Re: [APML] New Epson Scanner

["Bert Katzung" <katzung1@attbi.com>]

Hi Jerry:
That's a fascinating review you found! First one I've seen that puts the
Epson up against a quantitative standard that I can understand.
And I think you're right about the dual price range --- the higher price
gets you the "professional"  test targets but the same scanner hardware.
Thanks,
Bert

Bert Katzung
katzung1@attbi.com
www.astronomy-images.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry Lodriguss" <jerry@astropix.com>
To: "Discussion of Film Astrophotography" <astro-photo@seds.org>; "Brandon
Lodriguss" <brandon@astropix.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 11:55 PM
Subject: Re: [APML] New Epson Scanner


> Hi Bert and everyone:
>
> I stand corrected.  I was wrong about the resolution of this scanner. I
> didn't realize that the CCD was larger than one inch! Doh. What a dummy.
>
> It looks like the street price will be less than $599, I found it for $540
> at one place.
>
> Here is another review that is interesting. There are some slight language
> smoothness problems in this review, I'm not sure English is the reviewer's
> native language, but there is some good info here.
>
> http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/epson3200/
>
>
> It may be that the hardware for the cheaper version is exactly the same as
> for the pro version. I think the extra price is for software stuff, like
> the test targets.
>
> I don't keep up on the new CCD technology as well as I should. I guess
I've
> been too busy writing that damn book and the world has passed me by. When
I
> first started writing it three years ago, people on this list still shot
> film. <G>
>
> Jerry
>
>
>
>
> At 03:10 PM 3/4/2003 -0800, you wrote:
> >One more on this thread, then I'll shut up:
> >http://www.epson.co.uk/sohoprod/imaging/scanner/perf3200/spec.htm
> >says that the sensor is a "6 line alternated with 81,600 pixels"
> >If we interpret that as meaning there are 6 lines of pixels (alternating
> >colors, probably) and a total of 81,600 pixels in the whole array, that
> >makes 81,600/6 = 13,600 pixels per line.
> >If the 3200 pixel spec is for the 4 inch direction, that gives us
13,600/4 =
> >3400 ppi.
> >That would seem to leave room for a safe 3200 true ppi.
> >Bert
>
>
> Astronomical photography: http://www.astropix.com
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Astro-Photo mailing list
> Astro-Photo@seds.org
> http://seds.org/mailman/listinfo/astro-photo
>


_______________________________________________
Astro-Photo mailing list
Astro-Photo@seds.org
http://seds.org/mailman/listinfo/astro-photo