Canoscan FS4000 using SCSI vs. USB

[keith_satterwhite]

Hello All-

 

Does anyone have experience using the FS4000 with both SCSI and USB?

 

I realize this is a very slow film scanner. But, I'm wondering if

many of the opinions that I've read are using USB or SCSI.

 

For example, what is an average scan time @ 4000 dpi using the USB vs

SCSI?

 

Keith

[carl smith]

Mark Crame has more experience with this than I, but the overall change is: Speed is much more similar to that of the Nikon 4000 which is considered by many to be pretty darned fast. Mark also swears that on his he gets lower noise. I'm still waiting for hell to freeze over before I build a new comp with a SCSI card but I have seen other people confirm these improvements.

[keith_satterwhite]

Carl-

 

I understand your views on the SCSI card. I'd rather not use them. I don't know why they wouldn't use firewire instead of or in addition to the USB and SCSI.

 

I have never used anything with a SCSI connection. So, I'm hoping that someone with experience can lend their opinion/advice.

 

Keith

[carl smith]

There's nothing wrong with the SCSI. I'm just waiting for AMD's next processor before I make a move. Just waiting to see.

 

SCSI is a tried and true technology that's obviously older than Firewire. Which is better? That depends on your needs. I've used so many devices on each that I'm kind of indifferent now. Speed wise there isn't much difference. Both are fast but the biggest bottleneck is the device. They never use the full bandwidth of the connector.

[lwg]

The SCSI connection seems to be about twice as fast on my system. The noise is also better because the scanner does not pause as much while scanning. The reason I don't use it as much is that I can't just turn off the scanner with SCSI without rebooting. So for many scans I rebbot and hook it up to SCSI. Otherwise I just leave it on USB.

 

Larry

[rick_falck]

SCSI is fine if you already have a SCSI card. Why bother buying a card though just for the scanner? SCSI also is different than USB in that the unit must be attached and turned on before you boot your computer. USB allows you to plug it in and/or turn it on/off whenever you want to. The USB will be plenty fast as long as it is the new USB 2.0. Also, USB cables can be a lot longer than SCSI cables, are a lot cheaper and thinner.

[bryanche]

I switched from USB to SCSI. The FS4000 is significantly faster with SCSI. Whereas a 4000 dpi scan with FARE took around 10 minutes with USB, it now takes around 2-3 minutes with SCSI.

[seanb]

For reference, it is possible to switch the scanner on after booting when using a SCSI connection (at least in Windows). You need to go to device manager (Control Panel, then System, then Device Manager on the Hardware tab). Then find your SCSI controller in the list. Right click, and select "Scan for hardware changes". It should pick up SCSI devices switched on since boot.

 

This works under XP and 2000 with the Canon FS4000. It can also be done under Linux, using the scsiadd command. I would only try it if you don't have any hard drives on the SCSI bus, just in case...

[upscan]

Keith: SCSI shows its age in its lack of convenience, yet if you can overcome the inconvenience you have a great bus which surpasses USB1. USB1 however has been surpassed by a wide margin with USB2 which is much much faster and (have not done the math) much faster than SCSI plus the simplicity of USB. Our problem with the Canon FS4000 is that USB2 is not an option. I just upgraded my computer with an inexpensive PCI card ($35.00) which provides 4 USB2 ports. The new Epson 2200 uses USB2, so do external hard drives and so will I am sure the new Epson 3200 scanner. If you have any reason to upgrade to USB2 you may not want to bother with SCSI unless your Canon FS4000 is there to say. SCSI installation can be clunky and the need for 'terminators' and their correct settings can be minor annoyances at first. Once done you will forget SCSI and get its benefits: speed, reliability. From what others have said, your Canon will love it.

[rhaytana__tim_adams_]

<P>I used the FS4000 with the USB interface for a few months, then shelled out for an Adaptec SCSI card. I never looked back. I can't offer precise before and after figures, but -- on my computer, at least -- there was a <b>big</B> difference, considerably bigger than I'd been led to expect by Canon tech support. At least twice the speed, maybe more than that.</P>

 

<P>The bottom line, for me: as long as I own this scanner, I'll own a computer with a SCSI port. I would never consider hooking it up to USB.</P>

[ryan_giberson]

USB 2.0 is running at 480 MBps whereas the fastest SCSI bus runs at 320MBps. The speed isn't the issue though. As was mentioned earlier, USB 2.0 devices aren't running anywhere close to 480 MBps, more like 15MBps. At least your SCSI devices can utilize more than that. Another great thing about SCSI is it doesn't give your CPU a head/brain ache, due to devices' on-board processors. Sure SCSI is less mobile, less "easy-breezy," and more old-fashioned looking, but it's not likely you're going to cart a high-dollar scanner around. I use an external zip drive with USB 2.0 support to carry round my important docs to and from work; it's fast, easy, and reliable. ANSI technology won't let you down, go with SCSI.

[kelly_flanigan1]

My older 2710 Canon scanner came bundled with a SCSI card; it does a color scan in about 2 minutes. My newer FS4000US came only with a USB cable; and scans with vigor. I really dont feeal either model is getting slowed down much with either interface type.

[michael_palmer3]

By the way, the FS4000 is USB 1.1, not USB 2.0. 1.1 is a lot slower than 2.0.

 

(see http://www.powershot.com/powershot2/fs4000/specs.html)

 

I have an FS4000, the SCSI is much faster than the USB; have not timed it but others timings sound reasonable.

 

Yes the SCSI is a bit of a pain for the reasons described by others (fat cable, have to reboot to plug/unplug, plus sometimes hangs).

 

The scanner quality and price are good, but if a similar-spec firewire scanner were available at the time I bought the FS4000, I would definitely have got that instead. SCSI is a dead end technology, especially for external devices: too flaky. I did already happen to have a high-end SCSI card. But if you are going to upgrade, then upgrade to firewire, no question.