I can really see a point of having such a scanner for electronics testing labs tbh. There is often a lot of photography involved and this really would make that a lot easier.
Ehhh no not really. If you really are into photography and are a professional, this is not the thing that you have on hand. This is for people who have money and spend it on certain things. I can see a college have a few of these for basic archival things.
UMAX scanners were the best in quality... period. To say that I can take my 840 printer out of storage and slap on Win 2000, which I used to 2010, it will still be as relevant as a usable scanner. Also there is optical and digital DPI which really two different animals.
Because it was an Digital/Optical scanner, it means more mechanical parts. Today's scanners that you see on the market are digital scanners with a lot of software manipulation.
The difference between the two, if you know what you are looking at is... An optical scanner can pick up halftones correctly.
A digital one can not. You will be these fuzzy squarish patterns, known as a Messier Pattern, instead of halftones. The more expensive digital scanners have corrected this problem but now you are talking more on the expensive aspects of owning a scanner. The UMAX 1200 and 840 (non Astra Models) back then could handle the halftone patterns. The old UMAX 1200 was a great scanner but it was almost as expensive as an Apple product. The 840 I used was a 8.5 x14 inch scanner, which was rare for it's day and had a real optical DPI instead of digitally enhanced DPI.
Today a good flat bed scanner is a niche product now so the prices for a professional one are up there akin to what was produced 25+ years ago.
When it comes to anything that deals with the printing media, I am that person who has hands on experience of equipment of the past and equipment that is used today. I'm that old that the equipment that I have used is closed to 100 years now.
And I know and still believe that optical is superior than digital, but digital is far more cheaper to make and has mostly wiped out the use of optical scanners for normal use.
A change in printing came in the late80's/90's. I was part of the revolution. My setup costed me over 4 thousand dollars at the time. But it rivaled anything Apple could sell at twice the price. What killed you back then was not only the hardware in price but Apple's stranglehold on software. Quark Express and others. I refused to pay $800 to $1200 for a piece of software.
Back then during the DotCom Era. You were hip if you owned a mac. Mac Marines they were called. Religious Zealots that was part of the Cult of Jobs. I could not stand them back then. I laugh at them now.
The birth of Linux IMHO partly came out that type of crisis. MS computers gain popularity because the software by 3rd party companies WAS Cheaper than Apple's buy ALOT. Business back then could buy 2 to 3 PC's for 1 Mac and it's software's costs.
The pricing for a Apple computer setup was insane. It was what drove me away from Using Macs ever again. The software costs alone were too prohibitive in keeping with Apple products.
I loved the Mac SE30, but I personally Hated Steve Jobs whom I've met in the past and what he stood for.
I'm not an hipster. I wanted to do work at a reasonable cost. I refuse to be contained into your corporate store ecology. UMAX And other 3rd party tech companies knew this and jumped on board and the rise of the PC is what it is today.
I was part of that technology revolution and reporting that revolution while having fun, playing A tech reporter for a online site.
There's a lot more than I can say but yea back on topic. I still say this scanner is just a niche item and not for the masses. There's nothing wrong with it, but there is nothing revolutionary that I would go out and buy one.
