the painting (it can even pick up the VERY faint light blue of the sky).  Whereas the HP 3-in-one from 2008 skews the red colours toward purple and cannot pick up the blue sky (it just makes it white).

http://s17.postimage.org/ccw5vclkf/scantest02.png

There was one thing the HP was better at.  Black text on a white background was sharper while on the E3 it was more antialiased.  But for colour scans with subtle shades the 11 year old E3 has better fidelity.

[Ilwrath]

I even turned off all software sharpening in the scanner software.

That HP driver is obviously not honoring your request to not adulterate those images.  Don't believe me? Just take the e3s image one and apply a 2px sharpen.  (And a harsh one at that.  Maybe 75%.) Take image 2 and apply a standard color correction.

The hardware isn't the problem, per se.  Its those terrible drivers and software.  Unless the multi function device is automatically applying these filters before it hands the scan to the os.  This may be the case for devices that can scan directly to email or smb share.

I've never been fond of software that thinks it knows better than me what I want.  And in that respect the old ways were better... But I really don't think you can blame the optics or hardware in this case.

[Ral-Clan]

That HP driver is obviously not honoring your request to not adulterate those images.  Don't believe me? Just take the e3s image one and apply a 2px sharpen.  (And a harsh one at that.  Maybe 75%.) Take image 2 and apply a standard color correction.

Yeah, I tend to agree with you after staring at the images.  The white outline looks like the effects of oversharpening (unsharp mask) and increased contrast.

Interesting that the HP 3-in-one couldn't pick up the subtle blue shades (it does the same with light pink or beige) but this might be a result of a contrast boost filter being applied automatically.

Not sure how I'd fix any of this other than to buy something like VueScan, which is commercial software.  Not really interesting in paying more money to fix something in the HP 3-in-1 that shouldn't have been broken in the first place, when the ScanMaker E3 works fine.

[Ilwrath]

Yeah, I tend to agree with you after staring at the images.  The white outline looks like the effects of oversharpening (unsharp mask) and increased contrast.

Indeed.  Exactly like it.

Interesting that the HP 3-in-one couldn't pick up the subtle blue shades (it does the same with light pink or beige) but this might be a result of a contrast boost filter being applied automatically.

No, it's the auto-color correction.  It picked up the blue tint just fine.  Then it incorrectly auto-corrected it to white.  That's why your greens look brighter, and your red path went wacky.  The image got corrected against a "blue light" condition, which messed with the color balancing of the entire image.

Not sure how I'd fix any of this other than to buy something like VueScan, which is commercial software.  Not really interesting in paying more money to fix something in the HP 3-in-1 that shouldn't have been broken in the first place, when the ScanMaker E3 works fine.

Very true, there.  If there's no free alternative that supports that scanner, you're screwed.  But, of course, you could still pick up a $30 scanner that is supported under free alternatives.  The lesson isn't necessarily that older is better, but open, free software is often better.  Especially when on a budget.  

[Jose]

Problem with old hardware is that most times it's impossible to find working drivers for more recent OSes.

[motrucker]

I still use an older HP all in one (3150) that works better than I would have believed. I noticed a problem about a year ago with it, when it started behaving Like ral-clan's when printing graphics images - specially full page images. It never acted like that when I first bought the thing, so  I tried asking HP if they had any feedback on this problem. Before they repsponded, I remembered that they (HP) had updated the software since I bought it. I rolled back to the original drivers, and the problem vanished - And this scanner has worked fine ever since. It is NOT professional quality reproduction, but it isn't bad.
When HP finally responded, they said to make sure I always had the newest software updates installed. I would say always be ready to roll the software back. Thee days I just do not accept the updates for this machine.
Having said all that, I still have my eye out for an older SCSI scanner....

[Ral-Clan]

Having said all that, I still have my eye out for an older SCSI scanner....

Interesting.  Thanks for your experience with the HP scanner.  I think I'm just using the original driver from the installation disc.

As for looking for a SCSI scanner - that's not a bad idea.  It's not a hard and fast rule, but usually scanners with a SCSI interface made in the late 1990s and early 2000s were the "higher end" models in a manufacturer's line.  They were the more expensive models meant for business use and use by graphic shops, photographers, etc.  The parallel port models were the cheaper, crappier home user models.  So if you see a used SCSI scanner it could mean it's a good performer.

The side benefit, as I already mentioned, is that if you find a SCSI scanner there's a fair chance that there's also Amiga scanning software that will work with it.

SCSI scanners used to be the fastest scanners, but I don't think that's the case anymore with USB2.0 and 3.0.

[commodorejohn]

Well, as I expected, it had no scrap value, so I got it for free It's an E3 Plus, but it does seem to be SCSI - it's got one male and one female DB25, which I presume is for pass-through purposes. Haven't gotten a chance to test it, as I need an adapter cable for the SCSI card's newer port, but the glass is clean and intact, it powers on, the stepper motor works, and the light appears properly bright, so I'm betting it's going to work just fine

[Ral-Clan]

Well, as I expected, it had no scrap value, so I got it for free It's an E3 Plus, but it does seem to be SCSI - it's got one male and one female DB25, which I presume is for pass-through purposes. Haven't gotten a chance to test it, as I need an adapter cable for the SCSI card's newer port, but the glass is clean and intact, it powers on, the stepper motor works, and the light appears properly bright, so I'm betting it's going to work just fine

My Scanmaker E3 (non PLUS version) has the standard 50 pin (big) port that looks similar to a Centronics port (but larger) and a DB25 passthrough.

The Windows XP TWAIN drivers I downloaded from MicroTek's site worked fine (they were part of the ScanWizard software).  There's a manual here on SCSI installation that seems to show your your model with two 25DB SCSI connectors (second of the pictures showing connection method):

http://support.microtek.com/product_dtl_2.phtml?prod_id=97

But wait!  There was also an Enhanced Parallel Port version of the same scanner that ALSO had two connectors on the back:

http://support.microtek.com/ts_doc_SME3+EPPInstlPC.phtml

On the back of the Scanner does it say anything like "EPP" beside the model name?

http://www.dealextreme.com has very cheap SCSI adapters.

[commodorejohn]

But wait!  There was also an Enhanced Parallel Port version of the same scanner that ALSO had two connectors on the back:

Hah, go figure - and no markings on the case or information in the manual to distinguish the two... :/ Still, one of the two main ICs on the board is a 90C26 EPP-to-SCSI adapter, so...I guess it's SCSI? Then again, the pass-through port is labeled "PRINTER," so maybe not. Guess I'll find out...

Edit: Okay, turns out to have been an EPP scanner after all, apparently that chip is serving as a SCSI-to-EPP adapter rather than the other way around (the scanner software even recognizes it as a SCSI host adapter :rolleyes:) But she works, and while I haven't gotten a chance to run a real test, the image quality seems quite nice