Prev: Scanner advice
Next: Vuescan Setting For Fuji Astia
From: ivowel on 18 Oct 2006 13:34

I am looking at purchasing a scanner that can do 25-50 ppm (50-100 ipm)
at 200dpi for plain OCR purposes. Most of my input will be just
ordinary paper, sometimes thinner journal paper. Nothing else, like
business cards, for example. I would love a 100 page feeder, but I
guess if need be, could live with a 50 page feeder. I will do a lot of
scanning, though, exceeding the posted duty cycle figures.

The HP 8390 costs around $1,100 at newegg, but someone told me that it
is pretty unreliable---both in terms of its ability to cleanly suck in
paper and in its mechanical reliability, and that the Fujitsu scanners
are the market leaders and more reliable (more straight-through paper
path and Ultrasonic detection). Alas, there competitive model [5530]
is more than twice the price.

If you use any of the HP scanners, can you please let me know how
reliable they are?

sincerely,

/iaw

PS: The HP 8350 seems similar, just a bit slower.

From: Danny on 18 Oct 2006 16:21
Hi /iaw,

That's an attractive price for the8390 for the specs listed on their
website. But, some things to note:

1. footprint- the 8390 would take up a much larger area on your desktop
than either the Fujitsu fi-5530c (47ppm/94ipm) or the fi-5120C
(25ppm/50ipm)

2. the Fujitsu models have the latest technology standard for ensuring
double feed's are detected. Ultrasonic DFD (double feed detection). In
my opinion, fast ADF's are meaningless if a few pages pull through the
ADF stuck together. If that happens with the Fujitsu models, you'll
know right away because the scanner would stop and alert you that a
double feed occured- I'm not sure about the HP because their
documentation looks like it was written by a marketing specialist
rather than an engineer or even someone with some technical knowlege of
their hardware. The verbage appears like the typical marketing
rhetoric. *the fi-5120C and fi-5530C both have ultrasonic and/or length
check available*

3. autoswitching backgrounds on the FJ models allow the VRS to
autocrop & deskew to the actual diemensions of the paper. cheaper
models by other manufacturers will either have only white available and
just detect the length and assume the width using ISO standard page
sizes or they'll only have a fixed black background and make the user
manually attach another white backing if they want to change- (like the
Kodak i1200/1300 series) The FJ models use a CCD which has a mechanism
inside that mechanically will switch upon starting a batch.

4. Digital annotation and physical endorser/imprinter options for the
FJ models. HP- I'm not sure. their inside sales didn't know the answer
to this question but from the appearace of the ADF, it doesn't appear
possible to attach a seperate imprinter anywhere. This feature is
useful for anything from digitally marking the images with things like
datestamp , timestamp, scanner operator username, or any custom
markings for forms processing. Forms processing is the fastest way to
change the old way of thinking with document imaging- archival /
expense to a much better ROI / business workflow enhancement such as
what the IRS uses.

I can elaborate on anything listed above or anthing else you may have a
question about... just let me know if there's a specific question you
have about the scanners. I hate to say it but this appears to be a case
of getting what you pay for. Straight throu ADF's typically handle a
wider range of documents than U-shaped ADF's. I'd be happy to show you
a live demo realtime using a webcam anytime.

Hope this helps....

Danny Ha
ivowel(a)gmail.com wrote:
> I am looking at purchasing a scanner that can do 25-50 ppm (50-100 ipm)
> at 200dpi for plain OCR purposes. Most of my input will be just
> ordinary paper, sometimes thinner journal paper. Nothing else, like
> business cards, for example. I would love a 100 page feeder, but I
> guess if need be, could live with a 50 page feeder. I will do a lot of
> scanning, though, exceeding the posted duty cycle figures.
>
> The HP 8390 costs around $1,100 at newegg, but someone told me that it
> is pretty unreliable---both in terms of its ability to cleanly suck in
> paper and in its mechanical reliability, and that the Fujitsu scanners
> are the market leaders and more reliable (more straight-through paper
> path and Ultrasonic detection). Alas, there competitive model [5530]
> is more than twice the price.
>
> If you use any of the HP scanners, can you please let me know how
> reliable they are?
>
> sincerely,
>
> /iaw
>
> PS: The HP 8350 seems similar, just a bit slower.

From: ivowel on 18 Oct 2006 21:05

hi danny: thanks for the advice. (sounds like you almost work for
fuji ;-) did you try both scanners vis-a-vis one another?.)

the only part for me that matters, really, is #2. I just want a
reliable paper scanner that does the ordinary task fast and quick, and
which allows me to have many pages in the paper path. for common
paper, how often does it occur that the HP 83[59]0 pulls multiple
papers through its path incorrectly? is this very rare or reasonably
common? HP printers are pretty good in pulling in only one paper at a
time through their paper paths.

the other items probably matter to other users, but not so much to
myself. desk space is not a problem, either.

regards,

/iaw

From: Danny on 19 Oct 2006 01:45
Hi /iaw,

> hi danny: thanks for the advice. (sounds like you almost work for
> fuji ;-)

I actually did work for Fujitsu for about 6 years. It's a great company
with an outstanding team in the Imaging Products Group (IPG).

> did you try both scanners vis-a-vis one another?.)

Not this particular model. I did see the 7800 while in the factory in
Japan- but the overall assesment was that it wasn't seen as too big a
threat- paper handling was mediocre and image quality on the rear
camera was intermittently poor.

for common
> paper, how often does it occur that the HP 83[59]0 pulls multiple
> papers through its path incorrectly?

I wouldn't have this iniformation- or be able to discuss this
information.Don't get me wrong, the HP Scanners are most likely fine.
If you look at some of the usergroup's posts, they'll often be negative
reviews- however those reviews are based on the older HP product line
which was often not even an HP manufactured product- rather a common
OEM manufacturer. Don't quote me on this , but I believe the newer HP
lineup may be an inhouse built scanner. This would mean that if that's
the case, HP has made a commitment to becoming a major player in
document imaging... their future products would most likly drastically
improve.


is this very rare or reasonably
> common? HP printers are pretty good in pulling in only one paper at a
> time through their paper paths.

true.. but one major difference between a priter and a scanner is the
documents being fed through. Printers will have near perfect documents
everytime. Even Impact Printers for NCR paper will have tracks
(perforated edges on the forms) because of it's thin properties and
chemical coating on each sheet. Paper dust, toner, thicker docuents/
cardstock, credit cards or other embossed platic, NCR documents, etc...
all have different challenges which is difficult for any ADF to
counter. The Fujitsu lineup has one of the most reliable since they've
been pouring resorces into finding new improvements in this field.
Their managment listens to customers feedback which is a huge reason
they've excelled in recent years- it's rare for any company to be as
customer focused- especially one as large as FJ.

I don't mean to be biased... I actually owned a ScanJet scanner before
I had a Fujitsu... The HP was a MFP and I was happy with it- until I
saw a Fujitsu scanner to compare performance with. It was no contest...

Hope this helps...

Danny Ha

ivowel(a)gmail.com wrote:
> hi danny: thanks for the advice. (sounds like you almost work for
> fuji ;-) did you try both scanners vis-a-vis one another?.)
>
> the only part for me that matters, really, is #2. I just want a
> reliable paper scanner that does the ordinary task fast and quick, and
> which allows me to have many pages in the paper path. for common
> paper, how often does it occur that the HP 83[59]0 pulls multiple
> papers through its path incorrectly? is this very rare or reasonably
> common? HP printers are pretty good in pulling in only one paper at a
> time through their paper paths.
>
> the other items probably matter to other users, but not so much to
> myself. desk space is not a problem, either.
>
> regards,
>
> /iaw

From: ppitts@allstarss.com on 22 Oct 2006 09:39
HP is definaly for the lite-duty home user. You won't be happy with it
as time goes on. Fujitsu is a better choise and has more options to
expand with. Previous post mentioned VRS (Virtual Re-Scan) which is a
producut jointly developed by Kofax and Fujitsu. The whole idea is
that it allows you to adjust the results without having to re-scan the
document. VRS may not be part of your initial purchase, but we don't
sell any scanning solutions - even low end ones - without VRS. It is
that good!

Fujitsu support has been great for us and we rely on their scanners for
all of our production scanning needs.

Call Lou Plante at All Star - he is really tight with Fujitsu and can
get you a good deal. 860 828 2076.

Paul Pitts


ivowel(a)gmail.com wrote:
> I am looking at purchasing a scanner that can do 25-50 ppm (50-100 ipm)
> at 200dpi for plain OCR purposes. Most of my input will be just
> ordinary paper, sometimes thinner journal paper. Nothing else, like
> business cards, for example. I would love a 100 page feeder, but I
> guess if need be, could live with a 50 page feeder. I will do a lot of
> scanning, though, exceeding the posted duty cycle figures.
>
> The HP 8390 costs around $1,100 at newegg, but someone told me that it
> is pretty unreliable---both in terms of its ability to cleanly suck in
> paper and in its mechanical reliability, and that the Fujitsu scanners
> are the market leaders and more reliable (more straight-through paper
> path and Ultrasonic detection). Alas, there competitive model [5530]
> is more than twice the price.
>
> If you use any of the HP scanners, can you please let me know how
> reliable they are?
>
> sincerely,
>
> /iaw
>
> PS: The HP 8350 seems similar, just a bit slower.

 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Scanner advice
Next: Vuescan Setting For Fuji Astia