Bill Wrote:
> 
>> For 3D objects CCD scanners are much better than the cheaper CMOS
>> scanners, for depth of field reasons. There are a number out there, 
>< but you have to look at the specs. I use UMAX Powerlook IIIs.

>> Bill Blank



I'm not clear to me how, as Bill suggests, the detector of a scanner could
have an effect of depth of field. Isn't the detector essentially like film -
a flat surface? It seems to me it is the optics that determines the depth of
field and that maybe Bill's CCD scanner simply has different optics than the
cmos scanner he mentions.

Tim Morken



Dear Terry, dear Bill, 

one of the answers is already given on the homepage of Bill: the differences
between the three scanners (UMAX) are striking and really very interesting,
not only for numismatics but also forsimple minded pathologists. I remember
a similar article about depth of fields in a German journal for computers
(c't) a couple of years ago. 

Maybe this article
http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/indexmag.html?http://www.microscopy-uk.o
rg.uk/mag/artapr01/dwscanner.html is also interesting to you too.

Alexander Nader MD
Vienna, Austria



>> For 3D objects CCD scanners are much better than the cheaper CMOS
>> scanners, for depth of field reasons. There are a number out there, 
>< but you have to look at the specs. I use UMAX Powerlook IIIs.

>> Bill Blank


_______________________________________________
Histonet mailing list
Histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu
http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet