Re: Flatbed scanners vs Pro Photo CDs
Re: Flatbed scanners vs Pro Photo CDs
- Subject: Re: Flatbed scanners vs Pro Photo CDs
- From: email@hidden
- Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 09:04:01 EST
In a message dated 12/5/00 6:08:32 PM, email@hidden writes:
>
>BTW, what prompted me to get into this in the first place was your
>
>statement that "A "real" 14 bit scanner should achieve Dmax circa
>
>3.6." It's a nonsensical statement.
>
>
Well, please let me qualify that a half-dozen different ways.
>
Substitute "real" with "well designed," or "engineered," or "not
>
driven my marketing specmanship," or "honest," or "credible," even
>
"useful." I apologize for using the ambiguous term "real." :-)
Lets use a few "real" world examples, from Epson, who has the unusual habit
of being honest about the d-range of their scanners...
The 12 bit Exp 1600 is rated at 3.2, while the more expensive 14 bit Exp
1640XL is rated at 3.6; exactly as your math predicts. But for about an
eighth of that price, the new 14 bit Per 1640SU is rated at only 3.3...
due, one could theorize, to other limiting factors in the system. Should
Epson have stepped back to 12 bits, and lost that bit of d-range? Should they
have forgone the 14 bit marketing advantage? Does this low cost, effective
combination, due to its theoretical lack of perfect optimization, somehow
offer less to the customer that its specs? I'd say no to all of these
questions.
Engineers may chose to differ.
C. David Tobie
Design Cooperative
email@hidden