>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
