ðòïåëôù 


  áòèé÷ 


Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

  óôáôøé 


  ðåòóïîáìøîïå 


  ðòïçòáííù 



ðéûéôå
ðéóøíá












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

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

[filmscanners] Re: 12 vs 16-bit A/D conversion. Was: WinXP and DimageScan Dual II and more



The main area where the extra A/D bit depth is helpful is in defining
dark areas as image versus noise.  I have not compared the two, but a
review I read claimed considerable benefit the extra bits the A/D
converter provided.  It is probably the principal weakness of the Dual
Scan II, particularly the blue channel.  It is, in fact, that extra A/D
bit conversion that should, in theory, help fix the problem you are
claiming, that the dark areas are ill defined from the noise threshold.

The cost difference between the Dual II and Dual III seems to be small.

Art

Preston Earle wrote:

> Curt Degler wrote: "Anyone with experience running  the Scan Dual II run
> with Win XP? Its not listed in the scanner specs."
>
> and "Arthur Entlich" <artistic-1@shaw.ca> answered: "The Minolta DUal
> Scan II may be good value if it is being heavily discounted.  The
> Minolta Scan III sounds like it may be worth a few extra bucks however,
> due to an improved interface (USB 2.0) and a higher A/D converter (16
> rather than 12).  It also appears to have new software."
> ------------------
>
> I don't know nothing about no stinking electronics, but if you're saying
> that a 16-bit A/D converter will give the Scan Dual III better
> performance, I'd take issue with it. I guess theoretically a 12-bit
> conversion will yield 1024 distinct values, while a 16-bit conversion
> will give 16k values. But I'd say the Scan Dual III's ccd's have trouble
> reliably measuring 4 good bits of data in dark, shadow areas, and in any
> other "photographic image", the 13th-16th bits have the same value that
> loose change has to Bill Gates. The USB 2.0 interface is probably a real
> benefit over the Scan Dual II, but I don't know about that A/D stuff. I
> have a Scan Dual II and think it's a wonderful $300-$400 scanner, but
> it's no high-end device.
>
> Preston Earle
> PEarle@triad.rr.com
>



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body



 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.