4:39 AM
Kinsz
I took up 35mm photography as a hobby to keep me from being bored during downtown in foreign lands, and accumulated over 3,100 color slides during this 10-year period. This scanner supports well beyond that, but for most photos it isn't needed. This is where I find some cool features and some frustrating limitations. I real improvement here would be film-specific color profiles built into the software, but for $250....oh well.
It and the Epson V600 appeared equally good, finally decided on this on and I'm extremely happy with that. So far i have used it to scan pdf documents and merge them into a single file.
With the 9000F set to 3200 dpi, a film scan results in a 14 megapixel RGB image, but don't let this number mislead you into thinking that you can see tiny details out of 35 mm film scans. You can scan at 1200, 2400 or 4800 DPI, and after playing around with all three options I decided to go with 2400 DPI for a good balance between quality and scan time.
While it is a time consuming process with any scanner of this type (you can only scan four images at a time), you can always perform other tasks on the computer while the scanner does its thing. Highly recommend! I am waiting to receive my 35mm negative from the photographer.
I would like to have seen a USB-3 connection but the USB-2 if still very fast in displaying the scanned image on my PC. I replaced an older HP flatbed scanner with this one, because HP were too lazy to make a driver for use with Win7 Ultimate. The scanner is quick and quiet and up to the quality of all the other Canon models I have purchased over the years. Photos are scanned with high quality. Their software is the worse.
It's sure not a bulletproof design, but it seems to be made reasonably well for a machine at this price point. It can't fix everything, though, I have bunch of old Ekta Chrome slides that are very faded, and while they were improved, they still come out faded red. (By the way, I found Canon support to be excellent, if not outstanding. So image1-1 which makes it rather frustrating since all the images are really the same set of negatives.
After two hours of various tests I found that the Win7 native driver will produce a better scan than the Canon driver...I believe the Canon driver is illuminating the LED a bit too much because with matte photos I get a lot of white specs in the final image that I believe is the LED reflecting off the "microscopic" bumps on the physical image (I suppose smoother photos will not have this problem). It does have a large footprint but its performance more than makes up for the desk space needed to house the unit. If you want to scan (digitize) your entire slide archive, this method would take a very, very long time! The fact that it went all the way in tricked me into thinking it everything was fine.
(H x W x Color Depth) Thus your 100Mb files actually end up at about 5-7 Mb JPG files at output. The 9000F had good reviews which led me to buy it.
It and the Epson V600 appeared equally good, finally decided on this on and I'm extremely happy with that. So far i have used it to scan pdf documents and merge them into a single file.
With the 9000F set to 3200 dpi, a film scan results in a 14 megapixel RGB image, but don't let this number mislead you into thinking that you can see tiny details out of 35 mm film scans. You can scan at 1200, 2400 or 4800 DPI, and after playing around with all three options I decided to go with 2400 DPI for a good balance between quality and scan time.
While it is a time consuming process with any scanner of this type (you can only scan four images at a time), you can always perform other tasks on the computer while the scanner does its thing. Highly recommend! I am waiting to receive my 35mm negative from the photographer.
I would like to have seen a USB-3 connection but the USB-2 if still very fast in displaying the scanned image on my PC. I replaced an older HP flatbed scanner with this one, because HP were too lazy to make a driver for use with Win7 Ultimate. The scanner is quick and quiet and up to the quality of all the other Canon models I have purchased over the years. Photos are scanned with high quality. Their software is the worse.
It's sure not a bulletproof design, but it seems to be made reasonably well for a machine at this price point. It can't fix everything, though, I have bunch of old Ekta Chrome slides that are very faded, and while they were improved, they still come out faded red. (By the way, I found Canon support to be excellent, if not outstanding. So image1-1 which makes it rather frustrating since all the images are really the same set of negatives.
After two hours of various tests I found that the Win7 native driver will produce a better scan than the Canon driver...I believe the Canon driver is illuminating the LED a bit too much because with matte photos I get a lot of white specs in the final image that I believe is the LED reflecting off the "microscopic" bumps on the physical image (I suppose smoother photos will not have this problem). It does have a large footprint but its performance more than makes up for the desk space needed to house the unit. If you want to scan (digitize) your entire slide archive, this method would take a very, very long time! The fact that it went all the way in tricked me into thinking it everything was fine.
(H x W x Color Depth) Thus your 100Mb files actually end up at about 5-7 Mb JPG files at output. The 9000F had good reviews which led me to buy it.
0 comments:
Post a Comment