WootBot


quality posts: 15 Private Messages WootBot

Staff

Pandigital 600dpi Handheld Wand Scanner

Speed to First Woot:
4m 41.550s
First Sucker:
beldenben
Last Wooter to Woot:
jdelcruz1
Last Purchase:
a year ago
Order Pace (rank):
Top 2% of Electronics Woots
Top 26% of all Woots
Woots Sold (rank):
Top 2% of Electronics Woots
Top 8% of all Woots

Purchaser Experience

  • 12% first woot
  • 5% second woot
  • 28% < 10 woots
  • 22% < 25 woots
  • 33% ≥ 25 woots

Purchaser Seniority

  • 8% joined today
  • 1% one week old
  • 3% one month old
  • 17% one year old
  • 71% > one year old

Quantity Breakdown

  • 87% bought 1
  • 9% bought 2
  • 4% bought 3

Percentage of Sales Per Hour

3%
3%
3%
2%
1%
5%
7%
8%
10%
9%
6%
6%
5%
4%
3%
3%
3%
3%
2%
3%
3%
3%
2%
3%
12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Woots by State

zero wooters wootinglots of wooters wooting



Quality Posts


lichme


quality posts: 3182 Private Messages lichme

Item: Pandigital 600dpi Handheld Wand Scanner
Price: $24.99
Shipping Options: $5 Standard
Condition: New

Search Amazon Search Google

Proudly tracking via WootStalker.com
Woot Tracker | Woot Plus Tracker | Droid App | Chat | Contests | T-Shirt Trade | Derby Stats

Warning: Too much awesome to be contained in such a small space

Dman27


quality posts: 32 Private Messages Dman27

PC Mag Review!

B a g of crap: 8.5 & still waiting for that letter!!!
Woots: 30
Shirt Woots: 8

~DMan27~

lichme


quality posts: 3182 Private Messages lichme

Here are a few eggs from several users

Proudly tracking via WootStalker.com
Woot Tracker | Woot Plus Tracker | Droid App | Chat | Contests | T-Shirt Trade | Derby Stats

Warning: Too much awesome to be contained in such a small space

luke975


quality posts: 14 Private Messages luke975

didn't get the best reviews on newegg. several complaints of mirrored images.

to the woot staff member that screwed up the back2skool code so I could get a lot of nice things for free - thank you.

rudyespinosa


quality posts: 2 Private Messages rudyespinosa

Are these the same because seems a bit cheaper though refurbished:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16838277005R

[MOD EDIT: Price comparison on other site is for Refurbished; today's offer is New]

conanthelibrarian


quality posts: 3913 Private Messages conanthelibrarian

So-so reviews (3.2 out of 5.0) over at amazon

hatsix


quality posts: 1 Private Messages hatsix

I own one of the earlier models. It's fantastic as long as you don't care about how professional the scan looks.

If you don't mind wavy lines and skips and one side of the document being longer than the other, it's a great deal.

Basically, it's meant to be taken into a library to scan books to read on your own. Don't use it for legal or professional documents, it just looks terrible.

sdc100


quality posts: 508 Private Messages sdc100

These are great for casual scanning, but I wouldn't recommend them for archiving photos or where precision is important. For example, schematics and blueprints may require exact representation of angles and lines. But for most text, this is fine. I use mine quite a bit in our medical library. In the past I sometimes wasted hours waiting for a free machine (half of which were broken), not to mention a lot of quarters. And standing standing so much wasn't good for my feet. With this, I can scan at my desk, flipping through pages at my leisure.

It does fine with journals (magazines), which are easy to lay flat. Books are more of a challenge, where the binding (middle) area often looks distorted. But that's no different from a normal photocopier.

Another use for this is for scanning objects on the wall. When I attend conferences, I often see postings that I'd like to copy. ONce I get the presenter's permission, I scan them right off the easel or wall. A camera would also work but many smartphones don't have good flashes or macro modes. Finally, this scanner also allows me to scan in receipts and other documents I need to send back to the office for reimbursement.

sdc100


quality posts: 508 Private Messages sdc100

For about $10-$20 more, you can get the upgraded model, which is what I use. I was lucky and got it for $34.99, no tax, free s/h. It has several advantages:

1) 300/600/900dpi
2) Color preview on the screen. Being so small, it's only practical for making sure that you've caught all the text/image and nothing was inadvertently cropped. I believe you can zoom in up to 16x, enough to actually read the characters.

somefo0


quality posts: 1 Private Messages somefo0

This should be great for college students. Buy the books they need at the bookstore, scan the entire book. Return the book within grace period. And they will save big bucks. $150 for a calculus book... pff. Might take you 5 hours, but if they work minimum wage for 5 hours - 8 x 5, that's $40 to pay off the book. Make that 4 books per quarter, it pays off.

sdc100


quality posts: 508 Private Messages sdc100
somefo0 wrote:This should be great for college students. Buy the books they need at the bookstore, scan the entire book. Return the book within grace period. And they will save big bucks. $150 for a calculus book... pff. Might take you 5 hours, but if they work minimum wage for 5 hours - 8 x 5, that's $40 to pay off the book. Make that 4 books per quarter, it pays off.



Or you could just download the book illegally for free...

bradw76


quality posts: 7 Private Messages bradw76

Does this NEED a flat surface -- for the rollers to roll on to provide positioning information, or very close contact with the source material, in order to get a scan?

For instance, if I wanted a quick record of a group of DVDs, could I line them all up on edge with spine facing up and run this over the lot to get a PDF of all the spine labels?

bluemaple


quality posts: 77 Private Messages bluemaple
somefo0 wrote:This should be great for college students. Buy the books they need at the bookstore, scan the entire book. Return the book within grace period. And they will save big bucks. $150 for a calculus book... pff. Might take you 5 hours, but if they work minimum wage for 5 hours - 8 x 5, that's $40 to pay off the book. Make that 4 books per quarter, it pays off.


sdc100 wrote:Or you could just download the book illegally for free...


@sdc100, good one but I suspect it went right over their head. And we wonder why the content owners drive us crazy with DRM attempts...

wanglib


quality posts: 0 Private Messages wanglib

how is this better than just using a digital camera?

bluemaple


quality posts: 77 Private Messages bluemaple
wanglib wrote:how is this better than just using a digital camera?



Can't imagine how if you're referring to a decent quality smartphone/tablet camera + a free app like GeniusScan + Evernote. And with built-in phone photo editors you don't really need a separate scan app.

We do this all the time to capture critical school forms we're sending in with the kids. No need to waste toner/paper copying - stays electronic unless you need it paper.

sdc100


quality posts: 508 Private Messages sdc100
bradw76 wrote:Does this NEED a flat surface -- for the rollers to roll on to provide positioning information, or very close contact with the source material, in order to get a scan?

For instance, if I wanted a quick record of a group of DVDs, could I line them all up on edge with spine facing up and run this over the lot to get a PDF of all the spine labels?



Flatness isn't the main issue since books are often curved in the spline, and the rollers can follow curves. THe problem with the DVDs is that it's bumpy going from DVD to DVD. That may result in a lot of skipping. If I had enough DVDs, I'd try it out for you. My guess is that the scan will be good enough to be useful but not enough for publication. A camera with flash and good macro mode may be better.

sdc100


quality posts: 508 Private Messages sdc100
wanglib wrote:how is this better than just using a digital camera?



1) Many cameras don't have a good macro mode. A macro mode is needed to focus close up.

2) If the book isn't flat, a camera may focus on certain parts making other parts unfocused

3) If you don't use flash, hand movement will blur the image. And with text, even a little blurring will make it hard to read. Most libraries don't allow flash photography.

4) It is tedious to have frame every page by hand, not to mention having to wait for autofocusing and the flash to recharge. If you do a lot of pages (>100) like I do, it'll take a lot of time and energy.

5) Cameras don't do PDFs. This can scan in JPG or PDF. JPG is not ideal for text because it blurs edges.

6) These files will be smaller because you can choose b/w as a format. While you can also choose b/w through filters on a camera, it's not optimized for text so may be larger.

7) This gives you a full size scan for re-printing. With photos, you'll be doing a lot of cropping and resizing to print out in 8.5x11. Resizing degrades the image, thus the text.

ultima2005


quality posts: 0 Private Messages ultima2005

"It’s very easy to use. If you want to photo scan, you flip the switch to 'PS.' And if you want to paper shred, you flip the switch to… oh."

gyar29


quality posts: 0 Private Messages gyar29
somefo0 wrote:This should be great for college students. Buy the books they need at the bookstore, scan the entire book. Return the book within grace period. And they will save big bucks. $150 for a calculus book... pff. Might take you 5 hours, but if they work minimum wage for 5 hours - 8 x 5, that's $40 to pay off the book. Make that 4 books per quarter, it pays off.



Or you could just save yourself a trip back to the bookstore and just shove the book down your pants and steal it that way.

Doyle E Yarbrough

ugrasse2


quality posts: 7 Private Messages ugrasse2
sdc100 wrote:1) Many cameras don't have a good macro mode. A macro mode is needed to focus close up.

2) If the book isn't flat, a camera may focus on certain parts making other parts unfocused

3) If you don't use flash, hand movement will blur the image. And with text, even a little blurring will make it hard to read. Most libraries don't allow flash photography.

4) It is tedious to have frame every page by hand, not to mention having to wait for autofocusing and the flash to recharge. If you do a lot of pages (>100) like I do, it'll take a lot of time and energy.

5) Cameras don't do PDFs. This can scan in JPG or PDF. JPG is not ideal for text because it blurs edges.

6) These files will be smaller because you can choose b/w as a format. While you can also choose b/w through filters on a camera, it's not optimized for text so may be larger.

7) This gives you a full size scan for re-printing. With photos, you'll be doing a lot of cropping and resizing to print out in 8.5x11. Resizing degrades the image, thus the text.



1. To frame a letter-sized page on the average digital camera, you won't need macro.

2. You'll need a *very good* digital camera to have issues with shallow depth of field. Those cameras will let you adjust the aperture to avoid that.

3. Get good light... especially if you're doing 100s of pages (which is illegal anyway).

4. What's more tedious? Flip page, frame, take picture, or... align scanner, press-and-hold button, slowly scan, holding the scanner steady, confirm it's done... and do again for the next page.

5. What? These things produce PDF files containing a bitmap. There's no OCR built into these.

6. The B/W files are usually TIFF, which are generally larger than a compressed JPG with the same pixel-count.

7. Resizing doesn't degrade anything, as long as the resolution is there. But that brings me to the point you missed:

8. A 300dpi 8.5x11 scan is the equivalent of 8.5 megapixels. 600dpi would be 34 megapixels. The average digital camera can effectively scan at 300-400dpi. Your results will vary based on how much practice you have. I personally found that pencil drawings and writing comes out better using a digital camera than a scanner, as graphite is reflective and most scanners simply wash it out. For everything else, I use scanners.

bluemaple


quality posts: 77 Private Messages bluemaple
ugrasse2 wrote:1. To frame a letter-sized page on the average digital camera, you won't need macro.

2. You'll need a *very good* digital camera to have issues with shallow depth of field. Those cameras will let you adjust the aperture to avoid that.

3. Get good light... especially if you're doing 100s of pages (which is illegal anyway).

4. What's more tedious? Flip page, frame, take picture, or... align scanner, press-and-hold button, slowly scan, holding the scanner steady, confirm it's done... and do again for the next page.

5. What? These things produce PDF files containing a bitmap. There's no OCR built into these.

6. The B/W files are usually TIFF, which are generally larger than a compressed JPG with the same pixel-count.

7. Resizing doesn't degrade anything, as long as the resolution is there. But that brings me to the point you missed:

8. A 300dpi 8.5x11 scan is the equivalent of 8.5 megapixels. 600dpi would be 34 megapixels. The average digital camera can effectively scan at 300-400dpi. Your results will vary based on how much practice you have. I personally found that pencil drawings and writing comes out better using a digital camera than a scanner, as graphite is reflective and most scanners simply wash it out. For everything else, I use scanners.


@ugrasse2, I've found a decent phone camera just plain works great, is fast (especially if you want to quickly email a paper document to someone), and supports OCR by other apps like Evernote nicely. But you did an excellent job of explaining it!

sdc100


quality posts: 508 Private Messages sdc100
ugrasse2 wrote:1. To frame a letter-sized page on the average digital camera, you won't need macro.

2. You'll need a *very good* digital camera to have issues with shallow depth of field. Those cameras will let you adjust the aperture to avoid that.

3. Get good light... especially if you're doing 100s of pages (which is illegal anyway).

4. What's more tedious? Flip page, frame, take picture, or... align scanner, press-and-hold button, slowly scan, holding the scanner steady, confirm it's done... and do again for the next page.

5. What? These things produce PDF files containing a bitmap. There's no OCR built into these.

6. The B/W files are usually TIFF, which are generally larger than a compressed JPG with the same pixel-count.

7. Resizing doesn't degrade anything, as long as the resolution is there. But that brings me to the point you missed:

8. A 300dpi 8.5x11 scan is the equivalent of 8.5 megapixels. 600dpi would be 34 megapixels. The average digital camera can effectively scan at 300-400dpi. Your results will vary based on how much practice you have. I personally found that pencil drawings and writing comes out better using a digital camera than a scanner, as graphite is reflective and most scanners simply wash it out. For everything else, I use scanners.



1) Macro mode is not for framing It's for focusing on nearby objects.

2) You may have the time to manually adjust the apeture but I rather spend my time on my research. When you deal with medical micrographs as I do, yes, sharpness is important and a camera just doesn't do it unless conditions are well controlled. And those conditions don't exist in the public area of a library. FYI, we do have a camera mount in the lab to photograph specimens, etc but who wants to do that with journals?

3) Illegal? Hardly. Why are you assuming that all 100+ pages are from the same journal or book? When I do research, I often have 10+ journals or books in front of me, with the average article being 10-15 pages. What law makes it illegal to copy those pages? Fair Use laws certainly has no problems with it, and it's common practice in academia.

How do you "get good light" in the public area of a library? Sorry, I have no control over ambient conditions and I can assure you that we're not allowed to plug in our own lights.

4) As someone who has done both many times, I can definitely say that using the scanner is less tedious and tiring. Using the camera involves a lot more movement, i.e. standing up, holding out the camera, framing, making sure things are focused, snapping the photo, and then checking again and redo if things weren't right. And without a flash, you can be sure that small hand movements will result in blurred images, usually requiring a re-do. Because there are no guides in the air, each framing is a new adventure. If you do use a flash, there is often glare on glossy pages. With this scanner, it's similar to using a photocopier. There are physical guides, and nothing to preview or adjust. Just pull the scanner across the page. No standing, not holding the camera, no bending.

As a professional researcher who has been doing this for years, I can definitively say that using this scanner is A LOT less tedious. Especially if you're doing 100+ pages.

5) Not sure what your objection is. I wasn't referring to OCR. JPGs, by definition, were made for images, where blurred edges are not that important. Just look at the blocky algorithm used for compression. PDFs, on the other hand, were originally designed for text, so have less of impact on edges. Sharp text means sharp edges. Do an actual comparison and you'll see what I mean. Or look at the storage algorithms. PDF is my preferred format for scanning text.

6) What are you talking about? Have you even tried this scanner? TIF is not an option. In fact, I would love to have a 2-bit TIF option, but it only allows PDF or JPG. I'm not sure what you're talking about but b/w files are smaller because they use fewer bits (8 bits as opposed to 16 for color).

7) Wrong. When you enlarge, you also exaggerate flaws. With the scanner, the resulting file is 8.5x11, no need to resize unless you want to crop. With the camera, you often don't know what you end up with. YOu may have the time to resize 100+ pages. I don't. With this scanner, I just send all the files to the printer for batch printing. And FYI, I've tried batch resizing with bad results.

8) I don't really understand your point -- especially why you're redefining my situation, which I defined pretty explicitly. Why would I have to scan pencil drawings, etc? I specifically said that I use this in a library scanning journals and books. If I wanted to scan a pencil drawing or other special circumstances, I merely have to get up and go to the photocopier or flatbed scanner they have nearby.

I never said this scanner was ideal or gave great quality (see my other posts). I said that it is good for my purposes, which is scanning many pages in a library. I'm not sure why you had to redefine my environment with good lighting, etc which are simply not options for me. It sounds like you've never even actually used this scanner, or been in the situation I described.

sdc100


quality posts: 508 Private Messages sdc100
ugrasse2 wrote:1. To frame a letter-sized page on the average digital camera, you won't need macro.

2. You'll need a *very good* digital camera to have issues with shallow depth of field. Those cameras will let you adjust the aperture to avoid that.

3. Get good light... especially if you're doing 100s of pages (which is illegal anyway).

4. What's more tedious? Flip page, frame, take picture, or... align scanner, press-and-hold button, slowly scan, holding the scanner steady, confirm it's done... and do again for the next page.

5. What? These things produce PDF files containing a bitmap. There's no OCR built into these.

6. The B/W files are usually TIFF, which are generally larger than a compressed JPG with the same pixel-count.

7. Resizing doesn't degrade anything, as long as the resolution is there. But that brings me to the point you missed:

8. A 300dpi 8.5x11 scan is the equivalent of 8.5 megapixels. 600dpi would be 34 megapixels. The average digital camera can effectively scan at 300-400dpi. Your results will vary based on how much practice you have. I personally found that pencil drawings and writing comes out better using a digital camera than a scanner, as graphite is reflective and most scanners simply wash it out. For everything else, I use scanners.



I just looked at some of my old attempts with a camera and there's one more problem. The lighting created shadows which makes the contrast between text and page pretty bad. And perhaps worse, printing the pages means black text on a gray background, with a lot of ink wasted on that gray background. With this scanner, I only get shadows where there are creases. Otherwise, contrast is great. And no, I don't have time to photoshop each image.

bluemaple


quality posts: 77 Private Messages bluemaple
sdc100 wrote:1) Macro mode is not for framing It's for focusing on nearby objects.

2) You may have the time to manually adjust the apeture but I rather spend my time on my research. When you deal with medical micrographs as I do, yes, sharpness is important and a camera just doesn't do it unless conditions are well controlled. And those conditions don't exist in the public area of a library. FYI, we do have a camera mount in the lab to photograph specimens, etc but who wants to do that with journals?

3) Illegal? Hardly. Why are you assuming that all 100+ pages are from the same journal or book? When I do research, I often have 10+ journals or books in front of me, with the average article being 10-15 pages. What law makes it illegal to copy those pages? Fair Use laws certainly has no problems with it, and it's common practice in academia.

How do you "get good light" in the public area of a library? Sorry, I have no control over ambient conditions and I can assure you that we're not allowed to plug in our own lights.

4) As someone who has done both many times, I can definitely say that using the scanner is less tedious and tiring. Using the camera involves a lot more movement, i.e. standing up, holding out the camera, framing, making sure things are focused, snapping the photo, and then checking again and redo if things weren't right. And without a flash, you can be sure that small hand movements will result in blurred images, usually requiring a re-do. Because there are no guides in the air, each framing is a new adventure. If you do use a flash, there is often glare on glossy pages. With this scanner, it's similar to using a photocopier. There are physical guides, and nothing to preview or adjust. Just pull the scanner across the page. No standing, not holding the camera, no bending.

As a professional researcher who has been doing this for years, I can definitively say that using this scanner is A LOT less tedious. Especially if you're doing 100+ pages.

5) Not sure what your objection is. I wasn't referring to OCR. JPGs, by definition, were made for images, where blurred edges are not that important. Just look at the blocky algorithm used for compression. PDFs, on the other hand, were originally designed for text, so have less of impact on edges. Sharp text means sharp edges. Do an actual comparison and you'll see what I mean. Or look at the storage algorithms. PDF is my preferred format for scanning text.

6) What are you talking about? Have you even tried this scanner? TIF is not an option. In fact, I would love to have a 2-bit TIF option, but it only allows PDF or JPG. I'm not sure what you're talking about but b/w files are smaller because they use fewer bits (8 bits as opposed to 16 for color).

7) Wrong. When you enlarge, you also exaggerate flaws. With the scanner, the resulting file is 8.5x11, no need to resize unless you want to crop. With the camera, you often don't know what you end up with. YOu may have the time to resize 100+ pages. I don't. With this scanner, I just send all the files to the printer for batch printing. And FYI, I've tried batch resizing with bad results.

8) I don't really understand your point -- especially why you're redefining my situation, which I defined pretty explicitly. Why would I have to scan pencil drawings, etc? I specifically said that I use this in a library scanning journals and books. If I wanted to scan a pencil drawing or other special circumstances, I merely have to get up and go to the photocopier or flatbed scanner they have nearby.

I never said this scanner was ideal or gave great quality (see my other posts). I said that it is good for my purposes, which is scanning many pages in a library. I'm not sure why you had to redefine my environment with good lighting, etc which are simply not options for me. It sounds like you've never even actually used this scanner, or been in the situation I described.


Relax. It's ok if some folks don't agree with you.