The embedded link seems to says they do not yet run CHDK
I consider a beta to be "running CHDK".
I have been using the this link
to know which cameras run CHDK, I guess another page on the same site as Daniel's link, and the A495 is not on it.
That's a good page. If you need absolute certainty and can't stomach beta software or whatever, there's an even better page here
. Any cam on that page will perfectly run SDM or CHDK.
On a slightly related note, I have been recently considering only large-sensor, high-megapixel cameras for my planned diy scanner, on the theory that you really need the best quality picture possible to assure the high-quality 300dpi-400dpi (of the actual page) images that generate the most dependable OCR. But is it possible that very bright light, the kind made practical by the flashing LED system Daniel has designed, negates the need for high-quality camera components in the diy scanner?
What I mean is, couldn't even a $90 10Mp camera like Daniel has found here deliver superb results with bright enough light? That is, for one final go, really once you have hit 10Mp (assuming standard trade book dimensions) even with a small sensor and minimal lens quality, given the camera-to-subject distance of just a few feet that is standard with the scanners discussed on this forum, and so long as you are taking your pictures under very bright light, how much additional *useful* resolution can better cameras really get you?
This is a much bigger question than you might think, and requires some pretty deep discussion of optics, hardware, software etc, some of which we've hashed over here in the forums a few times.
Let me give you the short answer: Yes, you can use cheap cameras to do high quality digitization. That's the premise of this whole project, has been from the beginning. We've proven it.
Light is just one part of the equation. Small sensors are noisy. Enough light means you can work in the range of sensor amplification that is least noisy.
Resolution is a science -- yes, a science-- unto itself, and requires you to think about the system as a whole -- optics, illumination, sensor, and post-processing software.
The short answer, on that, is that higher quality cameras will always yield higher quality images, but compact cameras are good enough for the majority of situations. If you are exacting and uncompromising, though, you should probably not use them, as there are specific times that they will not be perfect. How much extra "useful" resolution is dependent on the entire system, but my position is that in many, many situations, the answer is "not very much -- probably not enough to justify the additional cost".