Which of these two scanner-technologies is better ?

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 14:35:27 +0200, "Thomas Mann" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Which of these two scanner-technologies is better ?


CIS was developed for FAX machines and is implemented
these days also in some of the Canon LIDE flatbed
scanners. CIS is generally lower resolution than CCD,
but has the advantage of requiring no optics and thus
makes for a very thin and compact and potentially
cheap mechanism.

CIS doesn't sense color; to get color from CIS the
light source is cycled between the three additive
color primaries (R,G, B) on each scan line.

And then there are odd hybrids -- like the Nikon film
scanners that use a CIS illumination scheme with a
monochrome CCD sensor.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

"Raphael Bustin" <(E-Mail Removed)> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 14:35:27 +0200, "Thomas Mann" <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
> >Which of these two scanner-technologies is better ?
>
>
> CIS was developed for FAX machines and is implemented
> these days also in some of the Canon LIDE flatbed
> scanners. CIS is generally lower resolution than CCD,
> but has the advantage of requiring no optics and thus
> makes for a very thin and compact and potentially
> cheap mechanism.
>
> CIS doesn't sense color; to get color from CIS the
> light source is cycled between the three additive
> color primaries (R,G, B) on each scan line.
>
> And then there are odd hybrids -- like the Nikon film
> scanners that use a CIS illumination scheme with a
> monochrome CCD sensor.
>
>
> rafe b.
> http://www.terrapinphoto.com


Canon has a CIS-Scanner with a very high resolution (2400 x 4800 dpi), so I
wonder why the CCD-Scanners are more expencive when there is no difference
in the scan-quality ?

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 16:10:29 +0200, "Thomas Mann" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>"Raphael Bustin" <(E-Mail Removed)> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 14:35:27 +0200, "Thomas Mann" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Which of these two scanner-technologies is better ?
>>
>>
>> CIS was developed for FAX machines and is implemented
>> these days also in some of the Canon LIDE flatbed
>> scanners. CIS is generally lower resolution than CCD,
>> but has the advantage of requiring no optics and thus
>> makes for a very thin and compact and potentially
>> cheap mechanism.
>>
>> CIS doesn't sense color; to get color from CIS the
>> light source is cycled between the three additive
>> color primaries (R,G, B) on each scan line.
>>
>> And then there are odd hybrids -- like the Nikon film
>> scanners that use a CIS illumination scheme with a
>> monochrome CCD sensor.
>>
>>
>> rafe b.
>> http://www.terrapinphoto.com
>
>
>Canon has a CIS-Scanner with a very high resolution (2400 x 4800 dpi), so I
>wonder why the CCD-Scanners are more expencive when there is no difference
>in the scan-quality ?


Which LIDE/CIS scanners get 2400 dpi?

I've searched for CIS assemblies and found
none above 1200 dpi. Granted, Canon may well
have their own proprietary models.

At 2400, they almost become useful as
scanning backs for LF cameras...


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 16:10:29 +0200, "Thomas Mann" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:


>
>Canon has a CIS-Scanner with a very high resolution (2400 x 4800 dpi), so I
>wonder why the CCD-Scanners are more expencive when there is no difference
>in the scan-quality ?
>
Because there is a difference with scan quality. Don't confuse quality
with pixel count.

--

Hecate
(E-Mail Removed)
veni, vidi, reliqui

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 03:09:50 +0100, Hecate <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 16:10:29 +0200, "Thomas Mann" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Canon has a CIS-Scanner with a very high resolution (2400 x 4800 dpi), so I
>>wonder why the CCD-Scanners are more expencive when there is no difference
>>in the scan-quality ?
>>
>Because there is a difference with scan quality. Don't confuse quality
>with pixel count.


What evidence do you have that CCD beats CIS, or
vice versa? Seriously...

It turns out (for example) that the Canon LIDE scanners
are excellent machines for making printer profiles, though
I think that has as much to do with the illumination as the
sensor.

PS: answered my own question earlier; the Canon
Lide 80 is 2400 dpi. Interesting...


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
(E-Mail Removed) says...
> On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 16:10:29 +0200, "Thomas Mann" <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >Canon has a CIS-Scanner with a very high resolution (2400 x 4800 dpi), so I
> >wonder why the CCD-Scanners are more expencive when there is no difference
> >in the scan-quality ?
> >
> Because there is a difference with scan quality. Don't confuse quality
> with pixel count.

Don't forget the quite large depth of field difference also.

M

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
(E-Mail Removed) says...
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> (E-Mail Removed) says...
> > On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 16:10:29 +0200, "Thomas Mann" <(E-Mail Removed)>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> > >
> > >Canon has a CIS-Scanner with a very high resolution (2400 x 4800 dpi), so I
> > >wonder why the CCD-Scanners are more expencive when there is no difference
> > >in the scan-quality ?
> > >
> > Because there is a difference with scan quality. Don't confuse quality
> > with pixel count.
>
> Don't forget the quite large depth of field difference also.
>
> M
>
CIS Zero distortion is nice for scanning maps.

"Hecate" <(E-Mail Removed)> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 16:10:29 +0200, "Thomas Mann" <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >Canon has a CIS-Scanner with a very high resolution (2400 x 4800 dpi), so
I
> >wonder why the CCD-Scanners are more expencive when there is no
difference
> >in the scan-quality ?
> >
> Because there is a difference with scan quality. Don't confuse quality
> with pixel count.
>
> --
>
> Hecate
> (E-Mail Removed)
> veni, vidi, reliqui


Is there really a difference in quality ? I mean, did you compared it by
yourself or read something about it ?

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 15:45:04 +0200, "Thomas Mann" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>> >wonder why the CCD-Scanners are more expencive when there is no
>difference
>> >in the scan-quality ?
>> >
>> Because there is a difference with scan quality. Don't confuse quality
>> with pixel count.
>>
>
>Is there really a difference in quality ? I mean, did you compared it by
>yourself or read something about it ?
>
Reading and some comparison. Of course, what I said is a
generalisation and I come at it from the photographic side of things
where you can see definite differences in quality. I suspect that
continuous tone images are a problem but it may do OK for other types
of input.

--

Hecate
(E-Mail Removed)
veni, vidi, reliqui