Good scanners that work on Macs without extra software/drivers?

May 12, 2007 3:42 AM

I'm looking for a thin tabletop scanner that costs a max of $200 (not too much more, at least), provides a good price/quality ratio and most importantly, works in Mac OS X without auxiliary scanning software or device drivers. Recommendations?

There are some threads in askmefi already about scanners and Macs, but nothing that I could find with my specific criteria.

I'm looking to transfer my DVD collection to a fault-tolerant HD array, and as a part of that I'm constructing an image library of the DVD covers.

I just read an article titled The Sad State of Sucky Scanning Software on Mac OS X (and it's update) concerning the use of scanners that Mac OS X does not natively support with software such as VueScan. In short, the situation is quite bad.

I want a good scanner that works flawlessly in Mac OS X 10.4.9 using its Image Capture Architecture, and therefore without the need for any external drivers. If possible, it should be thin; optimally I could store it in a convenient space I've got here, which is only 5.5 centimeters high (1.97 inches). A4 is sufficient for supported paper size. Since DVD covers are often shiny, the scanner should perform well with shiny photo-like material.

Since I'm a Mac user, things like looks, simplicity and elegance are appreciated, but performance still comes first. Any and all recommendations are welcome.

posted by lifeless to computers & internet (12 comments total)

Those articles you linked to were written by somebody who was using a multifunction device. On Windows or Mac, those are pieces of shit. Wreckage in a package. CPC: cheap plastic crap. Would not buy again. Everyone on the support side knows this. The people who buy them are mainly naive know-nothings.

Anyone buying a real scanner for real scanning is NOT buying a multifunction device.

So if you're taking any of that ranting half-assery as a comment on the state of scanning on the entire Mac platform, then you're doing yourself a disservice.
posted by Mo Nickels at 4:20 AM on May 12, 2007

I bought an Epson scanner four years ago because it had native OS X scanner support; I can't speak to anything more recent because I'm still using that scanner and haven't had to think about it since.
posted by mcwetboy at 4:58 AM on May 12, 2007

I have an Epson and it works perfectly on my mac.
posted by kdern at 5:45 AM on May 12, 2007

Mo Nickels: I focused on the software side of things of that article, not the hardware. VueScan's UI doesn't become any less sucky when used with a proper scanner, no? Of course, the vendor-specific software shipped with multifunction printers may be crappier than that which ships with real scanners, but that's beside the point, since I'm specifically looking for a natively supported scanner anyway.
posted by lifeless at 6:50 AM on May 12, 2007

Given the Epson recommendations, I checked out their lineup.

Epson Perfection V100 seems to fit the bill (review by MacNN here). Unless anyone has a compelling reason not to buy it, I'll probably get that one. (A clearly better device at the same price point would be a compelling reason.)
posted by lifeless at 7:00 AM on May 12, 2007

Macs come pre-bundled with a gig of printer drivers--they're hidden somewhere in the library. You're probably not going to have to install anything no matter which one you get.
posted by interrobang at 9:03 AM on May 12, 2007

I have two Macs, both running 10.4.9, but have never owned a scanner. My friend who is a Mac tech guy recommends Epson scanners over any others - he believes they're the best. He knew I was sort of wanting a scanner but didn't have a lot of money to spend.

A couple of weeks ago, he told me about the Epson V100 from buy.com and several other places. Right now, its price is $91, free shipping, and has a $40 rebate - so the final price is $51. It has decent reviews. I ordered it and got it last week. I've been super-busy and haven't had a chance to do anything with it yet. But my 17yo son (who's not a newbie but not terribly techie) took it out of the box, installed the software, set it up, scanned about a dozen old photos from my husband's childhood, and put them on his dad's iPod. He had no trouble at all setting it up, and all the photos look better scanned than the original.

My Mac tech friend tells me that when we set the preferences up, the scanned pictures will look even better.

If you decide to get an Epson and want to read what my friend wrote about setting up the preferences, e-mail me and I'll e-mail them to you.

One important note - he said that the glass on scanners is VERY, very easy to scratch and otherwise mess up. In the strongest terms, he said don't touch the glass with your fingers (the oils will transfer), don't slide photos or papers across the glass, and clean it very carefully. Some scratches, even small ones, will show up on the scanned photos.
posted by onemorething at 9:56 AM on May 12, 2007

Okay, this may sound very stupid, but I have a friend who is a digital photographer, and I have to ask: do you even need a scanner? Why not just take pics of the covers with your digital camera and use them? I have a Mac Probook, and I never scan, but I have pics of everything, even receipts for business purposes.
posted by misha at 2:28 PM on May 12, 2007

misha, scanners create pdfs, these might be easier to handle than files created by digital photography. Scanning documents might also be easier than taking pictures of them. Easier to to read scanned documents? Interesting idea though.
posted by cahlers at 6:57 PM on May 12, 2007

I have a standalone HP scanner, a midrange ADF one -- not a multifunction machine -- and I can attest to it being a piece of absolute crap. I use it exclusively with VueScan, because it's 1000% better than the actual HP Scan software (and VueScan ain't much to look at, but at least it's stable). So it's not just MFPs that are crap, but virtually all, in my opinion, consumer scanners.

(The only document scanner I've ever actually liked was a very high-end Xerox network scanner, that didn't actually interface to a PC. High-speed sheet-feeding bliss, that machine right there. Too bad it was about ten grand or something; I certainly couldn't afford one. But you get what you pay for.)

Anyway, according to this thread, some Epson scanners are supported natively through Apple's ICA (but beware, some of them are native ICA, and some are via TWAIN ... the latter is just a way of encapsulating the vendor's shitty drivers, I think, so it doesn't help things), and if you read a particular .plist file on your system, it might give you the model numbers.

But if I were you, I wouldn't get your hopes up. Scanners are a prime example of what happens when you let hardware companies try to write their own software, and I think Apple's effort to standardize things are a bit late. I'd second the recommendation of getting a high-quality digital camera, a copystand, and "scanning" your DVD covers that way. You'll probably be able to go through them FAR faster than you could with a flatbed, and you won't have to fuss with any crap hardware or software; you'll just have a memory-card full of images at the end.
posted by Kadin2048 at 11:19 PM on May 12, 2007

I have a Canon Canoscan 5200f which has some reasonable proprietary software coming with it. I mainly use it for scanning negatives and have done several hundred by now, so I can attest that the scanner software works and that it is not completely sh*tty, although it probably could be better.

I can second the recommandation not to get the multi-crap-machines, as I have never seen one that just worked and kept on doing it.

I just heard that the new Epson (don't know the number/name) is supposed to be very good. (from a pro-photographer friend)
posted by KimG at 2:48 PM on May 13, 2007

misha, unless you have a copy stand and floods, your digital photos of documents will not be as evenly lit as even a crappy scanner. This is key if you want to do OCR.

My P&S lens also shows some barrel distortion at the distance that a sheet of paper fills the frame.
posted by oats at 5:28 PM on May 13, 2007