From: "Eric Fulmer" To: Subject: Re: The Big Scanner Lie, does anyone care? Date sent: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 12:54:11 -0400 Send reply to: scan@leben.com << I'm troubled by my perception that no one cares or holds scanner manufacturers accountable for their false advertising... I would like to publicly announce these specification for dynamic range are totally false! I wonder if anyone cares. >> Yes, there are others who care... Particularly those of us who struggle with the same issue you do: explaining why "specs" can't be used to buy very complicated products, even if those "specs" were correct (which, as you point out, they often aren't). The bottom line is that I don't know what action can be taken to curb the "specsmanship" problem at the manufacturer level... << There was one notable stand out CCD scanner and that is the Imacon Flextight II (made in Denmark). It has a real optical resolution of 4000 dpi (advertised for 5600 dpi) and a Dmax of 3.7 (advertised for 4.1). Its price is $16,950. In scanners there is no free lunch. >> A couple of points regarding the Imacon FlexTight Precision II. Although the "II" model has a CCD capable of scanning at 5600 dpi optical, the ColorFlex software bundled with it was not updated to support beyond 4800 optical until (literally) yesterday. You were probably scanning at 4800 dpi optical and reading an "actual" result of 4000 dpi. I also agree that advertising a 4.1 density rating is not only misleading, it makes anyone who understands density immediately question the company's character. However, the scanner does do a great job compared to other CCD products, and it seems the logical replacement for the aging Leaf 45. << With the drum scanner prices coming down, a HOWTEK 4500 is now $18.900 at AZTEK Imaging. There just isn't any comparable price performance to these drum scanners... The Howtek scanners were the only ones tested that meet their specifications.>> I think anyone that is knowledgeable abut imaging understands that flatbeds (and other CCD implementations) still can't touch drum scanners for resolution and density. However, we all know that customer applications vary widely and their workflow, software requirements, scanning volume and variety of subject matter all must be taken into consideration. Even though a drum may be the only product that lives up to it's specs, that doesn't mean it's the best solution for everyone. Eric Fulmer Sales Manager- Southeast Region Professional Graphics Systems & Services Inc. phone: 919-481-4441 email: eric@prographics.com website: www.prographics.com ==================================================================== Please trim all extra quoted text. Thank you very much. http://www.leben.com/lists for instructions on using this list. ==================================================================== Date sent: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 18:19:17 -0700 From: Phil lippincott Organization: AZTEK Imaging To: scan@leben.com Subject: Re: The Big Scanner Lie, does anyone care? Send reply to: scan@leben.com Eric Fulmer wrote: > > > > A couple of points regarding the Imacon FlexTight Precision II. Although > the "II" model has a CCD capable of scanning at 5600 dpi optical, the > ColorFlex software bundled with it was not updated to support beyond 4800 > optical until (literally) yesterday. You were probably scanning at 4800 dpi > optical and reading an "actual" result of 4000 dpi. I also agree that > advertising a 4.1 density rating is not only misleading, it makes anyone who > understands density immediately question the company's character. However, the > scanner does do a great job compared to other CCD products, and it seems the > logical replacement for the aging Leaf 45. > Hi Eric ' I agree the Imacon Flextight II is a great CCD scanner. Also I agree it's price performance knocks the socks off almost all the CCD competition. Yet the optical resolution of the advertised 5600 dpi (8000 element CCD with Rodenstock lens) is actually 4000 dpi optical; and the density range is Status A density between .13 and 2.7 Not the advertised 4.1 dynamic density range. No other tested CCD scanner has done better yet. Back on my soap box this is over 25% less dynamic range and less real optical resolution than a drum scanner which only cost 12% more. Phil Lippincott AZTEK IMaging www.aztek.net ==================================================================== Please trim all extra quoted text. Thank you very much. http://www.leben.com/lists for instructions on using this list. ====================================================================