Digital BW, The Print

Austin: I'm certainly a technical type person. But I remember some guy
named Moore back 30 years ago who came up with this idea about
computers getting twice as fast and half the size every 18 months or
something like that. I said "sure, for a few years maybe". (I didn't
invest in Intel back then either) When someone told me that someday
computers would be so small they could be battery powered and we could
 carry them around in our hands, I didn't believe him either. Now, I'm
believing just about anything. Like I opened, I don't understand this
stuff but I wonder if your constraints are realistic. Maybe in 2003,
but 2004?
Bob Michaels
 
> The sensor size is limited in width to what is available from the sensor
> manufacturers.  Minolta doesn't make it's own linear CCD.  I don't
know what
> they use for a sensor in that unit...yet...but it's only 5300 sensing
> elements wide, and it is tri-linear (RGB).  To scan 120, they would
need a
> sensor 2.25 times wider...
> 
> We also don't know how good the 5400 SPI is...as with their previous
> scanners, it seemed to me that tests showed that they didn't live up to
> their purported specs.
> 
> What is the "and so on and so on"?  You are physically limited in
the number
> of sensing elements you can get over a particular span, where you
don't get
> a substantial increase in noise.  Second, the larger (wider) the
sensor, you
> run into physical limitations of the scanning mechanism, as in
optics and
> scanning it self.  That all ain't gonna be cheap.
> 
> These are no small tasks, and I just don't see a market that makes
this type
> of development worthwhile (for a bit company that is), and I don't see
> people willing to pay for it either.  Let's see how the Minolta scanner
> does...  I'm sure someone will get one, and some tests will pop
up...soon...
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Austin