eva_harun Posted July 13, 2003 Share Posted July 13, 2003 I need to have the scanner and will buy one. In some posts I learned that the scanner can be connected to the computer by USB or SCSI 2 card. What does SCSI 2 means ? I know this is an additional card, but from a computer catalogue, there are numbers of SCSI card. With 50 pin, 68 pin, etc. Which one is suitable for the Canon FS4000US? Your help is much much appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beauh44 Posted July 13, 2003 Share Posted July 13, 2003 Hi Eva, SCSI has been around PC's for a long time. It's a specification for an interface between your PC and other equipment you might connect to it. I *think* (but won't swear in court) that it stands for Small Computer Serial Interface, and you pronounce it "skuzzy". Since it's a "standard", you should be fine with most brands, but I'd suggest Adaptec, who's been doing SCSI for a long time. With regards to the actual connection, I can't tell you specifically since I connect to my FS4000 via USB. But it's usually just a matter of obtaining the proper cable that connects the card (from the back of your PC) to the scanner. The "pins" are referring to the cable and not the card. I'm sure someone will supply the info, but if you still have the manual for your scanner, it should tell you which cable to buy. You'd then buy the card, install it in your PC, set the "termination" and "ID" - which are usually little switches on the card and scanner, and you're off! Best wishes . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beauh44 Posted July 13, 2003 Share Posted July 13, 2003 I forgot to mention - you don't *need* a SCSI card to connect to the Canon. It will make things a bit faster than USB - but SCSI can be a pain to configure. If your PC has a USB port, you're ready to go without buying anything extra, altho' your scanning will be a bit slower. Best wishes . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted July 13, 2003 Share Posted July 13, 2003 I'd start out using the USB interface (which comes for free as long as your PC has a USB port). Then, if you find it too slow think about SCSI. If you have the right card and system, SCSI seems like it's a bit faster. <p>The REALLY slow USB scan times seem mainly to come from people who have USB or other driver problems. An optimized USB setup isn't horribly slow, but it's certainly not going to set any speed records! I see just over 4m per scan at 4000dpi at 42 bits, with an extra 2-3 minutes for dust removal. That's on a 500MHz (slow) system, though system speed probably doesn't make much difference to scan times. <p> See <a href="http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/fs4000us/">my photo.net review</a> and the comments on it. <p> Oh, and don't forget to order from one of the photo.net sponsors via their links on the <a href="/">Home Page</a> if you can. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted July 13, 2003 Share Posted July 13, 2003 SCSI 2 is faster than old SCSI version 1<BR><BR>SCSI 1 has a throughput of 5(MB/s) ; SCSI is 10; twice as fast<BR><BR>Here I run an old Canon FS2710 scanner; to a SCSI card that was bundled with the scanner; it is fast; and was installed without a hitch.......There are alot of warnings with the FS2710 not to added extra SCSI devices; probably they have had problems with conflicts; and dont want to spend support time; weeding out problems; not due to their device.....<BR><BR>With my FS4000US; it didnt come with a bundled SCSI card; and I just use the USB cable........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted July 13, 2003 Share Posted July 13, 2003 the SCSI card is what us PC computer people install usually in our PCI slots; on our motherboards; a SCSI connector is on the SCSI card.........Our savy MAC brothers usually have built in SCSI; which deprives them of the frustrations that result when PC's have conflicts........:)<BR><BR> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted July 13, 2003 Share Posted July 13, 2003 SCSI 1 has a throughput of 5(MB/s) ; SCSI<b>-2</b> is 10; twice as fast.....<BR><BR>SCSI-2 is the spec of the card Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kristian_s_oslash_rensen Posted July 13, 2003 Share Posted July 13, 2003 I have an FS4000US and am running it using SCSI. The scanner is using the good old SCSI-2 speed, which is 8 bit 10 MHz that gives you a maximum transferrate of 10 MB pr. second and requires a 50 pin cable. Todays disks are attached using SCSI busses with 16 or 32 times faster transferrate, but 10 MB pr. second is more than enough for such a scanner. This means that if you want to go the cheap route you can pick up a 2. hand controller from a couple of years ago for real cheap and use it for your scanner. <p> The NCR 8xx series of controllers are very stable and performs fine. They are found in many high end servers from the 2. half of the 90-ties as well as on PCI cards for PCs. Adaptec has placed more advertisements with PC magazines, websites etc. and therefore are more well known among the average PC users. Their controllers tends to be very good as well, but they are rather expensive, in bad cases up around 5x as expensive! <p> SCSI ain't that hard to configure really. Remember to terminate the bus after the last devices on the bus, and not have terminating on any devices in the middle. Don't mix devices running at different clock frequences on the same bus, unless the controller explicitly supports this, and obey the limitations for maximum cable lengths for the bus clock frequency you are using, and you should be fine. <p> You can have 7 devices plus one controller on the 8 bit SCSI busses and 15 devices plus the controller om the 16 bit busses. These devices can all be used simultaniously. The devices on a bus can be both inside the computer cabinet and in external enclosures. These two aspects of SCSI makes it a rather versatibe bus technology, especially for someone with multiple scanners, CD burners, DVD readers, backup tape decks, external harddrives etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eva_harun Posted July 13, 2003 Author Share Posted July 13, 2003 Thank you all for the answers. I think I will buy the scanner alone and use it via USB. And then decide later on whether I will need a SCSI. I saw many posts that says the scanner produce less noise with SCSI controllers. That's why I consider the SCSI seriously. Thanks again for the good advice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 -- Kristian ; OT; The canned disclaimer that came with my canon 2710 scanner was that the SCSI card wasnt to be used with driving more than one device; without possible complications...It implied that one should get a better SCSI card; if one was going to daisy chain several SCSI devices together. The freebie bundled SCSI card; that came with the canon 2710 scanner; is probably a stripped down card; maybe.........I have used other systems with many SCSI devices; driven by one card...The comment by canon struck me as odd....They probably were trying to reduce the number of service calls; due to lame stuff like no termination at the end of the chain etc.....<BR><BR> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kristian_s_oslash_rensen Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 <b>To: Kelly Flanigan</b><br> The FS4000US comes without a SCSI controller.<br> It is unfortunately rather common that controllers bundled with scanners and other peripherals in the consumer-midrange segments are "el-cheapo no-name does not really comply with the standards" products. Maybe cards like that are part of the reason some people seem to have all sorts of strange SCSI problems? Such devices are to be handled with the utmost suspicion and often times it is best to throw them away strait away, especially so since a new top quality 20 MHz 8 bit Ultra SCSI-2 card can be obtained for around $50 retail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bernhard Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 Do what I did: Go to your corporate IT department running Macs that have been upgraded to OS X recently. Chances are they are sitting on heaps of SCSI cards not supoorted by OS X. I got an Adaptec Ultra 160 card for free that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gabriel_shaw1 Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 I have a FS4000 which works fine on USB, but I have read that there are problems with this scanner and any old SCSI card. Canon Support have a firm reccomendation as to which brand and type of SCSI card and cable to use, it could be in your manual or call Canon support. They know the correct answer for this specific problem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_eve Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 I use my FS4000US on the SCSI card that came with my Epson flatbed, a basic Adaptec card. I did try it on USB but it was so S..L..O..W after using SCSI that I immediately reverted to the SCSI connection. The USB connection was on it's own, straight from a port on the motherboard, so no interference from other devices. Similarly the SCSI card had no other devices attached. USB may be OK for the occaisional single frame scan at the lower resolutions, but for a strip of 4 or 6 at 4000dpi, especially with IR cleaning, you really do want to consider SCSI. If your own time is worth anything to you, a SCSI card will pay for itself in a few evenings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 Anyone have actual SCSI timing to compare to the USB times I posted in my review referenced above? I was seeing about 4 mins for a full frame 4000dpi scan at 48 bits and about 6.5 minutes with FARE on. I've seen some people report 40 minutes (or more) for a USB scan, though that's clearly a problem with their USB setup, not the scanner! These times are using the Canon FilmGet software, not Vuescan, Siverfast or any other 3rd party scanning software. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_eaton Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 I strongly suggest checking with Canon support and seeing which SCSI cards they recommend. Adaptec has only about a million different types of them on the market, and contrary to marketing, they are *not* 100% backwards compatible. I have stacks of 2930's and 40's laying around of which most have been tossed already. For simple storage solutions I've replaced them with IDE RAID. For simple device solutions USB has never matured to be a good, all purpose interface, but a low cost, convenient one and not much else. True, USB 2.0 devices are almost non-existent, while slower 1.0 and 1.1 devices tie up your system because of their CPU over-head and clunky transfer protocol. SCSI has the opposite problem. The cards are often too complex and designed to talk primarily to high speed I/O devices like hard-drives. This is a big reason your classic, ISA based Adaptec did the best job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig_bridge Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 SCSI: Small Computer System Interface version 2 standard last working draft dates to about March 1993. If you want to use SCSI (expensive compared to USB 1.1) and are running Windows NT, 2000, or XP on a machine with a PCI slot and don't already have a SCSI adapter, I'd recommend an Adaptec 29160N (external 50 pin micro connector for a narrow bus). You may have to set the maximum synchronous transfer rate down from 160 to 10 MB/s via the SCSI bios. Note: these numbers are wide transfer numbers and the 50 pin connector on the scanner is a narrow bus so the actual maximum transfer rates will be half. The FS4000US and Adaptec 29160 may negotiate a higher transfer rate than the cable or the scanner can go. Most of the scan time doesn't involve data transfer. Unless you have an I/O USB port or SCSI adapter that use programmed I/O (with programmed I/O, the CPU is involved in transfering each individual byte), there won't be much difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now