Scanners using USB 2
I was considering the Canon LIDE 30 as a compact and portable scanner to use with my PowerBook, but every review said it was sllloooowwwwww. Now the LIDE 50 is coming out, using USB 2. Faster??
Has anyone had success with a USB 2 CardBus adapter and peripherals? I'd prefer to use FireWire, but the lower-end scanners don't come that way, alas.
Has anyone had success with a USB 2 CardBus adapter and peripherals? I'd prefer to use FireWire, but the lower-end scanners don't come that way, alas.
Comments
Originally posted by anamac
I was considering the Canon LIDE 30 as a compact and portable scanner to use with my PowerBook, but every review said it was sllloooowwwwww. Now the LIDE 50 is coming out, using USB 2. Faster??
Has anyone had success with a USB 2 CardBus adapter and peripherals? I'd prefer to use FireWire, but the lower-end scanners don't come that way, alas.
"Slow" is relative. It's faster than my old UMax, so it suits me fine. I do notice that it's done physically scanning, but it still seems to be sending data to my computer. If this is true, then it's the limitation of USB. Then the higher resolution you use, the longer it will take to scan. But for $99, I'll take it.
In comparison, my Nikon Coolscan takes decades to scans, and that's Firewire and costs 15x the Canon.
Originally posted by Kesh
The LiDE 30 is USB 2.0 compatible. According to the box, anyway.
But it spits out data at USB 1.1 standards.
Originally posted by filmmaker2002
Don't forget that the Lide series doesn't require a power supply. That is one reason why it is so slow, because the USB cable is powering the scanner as well as transferring data.
I'm not sure if I understand this statement. I've never read the USB specs, but I wouldn't expect it to be slower just because it's carrying voltage on the cable. Either the 1s and 0s of the data are riding on a voltage offset, or there is a separate voltage line. In either case, I wouldn't expect any slow downs.
Originally posted by filmmaker2002
Data transfer on USB would be fast if the scanner were physically able to feed the data fast enough.
By "physical", are you referring to the data transfer statement above, or to how fast the scanner can actually scan? If the latter, then I would disagree. The scanner is done "physically" scanning, but is still transferring data to the computer (that's what I've observed on my LiDE30). That means that the bottleneck is the USB 1.1 connection. A USB 2.0 connection would results in faster scans. I would estimate 15-25% on scanning 4"x6" photos at 300 dpi.
I have an EPSON U636 scanner that I'll put up against any of these USB2 scanners.
Speed from a scanner comes from it's design first and formost and then the connectivity standard. Consumers are being led to believe that just because USB2 is emblazoned on the box..it's automatically faster.
Don't be afraid to test ALL scanners. You'll be suprised at the speed differences.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Therein is the problem my friends. Consumers...will they EVER stop being sheep.
I have an EPSON U636 scanner that I'll put up against any of these USB2 scanners.
Speed from a scanner comes from it's design first and formost and then the connectivity standard. Consumers are being led to believe that just because USB2 is emblazoned on the box..it's automatically faster.
Don't be afraid to test ALL scanners. You'll be suprised at the speed differences.
So true. USB 2 doesn't offer any significant advantage in scanning applications.
I don't understand the reluctance to do both. Firewire adds probably $10. to the cost of the scanner at most, offers compatability with Macs and would give a better experience. What's the holdup?
Originally posted by filmmaker2002
.. So the scanner moves slowly across the picture, holding back the amount of data that could be transferred. If the motor was faster, the data throughput would be greater because more information was being sent. That's all according to him though.
I'll buy that line of reasoning. So, all you have to do is raise the voltage of your USB bus. Crank it up to, say, 11.
Originally posted by Frank777
Since Firewire is generally faster than USB and can carry more power than USB, wouldn't there be a solid case for Canon using FW on their scanners?
I don't understand the reluctance to do both. Firewire adds probably $10. to the cost of the scanner at most, offers compatability with Macs and would give a better experience. What's the holdup?
Most PC users don't have Firewire ports.