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

[Winsor Crosby <wincros@earthlink.net>]

>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 
>fortunately
>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.
>
>Rob
>
 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