I haven't hidden my love for the Scansnap line of scanners. Then it's just scan and save, which is a much more efficient way to use the device. You can make all this go away by turning off scan preview. It doesn't really matter whether the device maker is large or small, older devices can and will probably stop working at some point.įinally, it feels like you're constantly pressing Next in the Raven interface. It's a fact of modern life that your devices can be orphaned. But older Scansnaps haven't been updated to more recent operating systems (particularly on the Mac), effectively rendering them obsolete. To be fair, Fujitsu, the company that makes my beloved Scansnap scanners, is anything but small. You can label documents, examine them, and upload them, all from the scanner. You don't have to dedicate a computer to scanning. It has a big (and by big, I mean the size of an iPad mini) display. There's another big benefit of the Raven over the other excellent scanners I've used. Not only would the job have gone faster, but since we were paying for every hour of scanning time, the $699 Raven Pro would have saved us thousands of dollars. We could have scanned and OCR'd 30,000 documents a day - nearly 15 cartons a day. With the Raven Pro, I could have stored the documents anywhere, and would have been able to do a search. In 2013, I had to upload the documents we scanned to Evernote and then wait a week or so for Evernote to OCR them in the cloud, just so we could search them. But not only is it scanning all 60 sheets (one per second), it's OCRing them as well. When you run pages through this thing, it's hard to believe it's even possible for the pages to move that fast. The Raven Pro has a 100 sheet capacity and can scan at a whopping 60 pages per minute. But when Raven sent me one to review, I thought back on those days and realized just how big a help it would have been.įirst, let's just talk feeds and speeds. Of course, back then the Raven Pro document scanner didn't exist. But, oh, if we'd had the Raven Pro, the job would have gone three times faster. It was painful and expensive, but we did it. If you see inaccuracies in our content, please report the mistake via this form. If we have made an error or published misleading information, we will correct or clarify the article. Our editors thoroughly review and fact-check every article to ensure that our content meets the highest standards. Our goal is to deliver the most accurate information and the most knowledgeable advice possible in order to help you make smarter buying decisions on tech gear and a wide array of products and services. ZDNET's editorial team writes on behalf of you, our reader. Indeed, we follow strict guidelines that ensure our editorial content is never influenced by advertisers. Neither ZDNET nor the author are compensated for these independent reviews. This helps support our work, but does not affect what we cover or how, and it does not affect the price you pay. When you click through from our site to a retailer and buy a product or service, we may earn affiliate commissions. And we pore over customer reviews to find out what matters to real people who already own and use the products and services we’re assessing. We gather data from the best available sources, including vendor and retailer listings as well as other relevant and independent reviews sites. ZDNET's recommendations are based on many hours of testing, research, and comparison shopping.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |