RE: filmscanners: Canoscan 2400 UF

[rafeb <rafeb@channel1.com>]

At 07:22 AM 7/6/01 +0100, Derek Clarke wrote:

>Er how do you know? Have you tried it?
>
>It's interesting, because this is a flatbed that's snuck onto the market 
>with a built in proper transparency lid, 2400x4800dpi optical resolution 
>and 48 bits colour depth. This is an incredible spec for a flatbed, 
>especially at the price.
>
>About the only Achilles heel is lack of speed. Making it USB-only costs.


I'm not Jack, but I'll offer this response -- 

1. There have been negative reviews of the 2400 UF
   recently on usenet (eg. comp.periphs.scanners.)
   Do a deja search.

2. 2400 x 4800 optical, for $450, is a pipe dream, IMHO.

3. Specs have been "upped" from even the Epson 1600,1640,1680 
   family (rated 1600 x 3200) and it's known that the Epsons 
   don't come close to their rated specs either.

4. You say "2400 x 4800 optical resolution."  That's not 
   at all accurate.  More accurately:  "2400 x 4800 
   non-interpolated, as far as we know."  There is no 
   scanner vendor that I know of that says anything at 
   all about their optical resolution -- in the sense of 
   providing meaningful metrics about the optics inside 
   the box.  The specs they do give only describe the 
   maximum theoretical resolution imposed by the CCD sensor 
   and the mechanics of the scanning mechanism.

The spec gamesmanship among scanner manufacturers is 
outrageous.  Not unlike the gamesmanship in audio gear.  
(How many different ways are there to describe the power 
output of an audio amplifier?  Let me count the ways...)
The manufacturers always find a way to inflate the specs.


rafe b.