Kodak i780 Scanner vs. Canon DR-X10C Scanner
The test results report the actual throughput of each scanner using real-world scanner configurations.
The test results report the actual throughput of each scanner using real-world scanner configurations.
The test results report the actual throughput of each scanner using real-world scanner configurations.
Test 1 through 6 Settings Kodak i780 ISIS Results DR-X10C VRS Results DR-X10C ISIS Results
i780 % performance
increase over
DR-X10C VRS
i780 % performance
increase over
DR-X10C ISIS
200 dpi, Bitonal, Duplex*
300 dpi, Bitonal, Duplex*
300 dpi, Bitonal, Simplex*
4) 200 dpi, Color, Duplex**
5) 300 dpi, Color, Duplex**
6) 300 dpi, Color, Simplex**
All documents were fed in landscape format
All documents were fed in landscape format
* Additional settings for test 1-3: Auto orientation, Auto thresholding, Multifeed detection and Multipage TIFF output
* Additional settings for test 1-3: Auto orientation, Auto thresholding, Multifeed detection and Multipage TIFF output
* Additional settings for test 1-3: Auto orientation, Auto thresholding, Multifeed detection and Multipage TIFF output
** Additional settings for tests 4-6: Auto orientation, Multifeed detection and Multipage TIFF output
** Additional settings for tests 4-6: Auto orientation, Multifeed detection and Multipage TIFF output
** Additional settings for tests 4-6: Auto orientation, Multifeed detection and Multipage TIFF output
Testing observations and conclusions
The use of landscape format and the need for basic
The use of landscape format and the need for basic
The use of landscape format and the need for basic
imaging features are part of daily jobs.
Enabling even basic features seriously impacts
Enabling even basic features seriously impacts
DR-X10C Scanner’s speed with the
additional VRS capability and cost drops by as much as
34% (128 ppm claim to 84.6 ppm actual) in a scenario
where the following image processing features are
enabled: 200 dpi, bitonal, duplex, auto thresholding,
auto orientation, multifeed detection, multipage
•
When scanning at 300 dpi with all the other features
DR-X10C Scanner productivity
drops to 39.8 ppm (Test 2).
The use of basic image processing features severely
impacts the productivity of the
i780 Scanner outperforms the
DR-X10C Scanner with more imaging features
enabled, and at higher (300 dpi) resolution.
Canon markets productivity but in real-world
scenarios they run much slower. And despite a
customer’s additional investment in VRS,
continues to have a detrimental eect on
throughput speed (see charts 2 and 3 in appendices).
Canon DR-X10C Scanner
Competitive BenChmarking
Speed and throughput
©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.
Count on Kodak for consistent and true performance.
Count out Canon.
Competitive knockouts
i780 Scanner delivers speed, throughput
Kodak i780 Scanner delivers speed, throughput Kodak
and productivity as rated, even with multiple imaging
features enabled, while the
suers severely compromised throughput that is far below
claimed speeds and volumes, with only the most basic
imaging features enabled.
Canon’s marketing materials promote optimal
speed and throughput levels but do not take into
account real-world scenarios, so claimed speeds
are not reflective of actual performance.
In the world of production scanning, it is the actual
features-enabled ppm results that truly count.
Methodology
For detailed information about testing methodology
and laboratory test results, click here
➡
➡
Kodak i780 Scanner
