Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 




      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: My 8000does NOT ba nd using Vuescan!

>Austin wrote:
>>  Because the scanning software gives different results
>>  (appears to "cure" the problem), that doesn't mean it's
>>  not hardware.
>The jaggies problem is a design fault in the scanner hardware which 
>can be resolved in software.  I didn't say that the hardware wasn't ultimately
>at fault, but anything which can be solved in software is a lot better than
>something which requires a recall for hardware modification.
>>  I do believe for the 8000, Ed said it was probably a
>>  hardware/firmware problem.  I've asked him if he had
>>  any more information on this, and am awaiting his answer.
>Yup, from what Ed has said it's related to the use of the three rows of
>CCD elements.  It sounds like the three row idea was something which didn't
>quite work in practice.  Again it's a hardware fault which it appears can
>be resolved in software - but of course it means the hardware isn't behaving
>as it was originally designed to.  Much the same as the jaggies problem
>being related to the use of a command to reading 64K of data at a time and
>how the hardware behaved when that command was used.
 From the Polaroid page for the SS120: <Single Pass RGB, 30K Pixel CCD 
(10,000 X 3 = 30,000)>

Since the banding problem has not turned up with the Polaroid 
implementation I don't think that the three row CCD idea is something 
that does not work in practice. It may or may not depending on how it 
is implemented.
Winsor Crosby
Long Beach, California


Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.