Subject: Re: usb 1.1 vs 2.0
From: Michael Gillson (Michael_Gillson@chugachelectric.com)
Date: Tue Jan 07 2003 - 10:57:59 AKST
I am not sure I understand your numbers.
I have seen FireWire at 400Mb/s and USB 2 at 480Mb/s
>>> James Zuelow <e5z8652@zuelow.net> 01/06/03 10:22PM >>>
On 06 Jan 2003 19:09:49 -0900
"Greg Madden" <pabi@gci.net> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2003-01-06 at 17:22, James Zuelow wrote:
> >
> > On 05 Jan 2003 14:46:02 -0900
> > "Jim Gribbin" <jgribbin@alaska.net> wrote:
> >
> I think you made the case for connection speed does affect scanning
> speed :) A 8x10 photo scanned at 600dpi is about 82mb. A scanner
> that sends this data to the computer on the fly will take the
> connection speed divided by throughput to get time.I do think it may
> depend on the scanner. In the case of a page of text it shouldn't
> take three minutes unless the scanner scan mechanism takes three
> minutes, most don't take three minutes to scan.
> --
I did a little google work and couldn't find a handy link for an Epson
2450 that measured both the time to scan an image and the size of the
image. However it looks like the fastest negative scans take about
90-95 seconds at high resolution. If you're using the Firewire
interface at 400Mb/s, that is a roughly 4.8GB image, and for USB 2.0
is is only 2.4GB. So your max resolution is much higher than my old
scanner can do. :)
Cheers,
James
---------
To unsubscribe, send email to <aklug-request@aklug.org>
with 'unsubscribe' in the message body.
---------
To unsubscribe, send email to <aklug-request@aklug.org>
with 'unsubscribe' in the message body.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a23 : Tue Jan 07 2003 - 10:58:26 AKST