USB 2.0 on scanners

crafty

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 14, 2002
Messages
198
I want to buy a scanner... but I want it to be thin (like the Cannon LiDE scanners). The LiDE 60 is about $30 more expensive than the LiDE 25 and the only difference is that it has USB 2.0 hi-speed. I imagine that these scanners are more limited by the speed that the actual sensor moves rather than the interface. Will the LiDE 25 be much slower? Anyone know?
 
The LiDE 25 is USB 2.0 as well, the 60 would have better image quality. You are right, the speed is limited by the mechanism of the sensor. The 25 is pretty quick, and the bandwidth provided by USB 2.0 is more than enough for its operation. The LiDE 25 will be just fine. :)
 
I would have thought that the transfer rate would only effect how fast the data is sent to the computer rather than how fast it can scan a document, unless your in a real hurry. Even if it was 1.1 speeds, it should still be good enough unless its really high res graphics your scanning.
 
A fullpage photoscan would be tens of megabytes, I think. The transfer times with USB1.0 would certainly be noticable. So yes, USB2.0 is noticably better.
 
I feel like everyone just contradicted each other.

4keatimj said:
The LiDE 25 is USB 2.0 as well, the 60 would have better image quality. You are right, the speed is limited by the mechanism of the sensor. The 25 is pretty quick, and the bandwidth provided by USB 2.0 is more than enough for its operation. The LiDE 25 will be just fine.
I'm pretty sure the LiDE 25 is just USB 1.1. If you look at the comparisons on the Cannon site, it says "USB" for the LiDE 25 but "USB 2.0 Hi-Speed" for the others. Plus, if it was USB 2.0, then there would be no difference between the 25 and 60 besides the $30 and the 60 being slightly larger.

ilkka said:
A fullpage photoscan would be tens of megabytes, I think. The transfer times with USB1.0 would certainly be noticable. So yes, USB2.0 is noticably better.
I guess my theory was that since the physical scanning takes like 5 or so seconds (to move the sensor), it would give the device enough time to transfer the file regardless of the interface. I guess USB 2.0 would be faster though... since USB 1.1 is only 12 mb/s.

Orr said:
I would have thought that the transfer rate would only effect how fast the data is sent to the computer rather than how fast it can scan a document, unless your in a real hurry. Even if it was 1.1 speeds, it should still be good enough unless its really high res graphics your scanning.
Thats why my thoughts were... probably not worth the extra money.

Does anyone know of any CCD scanners (it looks like they have higher resolution) that are thin? All the ones I see are about 5" tall... which is huge.
 
I have an older (first generation USB 2.0) Visoneer 9020 USB scanner and I can say, at least with these models, that the USB 2.0 speed is like night and day. I can scan at 600dpi a full 8.5x11 in about four minutes at true color. On my older USB 1.1 scanner, this was one of those activities where you start the scan and then run off and play Super Mario World until you beat it by completing every stage .... then come back and the scanner will be just wrapping up.
 
Back
Top