Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
141 of 146 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Better than older models, September 11, 2008
This review is from: Canon LiDE200 Color Image Scanner (2924B002) (Electronics)
I decided to replace my old "all in one" printer which I was using as a scanner and a photocopying with the Canon LIDE200. I liked the specification: 4800x4800 dpi and a claimed 11 second scan rate.
The first thing I noticed as I was unpacking the scanner from the box was a mysterious WARNING about unlocking the lid of the scanner. The scanner was packed with the lid unlocked (as I found out later), and the instructions mentioned to keep the lid locked for travel or extensive handling. Fair enough, but it made me wonder if I had already done something bad to my scanner (I hadn't).
I then installed the software. I expected big things from Canon here, because generally they are pretty smart about software. The software, in terms of use, is much better than the software I had for scanning with my old scanner. The scanner has an "easy" setting that basically just scans at 300DPI without a fuss. If you want to scan at full resolution, you have to open the "driver" that exposes a page with all the bells and whistles to let you really fine tune your scan and set the highest resolutions.
All this was fair enough, however I found a few minor disturbing problems with the software. Firstly, once you've opened the "driver", it's not intuitive to figure out how to get back to the "no brainer" mode. Also, when you want to save your scan, it always seems to default to the scanning library it sets up. If you override it, it doesn't stay "changed". This is a slight pain. I always wonder who they hire to test and give feedback, because I always feel like I'm pointing out what should be the "obvious" to large companies like Canon (actually I really love Canon - so take no offense!).
As far as scanning speed is concerned, the scanner does indeed scan a 300 dpi page in about 11 seconds (that's pretty fast folks). However, the estimate does not include the 3 seconds the software takes to respond to the command to begin scanning (I'm running a duo core processor - no slouch) and the few seconds it takes to save the image. All in all, speed is impressive.
Now on to document quality. I tried scanning a few brochures and to be honest, at 300 DPI I wasn't super impressed with the result. So I went into the "driver" at set the scanning at maximum resolution (4800 x 4800). You get a pretty good result at that resolution, but by no means was I blown away. Perhaps more "tweaks" of the driver is needed. I noticed that the scanner attempts to "improve" the picture (which it does) but some of the detail of the text was a little off (brochure had images and text). I wondered if the lid of the scanner was making really good contact. Next time I will add a few pages of plain white paper behind the image and see if it makes a difference.
I tried scanning a printed document, and compared it to a printed document I scanned using my old scanner. I scanned the image to a PDF and low and behold, a major, major improvement (at 300 DPI).
So, I gave the scanner four "stars". Why not five? Well, the software is much easier to use than my old scanner, but still not without a few minor "quirks". This is a great scanner for scanning documents. How well it will actually scan and reproduce a photo is still in question, and perhaps I need to learn how to use the driver software better. I don't think I could scan an original photo without seeing some degradation in quality.
I'd be interested to hear other people's experiences regarding copying photos. I hope I'm wrong in my assessment, because I really expected a 4800x4800 scanner to reproduce "dead on" copies of a photo.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
74 of 76 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Well-priced and feature-rich CanoScan LiDE 200 looks promising, September 12, 2008
This review is from: Canon LiDE200 Color Image Scanner (2924B002) (Electronics)
This scanner is a replacement for my Epson Perfection 2450 Photo, which Epson chose to not support in the Vista 64-bit platform. As usual, with no new driver, another perfectly fine and useful scanner dies due to an operating system upgrade. As my scanning at present is more document based, I decided to try this less expensive option and give Canon a chance.
On first glance, it seems my research has paid off. This scanner was quick and easy to install out of the box. The directions were straightforward and useful. One is first instructed to run the setup CD, then remove and unlock the scanner, and finally to plug in the USB. I did not have the problem of the second reviewer: my lock button was in the lock position when I received it, and was even taped over for security.
The scanner has a small footprint and sleek style, compared to my previous model.
The software is easy to use, although it sometimes seems that too many screens are involved. I believe there are options to streamline this to some extent.
My first function was a one-button copy. My sheet music copied as well as the average commercial copier. (Quality was also much better than a B & W copy on my Epson Stylus CX4800 all-in-one.) The pencil marks, however, were very light on the copy, and barely readable. Original highlighting on the piece was gone.
I then performed a one-button scan of the same music. It took about 16 seconds, including software linking. This time the music detail was also excellent and pencil marks were very readable. After the scan, I sent it to the printer where the music quality remained, pencil marking remained strong, and highlighting was preserved.
One note regarding one-button functions: as the second reviewer noted, after choosing a one-button function a CanoScan-generated option list appears requiring the user to "Select program to launch for this action". On my computer there are four options, and I must choose MP Navigator EX from the list. I thought that after the first time I chose the launch program that it would be remembered. It wasn't, so I searched every screen and the user guide, and have not found a way to alter this. It is a definite nuisance that I hope Canon will fix with an update soon.
When scanning, one must place the object upside down on platen to receive a vertical product. In general, the platen is roomy, allowing all but about 1mm on each side left to right of useable space. From cursory scans, it appears there is very little surface area that will not be useable on this scanner (unlike my Epson), which equates to less fidgeting with the original on placement.
Unlike the previous reviewer, once I changed my default file location for saves, all my auto scans saved to that location.
I also haven't found the buttons to be hard to press, or to move the scanner (I have a glass desktop). I do find that after you press the button there is a small lag time before the scan operation begins, so it's easy to think you didn't really press it hard enough.
There is no light on the scanner, as it is always on when the computer is, since it is powered by the USB, not a power cord.
I scanned an 8x10 professional color portrait on auto scan, with the following results:
- it saved to my correct location, with a subfolder created by current date (a changeable option)
- the end file size was 1533 kb (auto mode scans at 300 dpi)
- only 1-2 mm of the photo was cut off by auto cropping...a very acceptable result
- the detail and quality seemed excellent on the screen
In general, cropping has been very precise on photos and documents.
I did scan a book to test the shadow reduction feature and was disappointed. Not only was there still a shadow, but the text was unreadable at the center. I did successive scans, pressing harder on the spine first with the scanner lid, and then under the lid with my hand, with little overall improvement. Later, I found on option in the software to "turn on" the shadow adjustment, so I tried the scan again with no improvement. Perhaps there is more to be discovered still with the software to implement this feature properly...
As I haven't had a new scanner for a number of years, I decided to try the OCR function, hoping that perhaps the industry had made strides in this regard. It was sorely lacking, making profuse spelling errors, handling italics and small caps fonts poorly. Overall, still a dysfunctional function.
My one pause for concern that caused me to give this scanner only four stars is a glitch that occurred with the scanner's hardware interface. After successfully scanning for 1-2 hours straight without any system flaws, I left the computer for an hour or so. Upon coming back and trying a one-button function I received a ScanGear Error: "Cannot communicate with scanner, Cable may be disconnected or scanner may be turned off. Check status, scanner driver will be closed." I closed and reopened software, and restarted the computer. No improvement. The scanner did not show up on Device Manager. Finally I removed and replaced the USB connection to the computer and the scanner was again recognized. There was no function made by a user; however, perhaps a screen saver coming on or the computer going into sleep mode may have initiated this error. I am hoping this is not a repetitive problem.
I waited several weeks to purchase this scanner, and the first review was slow to come. I finally decided to purchase and provide a review for others--a risk these days, especially with Vista 64. Overall, I think this will be a good product. It is certainly fast--much faster than my Epson--and a step saver for anyone with consecutive documents to scan.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
52 of 53 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
A great portable scanner, March 17, 2009
This review is from: Canon LiDE200 Color Image Scanner (2924B002) (Electronics)
With a few caveats, this is a great little scanner. The best part is that it actually fits in my Targus computer case WITH my laptop. It weighs only 2-3 pds, and runs off USB power---no converter brick to haul around. Scans are sharp and fast.
Unfortunately, the particular design of scanner is that (unlike most fat desktop scanners) it cannot scan 3D objects, therefore text near the spine of a book, which is not in actual and absolute contact with the glass, is very blurry. Nor can you just press down the book---this seems to warp the glass causing blurriness elsewhere on the page, and may even jam the scanning mechanism. Also, the lid is non-removable, which means that you may be out-of-luck if you need to scan part of a large object.
Despite these limitations, the price and exceptional portability may make this series of scanners the choice for scanning books---because books which need to be scanned are usually non-circulating items in libraries or archives.
Compared to other scanners the "frame" framing the glass surface is low and only ca 3/8" wide on the right side. So, if you have a circa 1/2" inside margin, and place the right side of the scanner at the edge of a table, you can scan many books easily. You can get in tighter (to within 3/8") by using a peice of stiff, 1/16" thick, cardboard, ca 8 3/8" X 11", placed behind each page before scanning---it is a pain, but it works.
If you do not plan to carry the scanner around much, you might consider a Canon LiDe 700. It has 2 major advantages. The right edge is actually flush with the glass surface---albeit there is still an unnecessarily wide margin. The lid opens 180 degrees, so you can scan portions of a large object.
Your original must be ABSOLUTELY flat. Since the lid is light, a weight placed on top of the lid can help insure that the original is in full contact with the glass. A ca 1" thick book is about the right weight.
The foam "pressure pad" in the lid is a bit too soft to insure that some originals (such as stiff letters or receipts which have been folded) are pressed sufficiently flat. If you notice this problem place a 8 1/2" X 11" piece of stiff cardboard and close the lid (or a thin book) directly on top of your original.
Although some reviews imply that books thicker than 1" cannot be scanned, because the "EZ-lid" only adjust to accomodate items up to 1" thick---in fact, and despite the instructions, it is not essential to close the lid at all---so there is no practical limit on book thickness. Caveat---if you don't close the lid, and if the entire glass surface is not covered by your book, then cover or shade any exposed glass from bright light (e.g., sunlight through a window or a very bright desk lamp). You can tape a strip of ordinary paper in place for this purpose, if necessary.
Other reviewers have complained about not being able to scan at greater than 1200 dpi. If you want to scan at, say 2400 dpi, you have to type the value in manually in the driver software. However, such scans are slow, and I have found no actual improvement in resolution (detail recorded).
It is true that the scanner draws power only when scanning. That is NOT a great advantage when used with a portable computer as one reviewer implies. At least with my ThinkPad---scanning to a portable running on battery-power very seriously slows down scanning. Plan on having your portable plugged into an AC outlet if you plan to scan more than a few pages.
If you want the best possible scans, you should save to tif---but the only tif files the scanner driver produces are huge uncompressed tif files. Solution: scan from a graphics program which allows you to save files as loss-less tif (LZW compression) which will produce files as small as 1/20 the size with no loss in detail.
If it is incovenient to scan from a graphics program, you can scan to JPG. JPG files are always degraded by compression, but if saved nominally uncompressed, degredation does not become significant unless you repeatedly edit and save the files. Solution: scan as jpg, but convert the files to LZW tif before editing them in any way. LZW tif and uncompressed jpg files of the same image are about the same size
PDF images generally default to ca 300dpi jpg-like compression---acceptable for most photos, but not for text. If you are scanning a mixture of images and text, scan as tif files at 1200 dpi and use Adobe Acrobat (or other pdf editor) to convert the tif files to pdf. Most pdf editors allow you to select the graphics quality---select "highest quality" --- OR a specific dpi --- OR disable "downsampling".
If you scan half-tone (screened) photos from books, magazines, etc. You can use Gausian blur (in your graphics editing program) to improve (descreen) them for viewing and printing. Use the lowest possible value which eliminates the dot pattern: typically, 4 pixels at 1200 dpi, 2 pixels at 600 dpi.
The very best scans are produced by setting the tone curve manually, with all of the various options "off". Pre-defining tone curves for your particular project makes the process a little easier. Unfortunately, you have to "summon" your pre-defined tone curve for each scan. You can define user tone curves, or the all of the scanning settings (including the tone curve) under user names. Note particularly, pay attention when defining "all of the settings" that some of the settings, particularly color, resolution, and auto-tone have not reverted to the defaults. You have to define things in a particular order, or the defaults reset----very annoying.
Don't panic about the scary "unlock the scanner before using" notice in the instructions. If you try to scan with the scanner locked, it will tell you, "unlock me". If so, just unlock it.
This review was original written about the discontinued Canoscan LiDE 90. After several thousand scans, the LiDE 90 began showing irregularities (as faint moire patterns) only when half-tone photos were scanned at 1200dpi and then descreened. So, I purchased an LiDE 200 as a replacement, since I scan everything at 1200 dpi. As far as I can tell, the only difference between the two model is that the LiDE 200 is quieter, and slightly slower. Although the automatic scanning function has nominally been improved, I use instead the "advanced settings". The "advanced settings" portion of the program is unchanged.
If there is no difference between the LiDE 90 and the LiDE 200, is there really any difference between an LiDE 100 and LiDE 200? I doubt it. Note that the 100 is "ugly black" while the 200 is "pretty silver". But guess what? The newer 210 is also "ugly black", presumably to minimize reflected light within the scanner. I bet that in some situations the "ugly black" LiDE 100 produces better scans that the "pretty silver" 200. As far as I can tell, the only difference between a 100 and a 210 is "improved" software features---which I wouldn't use anyway. The "newer" models claim to be 10% or so faster---but note that the 200 is slower than the 90, presumably to improve accuracy.
After setting up the "preferences" in the "advanced settings" of the LiDE 200 driver on my full size computer, I found that I could not change the options. I had to remove then reinstall the software to be able to change the "preferences". So, take care setting up preferences. The only changes I made were to select Preferences > Preview > "Automatically Execute Preview" and "Display the last Frame on Previewed Image". With my Thinkpad, no matter what I do, the software will not remember any advanced settings.
Suggestion to the Canon designers: If the frame was flush with the surface of the glass, and the frame (or margin) was narrower (less than 1/4 inch), at least on one side, this would be a great book scanner. The awkward drivers need major improvement.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
Saving...
