AIRFORCE SAYS SCANNER MFRS ARE LYING

AIRFORCE SAYS SCANNER MFRS ARE LYING

Post by M80 » Wed, 06 Jan 1999 04:00:00



A post in the Alt.scanner ng dated 8/12/98 says a US Airforce employee ( author
) did a survey that calls scanner makers claims about scanner resolution and
color density lies.  The scanners used were drum ( they performed as claimed )
to CCD.  The poster was Phil Lippincott.  This post also asserts that Binuscan
only helped color response slightly and did nothing for dynamic density.  My
two scanners ,  a HP 6100c amd A Umax Mirage 2 claim 3.4 and 3.6 respectfully
they also claim 600 DPI for the HP and 1400x700 for the Umax and in high
resolution mode 2800x1400 ( with the double lens on a reduced area ).  The
survey says that NO CCD scanner can get higher than 2.7 color density.
Resolution was also challenged by CCD scanners as exaggerated claims by the
scanner makers.  Mr Lippincott used a KODAK standard color density step chart (
poesative transparency T-126 ) to test  color and a 1954 optical quality chart
which is nimbered with lines dowm to 1 part per millimeter to test optical
resolution.  I plan to use these to test my scanners.  What is most sugnificant
is that the Binuscan software does very little improving.   HMMMMMM.

Robert G Smith

 
 
 

AIRFORCE SAYS SCANNER MFRS ARE LYING

Post by JDee » Wed, 06 Jan 1999 04:00:00


Quote:>A post in the Alt.scanner ng dated 8/12/98 says a US Airforce employee ( author
>) did a survey that calls scanner makers claims about scanner resolution and
>color density lies.  The scanners used were drum ( they performed as claimed )
>to CCD.  The poster was Phil Lippincott.  This post also asserts that Binuscan
>only helped color response slightly and did nothing for dynamic density.  My
>two scanners ,  a HP 6100c amd A Umax Mirage 2 claim 3.4 and 3.6 respectfully
>they also claim 600 DPI for the HP and 1400x700 for the Umax and in high
>resolution mode 2800x1400 ( with the double lens on a reduced area ).  The
>survey says that NO CCD scanner can get higher than 2.7 color density.
>Resolution was also challenged by CCD scanners as exaggerated claims by the
>scanner makers.  Mr Lippincott used a KODAK standard color density step chart (
>poesative transparency T-126 ) to test  color and a 1954 optical quality chart
>which is nimbered with lines dowm to 1 part per millimeter to test optical
>resolution.  I plan to use these to test my scanners.  What is most sugnificant
>is that the Binuscan software does very little improving.   HMMMMMM.

1. Do you have any arguments of your own? Seems like we've covered
this ground before. Your vendetta against Binuscan and UMAX are
tiring.

2. I'm not sure where your quoted density values are from, but both
seem too high. However the suggestion that no CCD scanner can exceed
Dmax 2.7 is wrong: mid-range flatbeds can easily exceed 3.2, several
models sub-$10,000 now reach 3.5/3.6 and high-end models (eg Linotype
Topaz, Imacon Flextight (which uses a similar CCD)) go even higher.
There is an argument over the exact method of measuring Drange and
Dmax however even the most conservative show Dmax reading well in
excess of 2.7.

3. Among the many features of the Binscan products are the processing
and reconstruction of raw CCD data, preventing shadow and highlight
detail normally obscured by manufacturer's drivers from being
destroyed. Can you provide any proof that Binuscan technologies make
"very little improvement" to 1. image quality (in final print or
film-based proof), determined as colour fidelity and gamut, detail
throughout the histogram, sharpness and visual correction/balancing,
compared to standard scanner drivers and an expert operator; 2.
productivity, measured as separated corrected scans per hour produced
by a scanners, file size and output/RIP time.; 3. colour space
conversions, including but not limited to RGB to CMYK (compared to any
OS-based CMS or standard imaging tool such as Adobe Photoshop), YCC to
RGB (compared to Kodak's own filters, although Kodak are now
discontinuing thes ein favour of Binuscan's software).

I look forward to seeing your comments in the NG in support of your
earlier posts.

Cheers

JDeee
http://www.imcnet.com/support/

 
 
 

AIRFORCE SAYS SCANNER MFRS ARE LYING

Post by JDee » Wed, 06 Jan 1999 04:00:00


Quote:> Magazines ( very high quality color out put ) use drums and not CCD...

Damn. I'll call Scitex, Kodak and Linotype, they're obviously wrong.
Has anyone got time to call Scanview or Imacon? Polaroid? Screen?

Thanks for correcting us, it'd be a real shame if any of these
'know-nothings' wasted any more of their time, or yours.

JDeee

 
 
 

AIRFORCE SAYS SCANNER MFRS ARE LYING

Post by Michael Gree » Wed, 06 Jan 1999 04:00:00


Quote:

> I am sorry but I believe the US Airforce over ANY scanner maker and especially
> Binuscan.  

Robert,

Excuse me for entering this hotly contested debate, but where exactly
did the USAF make any claims? I've been reading your rant for the past
couple of days. Intrigued, I went to Dejanews to read Phil Lippincott's
original post entitled "Dynamic Range and DPI the BIG LIE!" dated
8/12/98. To be sure, Phil's post was a damning post about all
manufacturer's of CCD scanners, but he only mentions Binuscan in
passing. Almost an afterthought. More importantly, he states that he
used an Air Force optical quality target to measure the maximum
resolution capabilities of various scanners. But that's the only mention
of the USAF. In his signature, he afiliates himself with "Aztec
Imaging". It doesn't seem to me that he has any relationship with the
USAF except that he used one of their measuring tools.

So excuse me for asking once again, how do you come to the conclusion
that the USAF has anything to do with this? Phil appears to be the
owner/employee of Aztec Imaging.

Quote:> If Binuscan wants me to shut up they will have to prove their claims
> to me.  BINUSCAN FLAT OUT LIES WHEN THEY CLAIM DRUM QUALIY FROM ANY CCD DEVICE
> !!!  My biggest surprise here is that ( as I expected ) was documentiation
> through the Air force post that  Binuscan lies about it's capabilities.  I have
> connections to printing companies in NY ( the worlds largest
> printing/publishing city by far, where I am from  )  and they use drum scanners
> and DO NOT need Binuscan they tell me because high end drums and  do not use
> CCD at all.  Also Major Newspapers in the USA don't put allot of high quality
> color pictures in Newspapers. Magazines ( very high quality color out put )
> use drums and not CCD and don't Need Binuscan.  Personally I am somewhat
> relieved that there is a US AIRFORCE claim that Binuscan does not help much
> because should I not come up with a way to run Binuscan I have not lost much.

> Robert G Smith

> Robert G Smith

Mike Greer
 
 
 

AIRFORCE SAYS SCANNER MFRS ARE LYING

Post by M a r t i n » Thu, 07 Jan 1999 04:00:00



>A post in the Alt.scanner ng dated 8/12/98 says a US Airforce employee ( author
>) did a survey that calls scanner makers claims about scanner resolution and
>color density lies.  The scanners used were drum ( they performed as claimed )
>to CCD.  The poster was Phil Lippincott.  This post also asserts that Binuscan
>only helped color response slightly and did nothing for dynamic density.  My
>two scanners ,  a HP 6100c amd A Umax Mirage 2 claim 3.4 and 3.6 respectfully
>they also claim 600 DPI for the HP and 1400x700 for the Umax and in high
>resolution mode 2800x1400 ( with the double lens on a reduced area ).  The
>survey says that NO CCD scanner can get higher than 2.7 color density.
>Resolution was also challenged by CCD scanners as exaggerated claims by the
>scanner makers.  Mr Lippincott used a KODAK standard color density step chart (
>poesative transparency T-126 ) to test  color and a 1954 optical quality chart
>which is nimbered with lines dowm to 1 part per millimeter to test optical
>resolution.  I plan to use these to test my scanners.  What is most sugnificant
>is that the Binuscan software does very little improving.   HMMMMMM.

>Robert G Smith

IF you thought something like a piece of software would make your $100 scanner
perform like a $10000 drum scanner, wait till you checkout the program I wrote
that makes your 286 perform like a Cray!

_____________________________________
M a r t i n  B l a c k s t o n e
m a r t i n b 1 [a t] h o m e . c o m

 
 
 

AIRFORCE SAYS SCANNER MFRS ARE LYING

Post by M80 » Thu, 07 Jan 1999 04:00:00


>ubject: Re: AIRFORCE SAYS SCANNER MFRS ARE LYING

>Date: 1/5/99 8:34 PM Eastern Standard Time



>>A post in the Alt.scanner ng dated 8/12/98 says a US Airforce employee (
>author
>>) did a survey that calls scanner makers claims about scanner resolution and
>>color density lies.  The scanners used were drum ( they performed as claimed
>)
>>to CCD.  The poster was Phil Lippincott.  This post also asserts that
>Binuscan
>>only helped color response slightly and did nothing for dynamic density.  My
>>two scanners ,  a HP 6100c amd A Umax Mirage 2 claim 3.4 and 3.6
>respectfully
>>they also claim 600 DPI for the HP and 1400x700 for the Umax and in high
>>resolution mode 2800x1400 ( with the double lens on a reduced area ).  The
>>survey says that NO CCD scanner can get higher than 2.7 color density.
>>Resolution was also challenged by CCD scanners as exaggerated claims by the
>>scanner makers.  Mr Lippincott used a KODAK standard color density step
>chart (
>>poesative transparency T-126 ) to test  color and a 1954 optical quality
>chart
>>which is nimbered with lines dowm to 1 part per millimeter to test optical
>>resolution.  I plan to use these to test my scanners.  What is most
>sugnificant
>>is that the Binuscan software does very little improving.   HMMMMMM.

>>Robert G Smith

>IF you thought something like a piece of software would make your $100
>scanner
>perform like a $10000 drum scanner, wait till you checkout the program I
>wrote
>that makes your 286 perform like a Cray!

>_____________________________________
>M a r t i n  B l a c k s t o n e
>m a r t i n b 1 [a t] h o m e . c o m

Anyone who believes that should go and make a bid on the Brooklyn Bridge !

Robert G Smith

 
 
 

AIRFORCE SAYS SCANNER MFRS ARE LYING

Post by Rick Russe » Fri, 08 Jan 1999 04:00:00




> A post in the Alt.scanner ng dated 8/12/98 says a US Airforce
> employee ( author ) did a survey that calls scanner makers claims
> about scanner resolution and color density lies.  The scanners used
> were drum ( they performed as claimed ) to CCD.  The poster was Phil
> Lippincott.  This post also asserts that Binuscan only helped color

...

According to the original posting, there was no "Air Force"
survey. Phil Lippincott did not claim to be an Air Force employee, and
in fact claims to work for a service bureau called Aztech Imaging. In
the same post, he advertises that he will sell us Howtek drum
scanners, which he claims are price-competitive with the high-end
flatbed scanners.

He was advertising, not comparing. He's a scanner vendor who sells
drum scanners. Given your alleged tendency to distrust scanner
vendors, it seems that his credibility would be at issue for you.

He does claim to have used an Air Force test image for optical
quality.

References to original postings:

  http://x6.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=380297156&CONTEXT=915692334.15741...
  http://x6.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=380298393&CONTEXT=915692334.15741...


--

             * http://peripherals.miningco.com

 
 
 

AIRFORCE SAYS SCANNER MFRS ARE LYING

Post by Dave » Tue, 12 Jan 1999 04:00:00




> According to the original posting, there was no "Air Force"
> survey. Phil Lippincott did not claim to be an Air Force employee, and
> in fact claims to work for a service bureau called Aztech Imaging. In
> the same post, he advertises that he will sell us Howtek drum
> scanners, which he claims are price-competitive with the high-end
> flatbed scanners.

> He was advertising, not comparing. He's a scanner vendor who sells
> drum scanners. Given your alleged tendency to distrust scanner
> vendors, it seems that his credibility would be at issue for you.

> He does claim to have used an Air Force test image for optical
> quality.

I'm trying to figure out how the USAF could be an authority on digital
imaging devices in the first place.  Seems to me the major market is on
the graphic arts industry.  Who cares what the USAF says?
 
 
 

AIRFORCE SAYS SCANNER MFRS ARE LYING

Post by cu » Fri, 15 Jan 1999 04:00:00



>I'm trying to figure out how the USAF could be an authority on digital
>imaging devices in the first place.  Seems to me the major market is on
>the graphic arts industry.  Who cares what the USAF says?

<insert hysterical laughter here >
the USAF can probably count the dandruff on your scalp when you walk
outside in the morning :)

PS rumour has it they were not involved anyway.

 
 
 

1. US AIRFORCE SAYS SCANNER MFRS LIE

The US Airforce says that CCD flatbed scanner makers lie about specifications.
Air Force tests show that no flatbed has greater density than 2.7.  Many
scanner makers claim 3.6.  The tests show that resolution and color response
are also not truthfully indicated and that Binuscan improves color response but
does nothing for color depth.  Binuscan says in it's documentation that you can
get drum quality from a CCD scanner with their software.  That is total lie !

Robert G Smith

2. Latex Fonts

3. US AIRFORCE SAYS SCANNER MFGS ARE LYING

4. iPAC discconected from Dell using ActiveSYnc?

5. lies, lies, and DAMN lies.....

6. Boot from mirror

7. Am I being Lied to???

8. Printing to a HP Deskjet 870

9. Lies ALL Lies!!!!

10. Lies, Damn Lies!: Best Buy, Melbourne, Fl

11. Lies, lies and benchmarks.

12. Lies, damn lies and benchmarks

13. TESTING:LIES DAMNED LIES