Originally posted by: sblake
When using it as a scanner will it be any slower than if it were a USB 2?
The highest optical resolution (1200dpi, I think) that this model supports is right around the resolution range where USB 2 starts to make a difference in your scan times. For lower resolutions like 600dpi, USB 1.1 seems to be just fine (based on some benchmark comparisons I've seen running the same scanner with different interfaces). Once you get up into the 2400dpi and 4800dpi optical range, having USB 2 support makes a big difference in your scan times because of the sheer size of the files.
Keep in mind that for the majority of scanning tasks even 600dpi is usually overkill, unless you plan on doing huge enlargements of the original, since few printers can manage to reproduce resolutions higher than that (since printers generally count dots of ink and not pixels, and a single pixel on a scanned image is made up of multiple drops of ink when it is reproduced on the printed page, the dpi specs given on printers and scanners aren't directly comparable, so even a 4800 dpi printer will come nowhere close to reproducing the level of detail in a 4800 dpi image). For this reason, most multifunction manfacturers go for the slower interface because the typical multifinction user hardly ever scans anything at a high enough resolution to see an improvement with USB 2.
The faster interface is generally found on higher resolution scanners that have slide attachments, because a person scanning slides WILL be maxing out their resolution so they can get the best enlargements of the slides possible. Until they start producing MFC devices with high resolution scan beds and slide adapters, I doubt you'll see many USB 2 machines on the market.
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread
Facebook
Twitter