patton paul wrote:
> The new Nikon and Minolta scanners use USB rather than SCSI to communicate
> with the computer. Since USB has a lower data transfer rate than SCSI, I
> was wondering wether this makes any difference for the overall amount of
> time needed to complete a scan. Is data transfer speed the limiting
> constraint on the amount of time needed to complete a scan, or is there
> some other aspect of the scanning process that constrains speed?
>
>
Paul,
This is a difficult question to answer. Because theory seems to differ
from real world experience. Theory say it shouldn't matter because even
USB is fast enough for the speed the scanner can provide the data.
In practice, it is difficult to prove because each scanner uses
different software buffering techniques, and often different quality
controllers.
The only factual info I can provide is that HP originally made a SCSI
version of their film scanner. The second model was of the same
resolution but captured at a higher bit depth (more data), but was USB.
The USB version was about 1/3rd slower than the SCSI model, but it also
provided nearly 1/3rd more data due to the difference in bit depth
captured. This would support the idea that USB is "fast enough".
Art
