Epson FastFoto FF-640 High-Speed Photo Scanning System with Auto Photo Feeder

Fake TIFF files are actually JPEGS that have been compressed. If you need to scan tax documents quickly, this unit has a lot of useful features. It is, however, ineffective in obtaining a good-quality job. photo scan of high quality I work as a professional photo historian and graphic designer, scanning and archiving the photographs of my clients for a living. To avoid compression artifacts, I'll scan images as TIFFs only. When using the Epson 2 driver's TIFF option, I can see visible compression damage in the scan, as if it were a lower-quality scan. jpeg of good quality I shouldn't see any visible artifacts because TIFF uses lossless compression. High-resolution scanning and comparison tests on both platforms This is confirmed by the existence of high-quality original photographic prints. The TIFF option scans the file as a low-resolution TIFF image. saving a high-quality JPEG as a TIFF file, which gives me a larger file but no higher quality! When I contacted Epson about the problem, I was informed that this $700 scanner is designed for speed rather than quality, so I shouldn't expect good photo scan quality. I have a ten-year-old son. year- I have an old Epson flatbed that produces lovely TIFFs. My $50 Canon flatbed, for that matter, does the same thing. Epson should not be marketing this scanner as a photo scanner.

Bryant Goodwin

| Jan 12, 2021

I've scanned over 5,000 prints with it and have noticed that it leaves a bluish blob in the middle of scans, which is particularly noticeable on faces and white backgrounds. I contacted Epson, and they sent me a replacement for the first one. For a while, the new one worked fine, but now it does as well. It's especially aggravating because it's unpredictably inconsistent. br>br>After a lot of testing, the best I can say is that the flatness of the photo is very important (unsurprisingly). Cupped photos cause the scanner to jam or refuse to feed, which is understandable. When they go through, however, they almost never have this issue, possibly because they are pressing up against the scanner glass. It appears to be more common in concave photos (scan surfaces that curve away from the lens). I can't blame the unit for photos that aren't completely flat when they're stored, and I can't say this is the issue. If your photos aren't flat, you'll need to take steps to flatten them first, which I'm sure will be a problem for a lot of people. I'm curious if anyone else has noticed this issue or if they have any alternative explanations. That is not a problem because I have thoroughly cleaned it. br>br>In all other respects, I can mostly concur with the positive remarks made. With the exception of red eye, which is pretty bad, this is a very fast, clever unit with mostly good UI software that also does a good job of photo enhancement. The red eye feature either ignores red eyes or applies masks to areas other than the eye, such as the nostrils. It's also very dust-sensitive-- Dust lines on your scans are easy to come by if you don't clean every five rolls or so. On the other hand, cleaning it is a breeze. It's pricey, but if you have a lot of photos and the time, it's well worth it, especially if you split the cost with other family members or friends. When combined with Epson Scan software, it's a fantastic document scanner. br>br>I'd like to hear more from Epson about the blob issue, and perhaps see more scan pressure on the paper, or perhaps an accessory to help flatten photos if that's the issue.

Lucca Burgess

| Aug 28, 2021

This was purchased primarily to assist a friend in digitizing photo prints. Her mother had recently died, leaving her with an obscene amount of loose photos and albums. I had agreed to assist her and brought my flatbed scanner, oblivious to the enormity of the task at hand. Over the course of six hours on the first day, I captured and cleaned up fewer than 100 photographs; clearly, this wasn't a viable solution for the volume of prints that needed to be captured. br>br>Before I even left, I started looking for a scanner with a document feeder, and the Epson FF-2000 was one of the options I found. The number 640 stood out among the others. I read and watched a number of reviews before coming across one that mentioned the newer second-generation consoles. the FF-generation I ordered a 680W because it appeared to be a significant upgrade. br>br>The FF-100 is the best scanner for most photos. 680 watts is a huge amount of power. I had to manually place each photo on the scanner, tell my image editor to acquire a scan, and wait for the scanner to produce a low-resolution scan with my flatbed scanner. Preview the image's resolution, crop and rotate it, and check the image enhancements options before pressing Scan and waiting for a slower, full-resolution scan. To be transferred is a high-resolution scan. I had to name the image and specify the format and image options in the image editor before saving it. br>br>The FF- br>br>br>br>br>br>br> In the time it took my flatbed scanner to perform the pre-processing, the 680W can scan and clean up approximately 20 prints at 600dpi. Only one image was scanned and scanned again. In reality, it took me three minutes to capture and process one image with the flatbed, which included several tedious manual steps. When I first started scanning with the FF-II, I had no idea what I was getting myself into. 680W, I used to save both the original scan and the enhanced version in separate files, but the enhancements are so good now that I don't bother and just keep the enhanced images. br>br>I've only had one misfeed, and it happened with a photo that was glued into a heavy cardboard frame. I didn't think it'd go through the scanner, so I set it aside to be scanned with the flatbed, but curiosity got the best of me, and I gave it a shot. The scanner could often replace a flatbed scanner if the paper path was more straight. br>br>I like the option to automatically scan the back of photos for handwritten notes, but it's too sensitive; on some of the prints I scanned, the only thing that was captured was a "Kodak" watermark on the back. When looking at the thumbnails of the scans, those errant scans are easily identified and deleted, but I wish the software handled this more efficiently. br>br>Though I tested the ability to create a searchable PDF from a printed document and a form, I have only used the scanner and included software for photos so far. As is typical of OCR, the results were satisfactory but not flawless. br>br>The F- br>br>The F- br>br>The F- 680W is a fast, quiet, and high-performance power supply. high-quality outcomes It is worthy of your consideration if it fits within your budget. I recommend watching Epson's short videos about the scanner on Youtube to get the most out of it and avoid frustration. br>br>Updated on May 10th, 2019: br>br>Recently, I've done a lot of document scanning, and the results have been excellent. This entailed dismantling three-dimensional objects. spiral and ring- Taking bound manuals and scanning them into searchable PDFs is a great way to save time. Due to the scanners' ability to handle both sides of a page at the same time (and even drop empty sides of a page), and their high scanning speed, such manuals can be scanned quickly. br>br>You get graphic images of the pages with text extracted using Optical Character Recognition (OCR), allowing you to highlight and copy the text. Copy it and paste it somewhere else, or look it up on the internet. It's extremely rare for OCR software to misinterpret a character. br>br>In addition to dropping empty pages, the software has a feature for removing binding holes from scanned images for a cleaner look, but it appears to be hit-or-miss. Missed opportunities - This has worked well on some documents, completely eliminating them, but it has been inconsistent on others, leaving one or two holes from three-dimensional documents. ring binding or a slew of spiral-bound pages br>br>When a jam occurs, the document scanning system handles it very well. I had a problem with one spiral in particular. The pages were sticking together where the holes had been punched in a bound manual that had not been read yet. When trying to feed pages that were stuck together, the scanner would jam, but it never damaged them. When the jam was cleared (by releasing a latch and tilting the front of the scanner forward, then removing the jammed page), it continued scanning without interruption. Similarly, after all of the pages have been scanned, adding more pages is as simple as clicking on a "Scan more" button and selecting single-page scanning. Whether single-sided or double-sided You can scan both types of pages in a single scan because they are double-sided. br>br>One feature that isn't available is the ability to save scan results in multiple formats. Currently, the software asks you to select an output format, and once the document is saved, the scans used to create it are deleted. I'd like to be able to return to the format selection screen so that, for example, I can save a document as a PDF and a Microsoft Word document. br>br>Updated on August 5, 2019: br>br>I've only recently discovered the "Text Enhancement" option in the Advanced scan settings - I'd seen it before, but hadn't tried it until just a few days ago. When scanning documents into searchable PDF format, I am astounded by the difference it makes. It increases scan times (each page takes two to three seconds to scan with "Text Enhancement" set to "Standard"), but the text is crystal clear and uniform, and I consider the extra scan time a small price to pay for the improved output quality. br>br>I ran a 292-page document through the scanner. page technical manual scanned at 600 dpi with "Text Enhancement" set to "Standard" into searchable PDF format, with only the punch holes (which can be removed with another scan settings option) indicating that the document was created from a scan. Apart from that, it appears to be typeset.

Julie Middleton

| Nov 21, 2021