Scanning in 16bit or better colour?
July 14, 2008 4:52 AM
Scanning in 16-bit colour. I have a Canon CanoScan LiDE 600F plugged into a Vista machine. The box says "9600 x 4800 resolution! 48-bit colour!". Scanning options in Vista (It's all WIA not Twain these days) seem to limit me to 600dpi and 8-bit colour. Am I missing something, or does anyone else have any experience of pulling off this feat with this hardware, or know why the box would seem to be claiming unfacts?
You realise, of course, that what is commonly called '24 bit colour' can also be called '8 bits per channel' colour - that is, 8 bits of Red + 8 bits of Green + 8 bits of Blue = 24-bit colour representation?
Also, because not much software can handle 48 bit colour, some scanner drivers let the program say "at most 24-bit colour please" so they don't give 48-bit colour data to software unequipped to deal with it. Theoretically, software could say "at most 8 bit colour please". As such, scanning to a different application might enable higher colour depth.
Another option is that it's a problem with the Vista drivers for that scanner. If that's the problem, make sure you have the newest drivers from the Canon website.
And 9600x4800 and 600dpi aren't mutually exclusive--if you scanned something that's sixteen inches by eight inches at 600dpi, you'd get a 9600x4800 image.
In this case the specifications on Canon's website explicitly say "optical resolution: 4800x9600dpi" so I don't think it's that.
posted by Mike1024 at 6:14 AM on July 14, 2008
Also, because not much software can handle 48 bit colour, some scanner drivers let the program say "at most 24-bit colour please" so they don't give 48-bit colour data to software unequipped to deal with it. Theoretically, software could say "at most 8 bit colour please". As such, scanning to a different application might enable higher colour depth.
Another option is that it's a problem with the Vista drivers for that scanner. If that's the problem, make sure you have the newest drivers from the Canon website.
And 9600x4800 and 600dpi aren't mutually exclusive--if you scanned something that's sixteen inches by eight inches at 600dpi, you'd get a 9600x4800 image.
In this case the specifications on Canon's website explicitly say "optical resolution: 4800x9600dpi" so I don't think it's that.
posted by Mike1024 at 6:14 AM on July 14, 2008
problem? vista
look for other drivers. i found some nice OSS drivers for my canon printer, better than the canon written ones (i'm using OSX)
photoshop probably supports 48 bit. i've never bothered.
or see if you can get on the TWAIN. (pun alert, sorry)
posted by KenManiac at 8:34 AM on July 14, 2008
look for other drivers. i found some nice OSS drivers for my canon printer, better than the canon written ones (i'm using OSX)
photoshop probably supports 48 bit. i've never bothered.
or see if you can get on the TWAIN. (pun alert, sorry)
posted by KenManiac at 8:34 AM on July 14, 2008
Did you install the CanoScan toolbox software? That's where it is on Mac.
posted by doctor_negative at 9:32 AM on July 14, 2008
posted by doctor_negative at 9:32 AM on July 14, 2008
You should download the drivers and software that Canon provides for it. A quick Google search for your scanner model turns up the product page, which has a convenient link to the drivers.
"In this case the specifications on Canon's website explicitly say "optical resolution: 4800x9600dpi" so I don't think it's that."
That doesn't make much sense. DPI stands for dots per inch; 4800x9600 refers to the resolution in terms of pixels. Never believe the marketing speak on a company's website.
And I'm not sure why you're all so convinced that Vista is the problem. It appears that Canon provides the same driver for Vista, XP, 2000, Me, and 98. Obviously, the built-in Windows generic scanning tools can't provide access to every feature of a particular scanner. If Canon didn't provide the necessary drivers, that would be their fault. And from my own experience using my Canon multi-function on Vista, the drivers and software work just fine.
posted by sinfony at 11:45 AM on July 14, 2008
"In this case the specifications on Canon's website explicitly say "optical resolution: 4800x9600dpi" so I don't think it's that."
That doesn't make much sense. DPI stands for dots per inch; 4800x9600 refers to the resolution in terms of pixels. Never believe the marketing speak on a company's website.
And I'm not sure why you're all so convinced that Vista is the problem. It appears that Canon provides the same driver for Vista, XP, 2000, Me, and 98. Obviously, the built-in Windows generic scanning tools can't provide access to every feature of a particular scanner. If Canon didn't provide the necessary drivers, that would be their fault. And from my own experience using my Canon multi-function on Vista, the drivers and software work just fine.
posted by sinfony at 11:45 AM on July 14, 2008
Thanks everyone! Basically, looks like you need VueScan to operate devices at their listed capacity. So if you're buying a scanner, factor in a few dollars (40/80) more if you're using it for anything other than basic scans.
Somewhere between the system interfaces, the scanning software, the marketing department, and the boxtickers, the truth of 4800dpi was printed, but somewhere along the line, no-one bothered to tell the people writing the software (driver, interfaces, APIs, operating systems - take a swing that fits your software politics).
Oddly, VueScan does not use it's own driver - it uses the canon ones. It happily throws out 48 (even 64 bit) scans, at silly resolutions (1.6gb tiff from a passport photo strip? check!). Definite winner.
CanoScan is fugly on windows. Looks like a blind kid, using crayons, designed it for 256 colour screens, using ms paint.
posted by davemee at 2:47 PM on July 14, 2008
Somewhere between the system interfaces, the scanning software, the marketing department, and the boxtickers, the truth of 4800dpi was printed, but somewhere along the line, no-one bothered to tell the people writing the software (driver, interfaces, APIs, operating systems - take a swing that fits your software politics).
Oddly, VueScan does not use it's own driver - it uses the canon ones. It happily throws out 48 (even 64 bit) scans, at silly resolutions (1.6gb tiff from a passport photo strip? check!). Definite winner.
CanoScan is fugly on windows. Looks like a blind kid, using crayons, designed it for 256 colour screens, using ms paint.
posted by davemee at 2:47 PM on July 14, 2008
This thread is closed to new comments.
And 9600x4800 and 600dpi aren't mutually exclusive--if you scanned something that's sixteen inches by eight inches at 600dpi, you'd get a 9600x4800 image.
posted by box at 6:01 AM on July 14, 2008