SCSI to Firewire

19 posts / 0 new
Last post
Offline
Last seen: 15 years 5 months ago
Joined: May 24 2006 - 20:26
Posts: 7
SCSI to Firewire

I am trying to connect a ScanMate 5000 (with a 50pin SCSI connector--I believe this is called an HD-50) to an Apple iMac Flatpanel (G4). I have USB ports and Firewire ports available but alas no SCSI ports on this machine.

I just read this thread (http://www.applefritter.com/node/6924) and see that some have been able to get a USB to SCII adapter to work under OS X. This requires that you set the SCSI port to 0. Alas my scanner only goes from 1 - 6. No zero. So...

Anyone know if there is a workable Firewire to SCSI solution for OS X? I found this part (http://sewelldirect.com/firewire-to-scsi-adapter.asp) and the reseller claims that it will work under OS X. Any experience/help would be appreciated.

Specifically I note that this is an Ultra SCSI adapter. The description says that it comes with a "High-Density 50 pin Male connector". I presume this means that it is compatible with my connector. Can anyone confirm? Also, does anyone know if I will have any Ultra SCSI to plain old SCSI compatibility problems?

Thanks,
Bill

Offline
Last seen: 15 years 5 months ago
Joined: May 24 2006 - 20:26
Posts: 7
Correction

Did a little more research. I think my scanner has a Centronics SCSI connector not an HD50 so at very least I will need a centronics to HD50 cable/converter.

dankephoto's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 2 months ago
Joined: Dec 20 2003 - 10:38
Posts: 1900
See, now . . .

this is where it's really advantagous to have more than one Mac. A nice decently upgraded scsi-equipped Power Mac can make this sort of issue a non-issue. It'll likely be cheaper and easier to have a dedicated old-school-Mac scanning station than trying to get a USB- or FW-SCSI adapter to work reliably. Cripey, you can kit out a nice 7500 with a CPU upgrade card and display for under $50, and it'll work perfectly for this kind of chore. Add a $10 PCI FW card and a big external FW drive and yer all set to scan scan scan.

just a thought.

dan k

Secret-Fire's picture
Offline
Last seen: 14 years 7 months ago
Joined: Jan 16 2006 - 14:44
Posts: 42
time to move on

While trying to resurrect an old (well... not that old) scsi scanner is admirable, the thing that's probably hardest to get over is how much you paid for it, and how cheap usb scanners have gotten. I once had a $800 scsi scanner, top quality, in the mid-90's. A year later, the same scanner was $400, a year after that it was $150. It broke my heart when the bulb burnt out after a move, but even replacing the bulb didn't make any sense because of how cheap a new scanner was. If it is a large format scanner, like 18" x 36" or something, that might be one reason to resurrect it, however, if it is your standard, legal-pad or letter sized scanner, drop it off at good will and invest in a new scanner.

Here's one for less than 50 bucks

Watch DealNews for good deals on scanners

Personally, I think scsi-->firewire converters should be less than $10, but they're not... they're pretty expensive... last I checked, they were more than new usb scanners.

Offline
Last seen: 15 years 5 months ago
Joined: May 24 2006 - 20:26
Posts: 7
Replacing scanner not an option

Thanks for the suggestion. I have a modern USB scanner (Epson 4990) but it just does not do the job well enough. The scanner I am trying to connect is a high end drum scanner which I need for my purposes.(Scanning 8x10 inch transparencies with deep DMax.) The unit I purcahsed was quite expensive (~$30K) when new. New equivlents are comparably priced. I picked this one up used on eBay for about $1,200.

Secret-Fire's picture
Offline
Last seen: 14 years 7 months ago
Joined: Jan 16 2006 - 14:44
Posts: 42
well... there it is...

...the rare, valid reason for being retro.

I guess... the suggestion above becomes very valid.
Consider instead of trying to shoehorn the old scanner into working with a usb port, investing a couple dozen dollars into an older tower, like a B&W, Yikes, Sawtooth... or any of the older machines with the old PCI bus. Then use a scsi card. Even better... although they get some criticism, I see the beige boards as being singularly unique in that they all have 2 IDE buses (4 IDE drives maxed), AND a fast scsi bus native on the board. A desktop or tower beige G3 can be picked up for insanely cheap. Make sure you get the optimum revision (Rev. C, I believe). Then, take some effort and $ to max the ram and put in a G4 chip, and a drive(s) that are big enough to temporariy store your scans, a cheap 10/100 Ethernet card, and get XPostFacto and Panther going on it (you just don't need Tiger on a scan station... and frankley, 10.3.9 is still more stable than 10.4.7). The most expensive component is the G4 zif... and really its optional. You'd be surprised how well a G3/350 does on a dedicated box. Short of the G4 zif, you could build this for less than $20-30 (not counting shipping). Only use the box for scanning, and then fileserving the scans, and I think you'll be quite happy with it.

Again, the scsi-->fw converters have really disappointed me (never had one because of cost, but my expectation was that they would be popular and cheap... they're not).

--
EDIT

Blows my mind that such a nice pro scanner wouldn't have the ability to adjust the SCSI ID. I'd make really sure this is the case. I was in the digital prepress side of the printing industry for 14 years before moving on, and I've NEVER seen a SCSI scanner that didn't allow you to pick the SCSI ID. It is fundamental.

Offline
Last seen: 15 years 5 months ago
Joined: May 24 2006 - 20:26
Posts: 7
SCSI ID

Thanks for the helpful post.

I have the Scanner users manual and it shows how to set the dip switches to set the ID but not to zero... the numbers start at 1. BTW, it was the USB to SCSI converters that only work on ID 1. No information on this for the FW to SCSI converters.

I am sure that the older mac approach can work but I am inclined to try the FW-->SCSI converter approach because it will take up less real estate. If it works, all in, that approach will cost me $130 with shipping and the cable converter to make it fit. If it does not work, I'll return it and be out $15 shipping.

BTW, did your numbers/thinking include the cost of keyboard, mouse, and monitor?

Bill

Secret-Fire's picture
Offline
Last seen: 14 years 7 months ago
Joined: Jan 16 2006 - 14:44
Posts: 42
Re: SCSI ID

I have the Scanner users manual and it shows how to set the dip switches to set the ID but not to zero...

I misread your post. I thought the scanner was set at zero and couldn't be configured. Sorry for the confusion.

BTW, did your numbers/thinking include the cost of keyboard, mouse, and monitor?

I should have explained a little better, because the real estate can be much smaller than you think.

You don't need a monitor, keyboard and mouse to dedicate to the G3 scanning station I'm envisioning. Obviously, you will need these things when setting it up, but once set up and working, you can eliminate the extra hardware. Apologies for assuming every mac owner has free access to an adb keyboard and mouse and vga monitor.

For the sake of argument, lets say you decide on a Rev. C. board desktop beige G3. First, upgrade the RAM (just max it at 768MB) and make sure you've got a drive large enough to comfortably run the system and temporarily store your scans (I bet 20GB will do). AFAIK, the first thing you do is install OS 9, connect to the internet and download XPostFacto. Then, run XPostFacto and install Panther. Once booted in Panther, set up the network again, and update to 10.3.9. Then, configure your machine to automatically log you in, configure your network on the machine such that the IP is static on your internal network (and, of course, make note of that IP). Then, in Sharing, set up Remote Desktop so that it allows a VNC client to connect and control it (my fav on OS X is Chicken of the VNC). Set up your scanning software, and do a few test scans. Set up AppleShare and test your connections from your iMac. Now... shutdown, and disconnect everything. Get rid of the Monitor, keyboard and mouse, place the G3 on its side on a pair of blocks (so it can breathe), and hide it behind/underneath the scanner. Connect the scanner back up, connect up the ethernet, and the power. Boot the machine.

From your iMac, mount the G3's AppleShare folder. Connect to the machine from your iMac via Chicken of the VNC in full screen mode. Do a few test scans (maybe you can set the default folder where scans appear to be in your shared folder).

The investment is really in time... it might take a whole afternoon to get the new G3 set up.

Offline
Last seen: 15 years 5 months ago
Joined: May 24 2006 - 20:26
Posts: 7
Chicken of the VNC -- Love it!

Great suggestion! Not sure I won't be needing your help. If I go this way are you up for a consult (if/when I need it)?

Bill

protocol6v's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 years 5 months ago
Joined: Apr 21 2006 - 20:58
Posts: 339
My opinion on all that is sti

My opinion on all that is stick with 10.2.8 or lower. I have NEVER had a beige G3 that has been stable with 10.3 or 10.4. Either that or get a B/W G3 and it will be supported.

cwsmith's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
Joined: Oct 13 2005 - 08:23
Posts: 698
One little issue with OS X and Beige G3s:

Don't forget that on the early G3s (Beiges and tray-load iMacs included), OS X must be installed on the first partition of no larger than 8GB. Save yourself the headache and partition it down first.

My Beige has a 30GB HD, and I was forced to partition it to 8GB+11GB+11GB because it didn't like partitions bigger than 12GB either.

I agree with protocol6v on sticking with Jaguar if you can. You won't even need to use XPostFacto to do the install. Just be prepared for a L-O-N-G install process.

protocol6v's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 years 5 months ago
Joined: Apr 21 2006 - 20:58
Posts: 339
Actually, I'd stick with 9.2.

Actually, I'd stick with 9.2.2 or something. Use Timbuktu as the remote control.then you don't have to have two partitions either.

Offline
Last seen: 15 years 5 months ago
Joined: May 24 2006 - 20:26
Posts: 7
Do I need to do this in OS X?

I have software that will run the scanner under OX X and 9. Seems like I would take away some uncertainty if the networking and Chicken of the VNC would work with OS 9. I'm not familiar with Chicken... does it require a client on the scanning station (that would be running OS 9) or would it just reside on my iMac. Any comments?

Secret-Fire's picture
Offline
Last seen: 14 years 7 months ago
Joined: Jan 16 2006 - 14:44
Posts: 42
Ignore them

I've done more than a few installs. Panther works fine and steady on the beige's I've worked with (3 Rev. Cs and a Rev B). True about the first partition being 8gb, forgot about that. Jag is ok, just a little slow, I think. Panther is definately peppier. The revision of the board is pretty important, too. You're welcome to PM me anytime.

Offline
Last seen: 1 year 1 month ago
Joined: Jan 19 2005 - 23:30
Posts: 700
I have panther on my AIO and

I have panther on my AIO and my g4, its solid as a rock, def a great OS

protocol6v's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 years 5 months ago
Joined: Apr 21 2006 - 20:58
Posts: 339
Maybe it was the install disk

Maybe it was the install disk I was using, I don't know. I only know I won't try it again. If your going to use something like VNC go with Timbuktu. It has alot more functionality. I have been using it since it was first released a while back and it has been flawless ever since. works on OS 8-X.

Secret-Fire's picture
Offline
Last seen: 14 years 7 months ago
Joined: Jan 16 2006 - 14:44
Posts: 42
Re: Maybe it was the install disk

Timbuktu is great. Apple Remote Desktop is great. However... for controlling a single mac, and when all its doing is scanning and passing files along, and it costs maybe $35 when its expensive, Timbuktu ends up costing at least a few times the value of the machine. OS X has a built in VNC server (effectively) and vnc viewers like COTVNC work great, in a window, or in full screen mode... and... its absolutely free. No installations on the "server" are necessary, just a very little configuring in the sharing pane. And a vnc client weighs in at like 200k.

Offline
Last seen: 15 years 5 months ago
Joined: May 24 2006 - 20:26
Posts: 7
Will this work?

So I am thinking about this suggestion of setting up a scan station with remote access. I am thinking about two potential problems...

1.) What is the quality of video over the network? E.g., Will I experience latency or lags of the mouse and screen response? Does the "server" screen get mapped to a new size window creating various artifacts of the translation like fuzzy edges? Is there an issue about mismatched resolutions? (I presume that they window would just scroll if necessary.)

2.) What about color management. I will be using the scanner to do precision color corrections. Will my calibrated monitor (iMac) mean anything in this regard?

Thanks,
Bill

Secret-Fire's picture
Offline
Last seen: 14 years 7 months ago
Joined: Jan 16 2006 - 14:44
Posts: 42
Re: Will this work?

Both your questions seem to be addressing the same basic thing... video quality (which color quality would be dependent on). The problem is, color is so darned subjective. I've always done correction "by the numbers" in PS, depending upon what the final output medium was, but in-scanner color correction might be a nicer solution (idk).

On a home network that is 100BaseT, the latency is nominal.

afaik, the vnc client just receives the straight video from the host machine. I've done a couple tests, and it appears that vnc is transmitting at whatever the host machine's color is set to (millions or thousands of colors). In Apple Remote Desktop (admin) you can adjust the color settings to increase performance, but I don't see a setting like that in cotvnc. You're going to have to see... How often do you expect to be calibrating the scanner? Do you trust the scanner once its calibrated? Is an LCD monitor ideal for color correction? I just don't know enough about color (besides that it doesn't exist). For the most part... sitting at the client machine with the client in full screen mode is essentially the same as sitting at the console of the host machine. Besides the nominal latency, its difficult to tell that what you're seeing isn't the machine you're sitting at.

Log in or register to post comments