On 1/4/2014 7:07 AM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> Based on Moose's comments I think I might have been somewhat better off
> with the Canon 4000F flatbed
It occurred to me sometime last night, perhaps as I went to sleep, that I had
used the wrong model number.
The flatbed I was talking about is the Canon 9950F.
> but I have experienced no problems with my Epson V700 flatbed. ...
>
> I've done very little negative scanning with the V700 but it certainly
> works well for print/paper copying and slide scanning. So far I have
> not experienced any focus problems that were claimed at one review site.
> The film holders do have little feet that can be installed at two
> different heights to adjust focus but I've not seen any need yet to use
> them in other than the default configuration.
I don't know how much is sample variation and how much compulsive pixel
peeping. It has been a reported problem for more
than one review site. I'm glad yours is good. In that case, I think the only
advantage to the Canon is that it can scan
5 strips of film at once, instead of four.
> "Digital ICE" (Epsons infrared channel dust removal system)
"ICE" is their software use of the IR channel. Canon calls their equivalent
"FARE", and so on. The only key is that the
scanner can make an IR pass. Then both the maker's software and separate
programs, like ViewScan and SilverFast, may
also do IR dust and scratch removal.
> works splendidly on color
> negatives and Ektachrome but not at all on silver B&W. That's due to
> the silver content blocking the infrared which it a problem with all IR
> channel dust removal systems. Although it's not supposed to work on
> Kodachrome due to some silver content in Kodachrome it does seem to work
> to some degree and helps minimize dust/scratch touchup.
Both ViewScan and SilverFast recently claim to have greatly improved KR
dust/scratch removal. I've not had occasion to
try that yet.
> Anyhow, I've been quite content with the scanner and also with the Epson
> scanning software when used in its "Professional Mode" which gives you a
> lot of control over the process. I have VueScan but haven't been able
> to get it to work with film because it doesn't know the locations of the
> negatives and slides in their film holders. There is a training process
> one is supposed to use to teach it where the frames are but my one
> attempt at using it didn't work. One of these days (when I get much
> more serious about scanning the many thousands of film images I have)
> I'll get back to it and figure out what I was doing wrong.
Before going to all that trouble, you should try the latest update. If that
doesn't work, drop Ed a line. The profiles
for scanners are supposed to know where the film is in standard holders. He's
always been very responsive when I've had
trouble with VS.
> One very important thing I've learned is that many (most?) of my old
> negatives and slides (at least until acquiring the OM-1 in 1974) are of
> rather poor quality for focus and/or sharpness.
I certainly have my share of those, but reversed, my original 50/1.8 bearing
some of the blame, but also a fair number
that are good (the 50/2 Nikkor I used pre OM was excellent.) However, many of
the older films themselves don't resolve
all that much detail.
> Having a 4000 dpi capable scanner is not a requirement
A word about scanner resolution. The flatbeds designed for film scanning claim
4800 dpi resolution. And indeed, they put
out 4800 dpi, but resolve no more detail than true film scanners of 4000 dpi.
In personal comparisons of Canon 4000FS
and 9950F, the lower speced film scanner resolved more detail on the same
frames. From what I've read, that's generally
true.
> because there simply isn't that much true data in the image. Even excellent
> 35mm images probably don't contain more than 8-9 MP of real data. 2400 dpi
> will probably capture
> all that's there on many if not most images. Certainly enough for an
> 8x10 or 10x15 print and maybe even 11x14.
Well, yes and no. A carefully focused shot with a good lens at a good aperture
on film from the last couple of decades,
at least, does reveal significantly more detail at 4000 dpi than 2400. In fact,
I've been able to slightly increase
pixel level detail with multiple scan passes in VueScan. It's quite time
consuming, although one may be elsewhere while
it's happening. But if making a large print from a good frame, it could be
worth it.
I did a fair amount of careful testing, mostly on Portra 160, not the later
couple of versions, which are said to be
even better.
Then again, what you say is also true, both of a great many images and of the
needs of modest print sizes. Kodak 200
film in an XA some years earlier had nothing extra at 4000 dpi.
> A friend of mine recently went through his old slide collection from the
> 60s and early 70s and captured them on digital using his slide projector
> (on the wall) and his P&S digital. ... I tried
> scanning some of his old Kodachromes on the Epson V700. The result was
> that my high resolution scans looked very little better than what he was
> doing with his P&S camera except for the elimination of some keystoning.
> Most of his old film images suffered from poor focus, poor lens
> quality and motion blur. There just wasn't enough there to bother with
> a higher quality capture.
I found that the quality of FS4000 scans of late '30s KR slides were almost
exactly equivalent to shots taken with 5D
and macro lens. The film, lens and slow shutter speeds did not capture all that
much detail, as you've said.
> ...
>
> Perfection is not always required. Good luck in your choice.
The other good use of flatbeds is scanning old larger film. The same thing
applies as for 35 mm. There just isn't that
much detail on the film. I've got a bunch of negs of old family photos my dad
took with a Kodak folder on 6x7 sheet and
pack film. It just doesn't make any difference if I scan it at anything more
than 300 dpi. Some later 6x6 color neg
benefits from 600 dpi, but that's it.
So for anyone not scanning recent film taken with great lenses, a scanner like
Chris' Nikon 8000 just isn't necessary. I
don't know if that might help you decision, Bob. I've used the 9950F to scan
old 4x5, 6x7 and 6x6 with fine results.
Pixelated Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|