Kodak I780 User Manual

Competitive BenChmarking
©Kodak, 2009. Kodak is a trademark of Kodak.
All testing conducted in quality assurance labs at Kodak’s Document Imaging headquarters facility, 2600 Manitou Road, Rochester, NY from November 18th, 2008–December 11th, 2008.
Kodak i780 Scanner vs. Canon DR-X10C Scanner
Kodak i780 Scanner
Table of Contents
Speed and throughput
Speed and throughput appendix
Image and data integrity
Image and data integrity appendix
Sensor durability
Canon DR-X10C Scanner
Misfeed management
Misfeed management appendix
Real-world environment appendix
Count on Kodak for consistent and true performance.
Count out Canon.
The test results report the actual throughput of each scanner using real-world scanner configurations.
1)
200 dpi, Bitonal, Duplex*
124.8 ppm
84.6 ppm
51.7 ppm
47%
141%
2)
300 dpi, Bitonal, Duplex*
126 ppm
39.8 ppm
52.4 ppm
217%
140%
3)
300 dpi, Bitonal, Simplex*
124.9 ppm
89.9 ppm
97.2 ppm
38%
28%
4) 200 dpi, Color, Duplex**
121.4 ppm
58 ppm
42.1 ppm
109%
188%
5) 300 dpi, Color, Duplex**
125.2 ppm
28.7 ppm
38.2 ppm
336%
227%
DR-X10C Scanner.
DR-X10C Scanner’s speed with the
DR-X10C Scanner productivity
Scanner.
i780 Scanner outperforms the
continues to have a detrimental eect on
Speed and throughput
i780 Scanner delivers speed, throughput
DR-X10C Scanner
Kodak i780 Scanner vs. Canon DR-X10C Scanner
Test 1 through 6 Settings Kodak i780 ISIS Results DR-X10C VRS Results DR-X10C ISIS Results
Testing observations and conclusions
i780 % performance
increase over
DR-X10C VRS
Competitive knockouts
i780 % performance
increase over DR-X10C ISIS
Competitive BenChmarking
Kodak i780 Scanner
Canon DR-X10C Scanner
Count on Kodak for consistent and true performance.
Methodology
Count out Canon.
Appendices
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
1 2 3 4 5 6
i780 ISIS DR X10C VRS DR X10C ISIS
Appendix 1—Testing methodology and results for speed and throughput
Kodak’s Quality Assurance Team conducted a series of comprehensive, competitive benchmark tests comparing the Kodak i780 Scanner with ISIS to the Canon DR-X10C Scanner with VRS.
Throughput tests
The intent of these tests was to determine the throughput of each scanner using typical scanner configurations. All scanners were configured with similar settings and all tests were conducted with EMC QuickScan Pro v6.5.1 and run on the same PC host. EMC QuickScan Pro was chosen because of its popularity as a third party application. The EMC QuickScan Pro demonstration version was used so it would be easier for interested parties to validate results. (See Reference A for configuration details.) The operator prepared documents prior to testing and fed them into each scanner as quickly as possible. Five new sets of documents were used for each scanner during testing. Each test was run for one hour with the total number of pages recorded.
Chart 1—Throughput testing
Test Number
i780 ISIS Test #1 74 87 124.8
i780 ISIS Test #2 7557 126.0
i780 ISIS Test #3 749 1 124.9
i780 ISIS Test #4 7283 121.4
i780 ISIS Test #5 7510 125.2
i780 ISIS Test #6 7528 125.5
DR-X10C VRS Test #1 5075 84.6
DR-X10C VRS Test #2 2390 39.8
DR-X10C VRS Test #3 5391 89.9
DR-X10C VRS Test #4 3477 58.0
DR-X10C VRS Test #5 1719 28.7
DR-X10C VRS Test #6 4009 66.8
DR-X10C ISIS Test #1 3102 51.7
DR-X10C ISIS Test #2 3142 52.4
DR-X10C ISIS Test #3 5829 9 7. 2
DR-X10C ISIS Test #4 2527 42.1
DR-X10C ISIS Test #5 2293 38.2
DR-X10C ISIS Test #6 4516 75.3
# Pgs in 1 hr
Average
ppm
Chart 2—Data and dierences on number of pages scanned in one hour
i780
Test #1 7487 5075 3102 2412 (47%) 4385 (141%)
Test #2 7557 2390 3142 5167 (217%) 4415 (140%)
Test #3 7491 5391 5829 2100 (38%) 1662 (28%)
Test #4 7283 3477 2527 3806 (109%) 4756 (188%)
Test #5 7510 1719 2293 5791 (336%) 5217 (227%)
Test #6 7528 4009 4516 3519 (88%) 3012 (67%)
See Reference A for configuration details.
DR-X10C
VRS
DR-X10C
ISIS
i780 Increase
Over
DR-X10C VRS
Performance
i780 Increase
Over
DR-X10C ISIS
Performance
Chart 3—Graphic representation of data and dierences on number of pages scanned in one hour
Pages in One Hour
Test #
For more information about testing methodology and laboratory test results, click here
Return to Speed and throughput
Table of Contents
-
-
Reference A—Testing configuration details*
Test Job 1 Test Job 2 Test Job 3 Test Job 4 Test Job 5 Test Job 6
EMC QuickScan Settings
QuickScan scan
profile name
Scan—show continue dialog after scan
Scan—scan mode
Scan—scan type
Scan—dpi
Scan—page size
Image format and naming— enter file name at…
Image format and naming— file type
Image format and naming— color format
Image format and naming— compression
Image format and naming— append standard extension …
200 dpi, bitonal, duplex, AO, auto thresholding, multifeed detection, multipage TIFF output
i780 Test job 01 i780 Test job 02 i780 Test job 03 i780 Test job 04 i780 Test job 05 i780 Test job 06
Checked Checked Checked Checked Checked Checked
Duplex Duplex Simplex Duplex Duplex Simplex
Black and white Black and white Black and white 24-Bit color 24-Bit color 24-Bit color
200 300 300 200 300 300
Scanner max Scanner max Scanner max Scanner max Scanner max Scanner max
Checked Checked Checked Checked Checked Checked
TIFF TIFF TIFF JPEG (*.jpg) JPEG (*.jpg) JPEG (*.jpg)
Binary Binary Binary 24-Bit color 24-Bit color 24-Bit color
Group 4 Group 4 Group 4 Sequential JPEG Sequential JPEG Sequential JPEG
Checked Checked Checked Checked Checked Checked
300 dpi, bitonal, duplex, AO, auto thresholding, multifeed detection, multipage TIFF output
300 dpi, bitonal, simplex, AO, auto thresholding, multifeed detection, multipage TIFF output
200 dpi, color, duplex, AO, multifeed detection, multipage TIFF output
300 dpi, color, duplex, AO, multifeed detection, multipage TIFF output
300 dpi, color, simplex, AO, multifeed detection, multipage TIFF output
For more information about testing methodology and laboratory test results, click here
Return to Speed and throughput
Table of Contents
i780 ISIS driver, main, cropping
i780 ISIS driver, main, thresholding
i780 ISIS driver, main, contrast
i780 ISIS driver, layout, image orientation (both front and back image #1)
i780 ISIS driver, layout, page orientation (both front and back image #1)
i780 ISIS driver, scanner, document feeder
i780 ISIS driver, scanner, ultrasonic detection
i780 ISIS driver, dropout, blank image detection
i780 ISIS driver, image processing, JPEG quality
i780 ISIS driver, image processing, color correction
Test Job 1 Test Job 2 Test Job 3 Test Job 4 Test Job 5 Test Job 6
Aggressive Aggressive Aggressive Aggressive Aggressive Aggressive
iThresholding iThresholding iThresholding iThresholding iThresholding iThresholding
0 0 0 0 0 0
Automatic Automatic Automatic Automatic Automatic Automatic
Top edge first Top edge first Top edge first Top edge first Top edge first Top edge first
250—Automatically
start transport
Medium—
3 sensors—end job
Black and White
(back only)—2KB
N/A N/A N/A Good Good Good
N/A N/A N/A Text with pictures Text with pictures Text with pictures
250—Automatically
start transport
Medium—
3 sensors—end job
Black and White
(back only)—2KB
250—Automatically
start transport
Medium—
3 sensors—end job
Black and White
(back only)—2KB
250—Automatically
start transport
Medium—
3 sensors—end job
Color (back only)—
125KB
250—Automatically
start transport
Medium—
3 sensors—end job
Color (back only)—
125KB
250—Automatically
start transport
Medium—
3 sensors—end job
Color (back only)—
125KB
* Note: The Canon DR-X10C Scanner configurations were modeled as closely as possible to the Kodak i780 Scanner set-ups.
Return to Speed and throughput
Table of Contents
Image and data integrity
i780 Scanner exceeds the performance of the
Scanner, the
Scanner
Scanner, with default settings, maximizes the
i780 Scanner provides outstanding image and data
DR-X10C Scanner does not perform nearly as well.
i780 Scanner while the
DR-X10C
Scanner can only
DR-X10C Scanner delivers
Kodak i780 Scanner vs. Canon DR-X10C Scanner
Test: Light Document Challenge
OCR Read Rate
for Canon
DR-X10C
2
Scanner
OCR Read Rate for Kodak i780
Scanner
2
Testing observations and conclusions
Competitive knockouts
Methodology
Kodak i780 Scanner
Canon DR-X10C Scanner
Competitive BenChmarking
Count on Kodak for consistent and true performance.
Count out Canon.
Appendices
Appendix 2—Testing methodology and results for image and data integrity (OCR read rates)
Kodak’s Quality Assurance Team conducted a series of comprehensive, competitive benchmark tests comparing the Kodak i780 Scanner with VRS to the Canon DR-X10C Scanner ISIS.
Image and data integrity—complete testing results
Canon DR-X10C Scanner—
optimized brightness and
contrast settings
Percent
Font and dpi
variations*
L102 81.7918 L102 0.0000 L102 95.2331
L082 67.1692 L082 0.0000 L082 93.9025
L083 98.9587 L083 0.0000 L083 88.3379
Average Score = 82.6399 Average Score = 0.0000 Average Score = 92.4912
*Font and dpi variations: L = Light; 08 or 10 = Font Size; 2 or 3 = 200 or 300 dpi
from font and dpi variations
Canon DR-X10C Scanner—
Default configuration settings
Font and dpi
variations
Percent from font and dpi variations
Kodak i780 Scanner—
Default configuration settings
Font and dpi
variations
Percent from font and dpi variations
Return to Image and data integrity
Table of Contents
DR-X10C Scanner
i780 Scanner
Contact Image Sensor during the scanning process.
Scanner design, the sensor is encased in glass that
CCD sensor design means it is not placed in the
i780 Scanner
Sensor durability
i780 Scanner is designed to maximize uptime, reduce
Kodak i780 Scanner vs. Canon DR-X10C Scanner
Competitive BenChmarking
Kodak i780 Scanner Canon DR-X10C Scanner
Count on Kodak for consistent and true performance.
Count out Canon.
Conclusions
Scanner, because of its Contact Image Sensor, requires documents
Scanner, thanks to its CCD (Charged Coupled Device) sensor’s
i780 Scanner is not at risk of sensor damage due to physical contact with
i780 Scanner, using CCD technology, is designed to maximize uptime,
DR-X10C Scanner may be vulnerable to damage, and since sensor glass replacement
Scanner requires a service call, there is a potential negative impact to uptime
i780 Scanner handles occasional staples and common dust
Kodak
i780 Scanner’s sensor and scanner design easily tackles common real-
DR-X10C Scanner utilizes sensor technology that may be vulnerable to
i780 Scanner’s sensor design, including CCD technology, sensor
Competitive knockouts
Competitive BenChmarking
Count on Kodak for consistent and true performance.
Count out Canon.
DR-X10C Scanner Performance
i780 Scanner Performance
DR-X10C Scanner to re-feed
Scanner experiences
Scanner
DR-X10C Scanner’s retry
i780 Scanner’s misfeed detection feature settings,
Optimized operator control: “beep and stop”—alerts operator
job.
Optimized operator productivity: “beep and pause”—alerts
Optimized throughput: “beep and continue”—alerts operator
i780
Scanner by as much as 50%.
These results demonstrate
i780 Scanner design and architecture, outperform those
Misfeed management
misfeed detection/retry mechanism and required operator
Scanner with this challenge document set is
i780 Scanner’s performance with the same set of challenge documents.
The lack of flexible options for the operator to eectively manage misfeeds,
misfeed
Kodak i780 Scanner vs. Canon DR-X10C Scanner
Kodak i780 Scanner
Canon DR-X10C Scanner
Competitive BenChmarking
Count on Kodak for consistent and true performance.
Count out Canon.
Testing observations and conclusions
DR-X10C Scanner does not oer flexible options for the operator to
i780 Scanner’s throughput performance and productivity exceeds
DR-X10C Scanner by as much as 50% with a challenge set
i780 Scanner provides far more elegant and flexible misfeed
i780 Scanner delivers far greater flexibility, customization and practical
DR-X10C Scanner’s options for handling misfeeds may at first
i780 Scanner). The
model does not oer this possibility.
i780 Scanner will eectively
Competitive knockouts
Methodology
Competitive BenChmarking
Count on Kodak for consistent and true performance.
Count out Canon.
+ 23 hidden pages