[filmscanners] 12 vs 16-bit A/D conversion. Was: WinXP and Dimage Scan Dual II and more

["Preston Earle" <PEarle@triad.rr.com>]

Curt Degler wrote: "Anyone with experience running  the Scan Dual II run
with Win XP? Its not listed in the scanner specs."

and "Arthur Entlich" <artistic-1@shaw.ca> answered: "The Minolta DUal
Scan II may be good value if it is being heavily discounted.  The
Minolta Scan III sounds like it may be worth a few extra bucks however,
due to an improved interface (USB 2.0) and a higher A/D converter (16
rather than 12).  It also appears to have new software."
------------------

I don't know nothing about no stinking electronics, but if you're saying
that a 16-bit A/D converter will give the Scan Dual III better
performance, I'd take issue with it. I guess theoretically a 12-bit
conversion will yield 1024 distinct values, while a 16-bit conversion
will give 16k values. But I'd say the Scan Dual III's ccd's have trouble
reliably measuring 4 good bits of data in dark, shadow areas, and in any
other "photographic image", the 13th-16th bits have the same value that
loose change has to Bill Gates. The USB 2.0 interface is probably a real
benefit over the Scan Dual II, but I don't know about that A/D stuff. I
have a Scan Dual II and think it's a wonderful $300-$400 scanner, but
it's no high-end device.

Preston Earle
PEarle@triad.rr.com


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body