Re: filmscanners: Mirage II ?'s

[Arthur Entlich <artistic@ampsc.com>]

Umax tended to be stingy with bit depth when it was expensive to 
provide.  Often their scanners would list something like

Bit Depth: 36 bit*

*-B.E.T., using the patented Bit Enhancement Technology in hardware 
(actual bit depth 30 bit)

They ultimately were forced to stop doing this as a class action lawsuit 
was building, and other scanner companies were also complaining.

In terms of the difference between Hardware and System, my 1200S 
indicated both at 30/24 bit for color and 10/8 bit for Grayscale.  I 
would think if the numbers on the Mirage are different for each they are 
probably capturing the larger number, but they decided to only send the 
"most significant bits" to the computer, probably to speed up the data 
flow process.  Although it uses a PCI SCSI-2 interface, sending an 11" 
wide swatch of data at 700 dpi back to the computer is still probably 
slow.  My info indicates it has a 3.3 D, if you can believe anything 
scanner makers claim.  Including the controller and transparency adapter 
it sold last year in NYC for $1900 US.  It sure isn't small. 
Dimensions: 28.7" x 20.8" x 7.8" --  If it ever stops working you can 
always use it as a desk!

Art


Mark Crabtree wrote:

> In my ongoing hunt for a scanner that suits my needs I'm considering a used
> Umax Mirage II. This is the recently discontinued tabloid size dual lens
> model (700x1400 and 1400x2800 dpi). The tabloid size would really be nice
> for scans of my 60" long negs and prints, and the 1400dpi would be nice for
> my Noblex 120 negs.
> 
> Anyone have some personal experience with this scanner? I would probably
> run Umax's driver for prints and VueScan for negs.
> 
> I am a bit concerned by on item listed in the specifications in the Mirage
> II manual I downloaded. They list color depth as 36 bit "hardware" and 24
> bit "system". Even the cheap Umax's I've seen would output hi-bit data to
> Photoshop, so I can't imagine that this one can't. I sure can't figure what
> else that would mean though. Any thoughts? I nearly always archive a hi-bit
> file and like to do my initial curves work there before converting down to
> 8 bits/channel.
> 
> This seems like a scanner that would do most of what I need, but it is an
> ancient model in computer years (which are about 1/3 dog years I think).
> 
> Mark