scanned docs take longer to print?

[Bullcrappy]

Why does a scanned document take longer then other documents to print?

for example if I scan in a letter and then print it. It would take
longer to print then if I had just printed it from Word.

Or if I take a picture with a digital camera (like 5 meg pixels) and
then open the photo and print it, it prints faster then if I scanned
the same image in and then printed it.

I am scanning at between 300 and 600 dpi.

I love the scanner it s a Visioneer 9750 with an auto sheet feeder.
scans very quickly.

Thanks for any help.

rich
***@comcast.net

[Bucky]

Post by Bullcrappy
Why does a scanned document take longer then other documents to print?

Scanned document will be printing as an image, pixel by pixel. As far
as I understand, a word processor just sends text to the printer (e.g.
in postscript code), and the printer renders the text. The latter is a
far smaller file, so therefore much faster.

[Bullcrappy]

ok, I get that and can understand

but why then if I take a photo with a digital camera and save it to the
hard drive and then print it.

It prints much fast then if I took a hard copy of the same photo,
scanned it and then printed it?

thanks again.

rs

[Pasi Savolainen]

Post by Bullcrappy
ok, I get that and can understand
but why then if I take a photo with a digital camera and save it to the
hard drive and then print it.
It prints much fast then if I took a hard copy of the same photo,
scanned it and then printed it?

Image from digicam is likely to be in size about 3-5Mpix (reasonably new
camera). Modern scanners are (mostly falsely) advertized with very high
resolution numbers, sometimes they even go as far as using those
resolutions by default (1200dpi and up), this produces image that is many
times in size compared to your average digicam image.

for example: print 2Mpix (1600x1200 pix) image at 300dpi -> ~5"x4" print.
Now scan it at 1200dpi and you have image sized 5*1200x4*1200 pixels
(~29Mpix).
Notice that _real_ detail hasn't gone up at all, it's all just filled
with whatever printer made up and other paper irregularities.

[Charlie Hoffpauir]

Post by Bullcrappy
ok, I get that and can understand
but why then if I take a photo with a digital camera and save it to the
hard drive and then print it.
It prints much fast then if I took a hard copy of the same photo,
scanned it and then printed it?
thanks again.
rs

Are you comparing apples to apples? Check the file size of the scanned
image vs the image from the digicam. Also check the file type...
probably a jpg from the camera, and maybe a tif or pdf from the
scanner?

If the file types are the same and the file sizes are the same, it
should take the same time to print (or something is wrong with your
system).
Charlie Hoffpauir
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/

[Lorenzo J. Lucchini]

Post by Bullcrappy
Why does a scanned document take longer then other documents to print?
for example if I scan in a letter and then print it. It would take
longer to print then if I had just printed it from Word.

This sounds possible, as what Word has isn't raster graphics but vector
graphics, and as such it may follow a different path to the printer --
even though I think that vector graphics are ultimately converted to
raster before printing, with most software and most printers.

Post by Bullcrappy
Or if I take a picture with a digital camera (like 5 meg pixels) and
then open the photo and print it, it prints faster then if I scanned
the same image in and then printed it.
I am scanning at between 300 and 600 dpi.

This doesn't make any sense. If the pictures are the same size (off hand
I can't relate "5 megapixels" to "300/600 dpi", just look at the pixel
size instead) there isn't going to be any consistent difference in
printing time (though there might be some difference depending on
picture contents: an all-white picture definitely takes very short to
print on an inkjet printer!).

Post by Bullcrappy
[snip]

by LjL
***@tiscali.it