Digital BW, The Print

The first real 2D CCD that was any pratical use in imaging dates back to 
the 70's and that was a 1 k by 1 k (1 megapixel) monochromic CCD. That 
sucker was expensive - so expensive that no one but the US DOD could 
afford it. At that time the 1 k one dimensional CCD was still 
expensive.  The amount of progress we have made in this area has not 
been anywhere near the progress technoloy has made in other areas. They 
can be produced today for a heck of a lot less money but they haven't 
improved that much in capability - except maybe much better dynamic 
range. Compare this to semiconductor memory. At the same time this CCD 
was being developed the PC was someone's wet dream. In the early 80, 64 
k of memory was a big deal. Now most have at least a half a gig in them 
and you can buy a 250 meg simm for about 100 bucks.  One of the problems 
is the physics behind the CCD.  It was thought CMOS sensors would solve 
this but they come with their own set of problems.

Of course if you really want to see a jump in scanner technology all 
that has to happen is for me to go out and buy a new one to upgrade the 
one I have. Then within a week the next generation will be released :-).

Truman

Anthony Atkielski wrote:

>Carolyn writes:
>
>  
>
>>Since they came out with a 5400 spi scanner for
>>35, I assumed that the 120 wouldn't be far along.
>>    
>>
>
>Since they never quite managed 4000 dpi for 120, I wouldn't hold my breath.
>
>Additionally, each increase in resolution is a smaller improvement than its
>predecessor in scanners.  A resolution of 4000 dpi is only a small
>improvement over 2700 or 2900 dpi, despite the apparent jump.  A resolution
>of 5400 dpi represents an even tinier jump.  Furthermore, unless you shoot
>everything on a tripod on fine-grained film, you may not see any difference
>at all between 4000 and 5400 dpi, and you may not even see a difference
>between 2700 and 4000.
>
>
>  
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]