Message-Id: <mailto:199503081652.KAA22400@library.wustl.edu> Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 11:50:09 -0500 From: mailto:ported@RPI.EDU> Subject: Re: Req. Info on Microtek Scanmaker III To: Multiple recipients of list IMAGELIB
Mack Lundy writes (Tue, 28 Feb 1995 10:22:26 PST) >I need to buy a general purpose scanner. It will probably be used for b&w
>photos, color photos, OCR applications, drawings, letters, manuscripts,
>stuff. I think the HP ScanJet IIcx does a pretty good job based on what I
>have seen come out of David Seaman's Electronic Text Center at Univ. of VA.
>and was ready to order one until then I saw the Feb., 7th issue of PC
>Magazine. The Microtek Scanmaker III started looking like a better long-
>term investment if we wanted a scanner we could grow into as our scanning
>needs got more sophisticated. There is the added attraction that Microtek
>throws in Photoshop.
>
>Is anyone using the Scanmaker III? How do you like it? Is maintenance a a
>problem or is it easily repaired? Would you buy it again? Is it difficult
>to fine tune? Have your run into any software compatibility problems?
Mark, At least in replies to IMAGELIB, you don't have much useful response yet. I also don't have personal experience with the Scanmaker III. However, I'm also in the market at the moment and have been reading reviews. In the March 1995 Macworld, there is a comparison of six recent models (all offering more than 24 bit resolution): Agfa Arcus II, Agfa StudioScan II, Epson ES-1200C, Microtek ScanMaker III, Ricoh FS2, and Umax PowerLook. Quoting from this review: "The ScanMaker III rated worse than any of the other scanners on gray sensitivity and color accuracy, and one scaan reveals why. All the highlight details is blown out to white. We tested two units, and they yeielded almsot identically flawed scans. The situation was not improved by using the Dynamic Color Rendition color-management software..... Add to this the 3rd-slowest speed rating; mediocre-to-poor zooming; barely adequante tonal-correction tools,.... and you've got a scanner I simply can't recommend." Further on...." I wish that I could wholeheartedly recommend one of the lower-cost scanners, and the Epson ($1499) comes close--limited by its less-than-stellar performance in gray sensitivity and color variation. But the real choice in this roundup is between the Umax PowerLook($3495) and the Agfa Arcus II($3495)."
Other reviews: November 1993 Macworld: 14 scanners. Top choices: LaCie Silverscanner II, HP ScanJet IIc, and Mirror 800 Plus. February 1994 PC Magazine: 21 scanners. Top choices: HP ScanJet IIcx and Microtek ScanMaker IISP.
Don Porter ITS