Hi all,
My scanner has arrived from QVC and I've scanned about 50 photos so far. Results are excellent and it was well worth the investment.
Scanning takes 30 seconds per photo, 5 seconds to feed through and 25 seconds for the processing and then the machine is available for the next photo to be scanned.
When I watched the video presentation on QVC, the scan interval was if I recall much shorter than 30 seconds and I have a suspicion that they may have used a machine set up differently to the production model.
I am sure that they were feeding the photos in one after the other in the demonstration on TV but it is not possible to do that in reality, as the machine just will not accept the next photo until the processing for the previous photo has completed and all lights have stopped flashing.
Unfortunately I have deleted my Sky+ recording of the QVC presentation and the video has also been deleted from the QVC site.
If QVC have use a 'doctored' model then that's a bit cheeky of them. I shall write to them for their comments.
I would be interested to hear how others get on with their scanners. Maybe mine is an earlier version and the electronics have been updated in subsequent models.
Some posts have mentioned white lines appearing, but this just means that the device needs cleaning; do that and you get a cracking image. They may also be on the original photo and could be being accentuated by the scanning process.
Bear in mind that your source photos are unlikely to have a high resolution to start with so don't try to compare them with the multi-megapixel photos that anyone can take these days.
The scanner could do with having a better automatic electronic file numbering software as when it is powered down, the numbering resets and checks the number of the last file and sets the new scan number one above that. If you then drag that file into another folder there may already be a photo in there with the same number so the file has to be renamed. You have to make sure that you don't inadvertently replace other photos with the same number. Most digital cameras have software with a sequential numbering system that doesn't get reset and the device would benefit by having that system incorporated.
It takes a minimum of 30 seconds per photo and to scan 120 in an hour takes quite a bit of concentration - quite difficult to do while watching TV as they suggested in the presentation unless it is a soap of course, which doesn't require much brainpower! (;<)) :3:
Despite the above niggles, it's a cracking little device, and it is little and a bit overpriced, in my opinion it is worth the money for the ease and simplicity of use and the excellent results that can be obtained.
I can see loads of old photos being dragged out of shoeboxes and being shown on 42 inch widescreen TVs much to everyone's embarrassment.
The QVC price has gone up since the TSV and once the product goes on general distribution next month then it will drop, but for shear convenience over a flatbed scanner and at 30 seconds per photo scanned, it can't be beat.
Regards - Eric
My scanner has arrived from QVC and I've scanned about 50 photos so far. Results are excellent and it was well worth the investment.
Scanning takes 30 seconds per photo, 5 seconds to feed through and 25 seconds for the processing and then the machine is available for the next photo to be scanned.
When I watched the video presentation on QVC, the scan interval was if I recall much shorter than 30 seconds and I have a suspicion that they may have used a machine set up differently to the production model.
I am sure that they were feeding the photos in one after the other in the demonstration on TV but it is not possible to do that in reality, as the machine just will not accept the next photo until the processing for the previous photo has completed and all lights have stopped flashing.
Unfortunately I have deleted my Sky+ recording of the QVC presentation and the video has also been deleted from the QVC site.
If QVC have use a 'doctored' model then that's a bit cheeky of them. I shall write to them for their comments.
I would be interested to hear how others get on with their scanners. Maybe mine is an earlier version and the electronics have been updated in subsequent models.
Some posts have mentioned white lines appearing, but this just means that the device needs cleaning; do that and you get a cracking image. They may also be on the original photo and could be being accentuated by the scanning process.
Bear in mind that your source photos are unlikely to have a high resolution to start with so don't try to compare them with the multi-megapixel photos that anyone can take these days.
The scanner could do with having a better automatic electronic file numbering software as when it is powered down, the numbering resets and checks the number of the last file and sets the new scan number one above that. If you then drag that file into another folder there may already be a photo in there with the same number so the file has to be renamed. You have to make sure that you don't inadvertently replace other photos with the same number. Most digital cameras have software with a sequential numbering system that doesn't get reset and the device would benefit by having that system incorporated.
It takes a minimum of 30 seconds per photo and to scan 120 in an hour takes quite a bit of concentration - quite difficult to do while watching TV as they suggested in the presentation unless it is a soap of course, which doesn't require much brainpower! (;<)) :3:
Despite the above niggles, it's a cracking little device, and it is little and a bit overpriced, in my opinion it is worth the money for the ease and simplicity of use and the excellent results that can be obtained.
I can see loads of old photos being dragged out of shoeboxes and being shown on 42 inch widescreen TVs much to everyone's embarrassment.
The QVC price has gone up since the TSV and once the product goes on general distribution next month then it will drop, but for shear convenience over a flatbed scanner and at 30 seconds per photo scanned, it can't be beat.
Regards - Eric
