I have been really disappointed by the quality of depth of field given
by my Canon LiDE80 when scanning my artwork. I now know that this is
due to the CIS being used instead of cold cathode - in other words,
I'm looking for a more suitable scanner and have narrowed my choices
down to those mentioned in the subject header.

Would anything above the new 5200f be overkill for scanning
artwork around 600dpi at most, or could I really see a benefit in
going for the upper range of scanners? I am mainly interested in high
quality depth of field, of course, and great sharpness and shadow
detail. Any other reccomendations would be great as well - any help
at all is greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
John

I recently purchased an Epson Perfection 4870 PRO.

It's billed as a "consumer" product, but I have "high-end" tastes, and I'm **very**
pleased with the hardware, software, and results.

Just my $0.002 worth ... YMMV ... and all that "stuff."

>>I now know that this is due to the CIS being used instead of cold
cathode - in other words<<

Maybe I am the one who is wrong, but wouldn't you be referring to CMOS vs.
CCD? From what I have read, CCD technology does allow a "relatively" larger
depth of field. Epson uses CCD but I don't know about the Canon models you
describe. If you are talking about artwork with "3D-ness" to it (like
sculpture or carving), I don't think a scanner will be your best option
given your stated needs.

Doug
--
Doug's "MF Film Holder" for batch scanning "strips" of 120/220 medium format
film:
http://home.earthlink.net/~dougfishe...lderintro.html

Doug,

I may have misread something, but I thought it was pretty much
narrowed down these days to either CIS (Contact Image Sensor) or CCD.
I do illustration work, and I would never have any need to scan a
sculpture or carving, but even the slightest depth of field improves
certain illustrations, believe it or not. When the depth of field is
basically non-existent (like on the LiDE80 model), scanning things
like watercolor paper or collage work is really done little justice in
terms of reproductive quality.

All I know is that the scanners we use at school are CCD
(Microtek 9800xl's), and they scan things much better (with the
exception of black and white lineart) than the LiDE80. I would use
these full time, but they are located in the school labs, and I cannot
tell you what an inconvenience it is to have to wait two hours just to
scan a single illustration, only then to have to work with it on a
slow mac g4 and then burn it to a cd. It is much easier to have a
scanner of my own that I can take with me anywhere (like home, for
summer break). All this is obvious, but I just thought I would
explain...

Does this clear things up a bit?
" -" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<xrmCc.11422$(E-Mail Removed)>...
> >>I now know that this is due to the CIS being used instead of cold
> cathode - in other words<<
>
> Maybe I am the one who is wrong, but wouldn't you be referring to CMOS vs.
> CCD? From what I have read, CCD technology does allow a "relatively" larger
> depth of field. Epson uses CCD but I don't know about the Canon models you
> describe. If you are talking about artwork with "3D-ness" to it (like
> sculpture or carving), I don't think a scanner will be your best option
> given your stated needs.
>
> Doug