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
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 eect on
Speed and throughput
i780 Scanner delivers speed, throughput
DR-X10C Scanner
Kodak i780 Scanner vs. Canon DR-X10C Scanner
Test 1 through 6 SettingsKodak i780 ISIS ResultsDR-X10C VRS ResultsDR-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
123456
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 #174 87124.8
i780 ISIS Test #27557126.0
i780 ISIS Test #3749 1124.9
i780 ISIS Test #47283121.4
i780 ISIS Test #57510125.2
i780 ISIS Test #67528125.5
DR-X10C VRS Test #1507584.6
DR-X10C VRS Test #2239039.8
DR-X10C VRS Test #3539189.9
DR-X10C VRS Test #4347758.0
DR-X10C VRS Test #5171928.7
DR-X10C VRS Test #6400966.8
DR-X10C ISIS Test #1310251.7
DR-X10C ISIS Test #2314252.4
DR-X10C ISIS Test #358299 7. 2
DR-X10C ISIS Test #4252742.1
DR-X10C ISIS Test #5229338.2
DR-X10C ISIS Test #6451675.3
# Pgs
in 1 hr
Average
ppm
Chart 2—Data and dierences on number of pages scanned in one hour
i780
Test #17487507531022412 (47%)4385 (141%)
Test #27557239031425167 (217%)4415 (140%)
Test #37491539158292100 (38%)1662 (28%)
Test #47283347725273806 (109%)4756 (188%)
Test #57510171922935791 (336%)5217 (227%)
Test #67528400945163519 (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 dierences 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
N/AN/AN/AText with picturesText with picturesText 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*
L10281.7918L1020.0000L10295.2331
L08267.1692L0820.0000L08293.9025
L08398.9587L0830.0000L08388.3379
Average Score = 82.6399Average Score = 0.0000Average 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 ScannerCanon 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.