>Tris Schuler wrote:
> >
> > Firewire may or may not be an improvement--SCSI strikes me as the best
> > going at present. The increased Dmax would be welcome, if in fact that's a
>
>Astonishing conclusion.
>
>SCSI is old fashined for a long time already. SCSI is expensive,
>demands heavy 50 or 66 wires cables $70-$80 each etc. etc. I have the
>SCSI for many years, 10 possibly. I liked to have SCSI in my MS-DOS
>abd Win 3.1 PC because the IRQ+DMA manual device confuguration was
>a horror. With SCSI I used the one IRQ and the rest was done better
>on the SCSI side. But we are talking here an old, old story.
>
>Since 1998 I have even SCSI-2 UW with 66 pin thin connector and
>all I got for it is the necessity to get 66->50 pin converters,
>each for $20 approx. To the present time I have not found any
>reasonable priced consumer device using SCSI-2. They all (including
>recent Nikon or Canon scanners) use 50 Pin slow SCSI-1 connection.
>
>Both USB and Firewire (IEEE-1394) are the result of a decade of
>research and inventivenes. These are both modern interfaces well
>suited for the future. They support both portable devices and the
>computers alike. The cables are thin and cheaper, they provide
>even power supply to the devices, automatic device recognition,
>automatic hub configuration and despite the thin cables the
>advaces in transmission speed are incredible. Both Firewire and
>USB-2 work at up to 400 resp. 480 Mbit/sec. Only SCSI-3 is faster
>than that. Firewire-2 is in the making. See these sites for both
>editorials and shopping.
>
>
>
>
>Thomas.
If what you say is true then I stand corrected on the interface. I'm doubly
surprised to learn USB is the way to go, though. All I've ever read is that
it's slow, not to mention touchy (or at least used to be a few generations
of MB's ago--I know it didn't work right with my old ASUS, though since I
upgraded I've had no issues).
For the rest, I don't see a lot of difference between the two offerings
from Polaroid. The amount of bits doesn't affect me as my only use for
images is to display them on the web. I work with large RAW scans as it is,
which are fine for purposes of editing, but by the time they're compressed
to JPEG absolute "quality" from the scanner seems a moot point.
Does anyone have A-B shots of the difference in Dmax between these two
Polaroid scanners? I'd like to see it.
Tris
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
