A3 size scanners and weird pricing

[Serial # 19781010]

Have you noticed the huge price jump when one goes from a letter size
scanner to to A3 (tabloid or 11"x17") scanner?

For instance in the Epson line one can buy a perfectly decent consumer
level letter size scanner for a $90 bucks US. But try to buy a A3 size
Epson scanner and you are talking $2500 bucks US.

I'm not questioning the worth of the 10000LX A3 Epson scanners. They
may be worth it.

What I'm wondering about is why they couldn't, for instance, built a
A3 size scanner to the same standard as my 1240U and price it
accordingly. That is perhaps around 300 bucks.

I've noticed the same price structure with other companies also.

Surely someone could built a decent comsumer grade A3 scanner for
under $500 US?

Any thoughts on what's going on?

 

[Stewart DIBBS]

What I'm wondering about is why they couldn't, for instance, built a
A3 size scanner to the same standard as my 1240U and price it
accordingly. That is perhaps around 300 bucks.

Its three things:
1. market demand ... A3 scanners are not a big demand item, and this
defines the per unit sell price.
2. market presence and branding. The consumer market is by far the biggest,
and where brand loyalties and identification are generated. Profit margins
on a consumer grade scanner are miniscule, but when you multiply this by
tens of thousands, it adds up.
3. Most scanner manufacturers make their major money on other products than
consumer grade stuff. Epson for example make electronic product assembly
robots. You can bet their profit margin on those is pretty substantial.

So don't expect a cheap A3 scanner any time soon.

regards,
Stewart DIBBS
========================================
Developer of the PiXCL Image Processing and
Analysis Language for Windows 2000/XP

PiXCL 6.0 is coming February 2005...

www.vysor.com Gatineau, Quebec, CANADA

========================================

 

[CSM1]

Have you noticed the huge price jump when one goes from a letter size
scanner to to A3 (tabloid or 11"x17") scanner?

For instance in the Epson line one can buy a perfectly decent consumer
level letter size scanner for a $90 bucks US. But try to buy a A3 size
Epson scanner and you are talking $2500 bucks US.

I'm not questioning the worth of the 10000LX A3 Epson scanners. They
may be worth it.

What I'm wondering about is why they couldn't, for instance, built a
A3 size scanner to the same standard as my 1240U and price it
accordingly. That is perhaps around 300 bucks.

I've noticed the same price structure with other companies also.

Surely someone could built a decent comsumer grade A3 scanner for
under $500 US?

Any thoughts on what's going on?

Standard Operating Procedure, Charge what the traffic will bear. An A3
scanner is 2 times the area of an A4 scanner. The A3 is the same width as
the A4 is long and twice the width of A4.

So you have a senor that is 1.414 (sqrt 2) times the length for A4 and a
travel that is 1.414 times as long as A4.

And a large case to hold all of the guts.

If more A3 size scanners were sold , the price would come down. Supply and
Demand.

 

[Tim]

And of course completely ignoring the fact that the scanners are for
two seperate markets, have different specs and build qualities... The
A3 scanner is a professional model which is built to run all day every
day. It has different light source, different motors and driver
systems, it is one of the most accurate scanners on the market. The
Transparency hood has a cold cathode tube and not a grid source, it
also has accurate motors and drive systems, the warranty is supported
by engineer visits... etc.
You cannot compare it to an entry level scanner and conclude that the
price difference is down to what the market will bear. If you want to
come to a conclusion then you should at least have looked at a few of
the basic specs!

 

[Serial # 19781010]

If more A3 size scanners were sold , the price would come down. Supply and
Demand.

Catch 22- so long as A3's cost over $2000 more will not be sold, so
long as more will not be sold price will not come down, so long as
price will not come down more will not be sold ad infinitum.......

One thing I'm sure of the price is driven by the marketing not
production costs+reasonable profit.

 

[Serial # 19781010]

And of course completely ignoring the fact that the scanners are for
two seperate markets, have different specs and build qualities...

That is precisely what was not ignored.

I repeat, in part, my original post......

"I'm not questioning the worth of the 10000LX A3 Epson scanners. They
may be worth it.

What I'm wondering about is why they couldn't, for instance, built a
A3 size scanner to the same standard as my 1240U and price it
accordingly. That is perhaps around 300 bucks....."

In other words why couldn't Epson take the Perfection 2480 that can be
bought at any Walmart for 100 bucks full retail and scale it up to
accommodate 11"x17" scanning and price it accordingly? Sure it would
have to cost more-$200 more?- but surely not $2300 more if built to
the same level of quality and support as the 2480.

Epson could do it and come in with a price well under $500 and many
would buy. The mystery is why they don't.

 

[Wayne Fulton]

Surely someone could built a decent comsumer grade A3 scanner for
under $500 US?

Staples (according to their web site) carries an A3 size Mustek
scanner, 300 dpi for $180.

Plustek makes a similar model, but I dont know if it is available in
the USA now.

See www.mustek.com and www.plustek.com

This is not a recommendation. Reports of A3 at this price level have
not been good.

 

[Serial # 19781010]

Staples (according to their web site) carries an A3 size Mustek
scanner, 300 dpi for $180.

The Mustek A3 is what I have been using for the last year and a half.
Got it for a $130 delivered to my door.

I have done a lot of good work with it. I committed a whole library of
old 19th century maps for the historical society with it. It has never
given me a lick of trouble.

Which brings me to my other pet peeve...what's with this insane
selling of ultra high resolutions? (over 600dpi). I do a lot of
scanning of very detailed maps and have never found the need to go
over 400dpi. When the United Stated Geological Survey (USGS) scanned
in their very detailed and complex topographical series of maps they
never go over 240dpi. If you need it to do film scanning get a proper
film scanner.

However, if I have any problem with the Mustek its the use of CIS
instead of CCD sensors. The narrow depth of field when scanning large
maps that hang over the edge of the scanner can be a problem. Often I
have to crop out about 1/2 inch around the edge because it's too soft
because it not in perfect contact with the glass. In most cases it's
not a big deal as I'm stitching together large maps with PanaVue but
still it would be nice to have edge to edge sharpness. Also it can be
a real pain in the ass when scanning very old stuff that's slightly
wavy or kinked and won't lay perfectly flat. Something to consider
when buying a flat bed.

 

[Wayne Fulton]

Which brings me to my other pet peeve...what's with this insane
selling of ultra high resolutions? (over 600dpi). I do a lot of
scanning of very detailed maps and have never found the need to go
over 400dpi.

Well, there are other things than maps. Not speaking of color or
grayscale mode, but text or line drawings or graphic material is
sometimes more appropriately scanned in line art mode. 300 dpi line art
is fair, but for higher quality, you probably want to print line art at
600 dpi, and prepress may go a bit higher. High quality line art
material does print better then, and line art is certainly a common
scanning situation.

You may be limiting the situation to printing color copies at original
size, and maps may already be the right size. But the normal purpose of
high resolution is for enlargement. If you want to print double size at
300 dpi, then you scan at 600 dpi to have enough pixels to be able to do
that. Or to print line art at double size at 600 dpi, then scan at 1200
dpi, etc. This is a very good capability to have. It doesnt have to be
film, but yes, film is a common reason we need more enlargement. Sheet
film exists, including rather large xray film. Not everyone has the same
needs.

 

[Peter Finney]

Which brings me to my other pet peeve...what's with this insane
selling of ultra high resolutions? (over 600dpi). I do a lot of
scanning of very detailed maps and have never found the need to go
over 400dpi. When the United Stated Geological Survey (USGS) scanned
in their very detailed and complex topographical series of maps they
never go over 240dpi. If you need it to do film scanning get a proper
film scanner.

In general - I agree with this comment. However there is one use for
very high resolution - scanning small originals which you intend to
reproduce larger than the original size. However - I now use my
digicam for this.



Peter Finney
Liphook
Hampshire
England

 

[Wilfred]

Well, there are other things than maps. Not speaking of color or
grayscale mode, but text or line drawings or graphic material is
sometimes more appropriately scanned in line art mode. 300 dpi line art
is fair, but for higher quality, you probably want to print line art at
600 dpi, and prepress may go a bit higher. High quality line art
material does print better then, and line art is certainly a common
scanning situation.

Not to mention 35mm and other film. Flatbeds for film scanning seem to
appeal to a larger market than flatbeds for A3-sized maps. Scanning at
4800ppi does make sense for films. Unfortunately, a "4800ppi" flatbed
doesn't produce the same amount of detail as a 4800ppi filmscanner would do.

 

[Bill Burgoyne]

Mustek have a A3 scanner at around £82.00 GBP for details :-

http://computing.kelkoo.co.uk/b/a/ps_339165/115401.html