Canon 9950f arrived

[Don Miller]

Well, I pre-ordered a 9950f scanner thinking I would cancel the order if the initial reviews were not glowing. I found my order sitting by my front door this afternoon. So I guess there are some units shipping. I'll fire it up and compare a scan to my Epson 3200.

I wasn't intending to be on the leading edge here.

Don

[tim atherton]

Hey Don,

What I'd really like to know is will it scan an 8x10 transparency all in one go? (The flatbed/light area would appear to be big enough? but they only list up to 4x5 - 8x10 holders can always be jury rigged, but it needs to actually be able to do it....) Would love to know

[Don Miller]

Tim, after I do my initial scans I'll lay four 4x5 sheets on the glass and we can see what the edges look like. The scanner comes with a holdler for 12 mounted 35mm slides. I estimate that it uses about 6.5 x 8.5 inches to do the 12 slides. The longest I need is 6x17.

Don

[Don Miller]

So my decision here is to keep or send back the 9950f. I'm a color shooter, it's fall, and I'm traveling about five days a week for the next four weeks. Either it gets sent back tomorrow or I miss the return period.

So with that background I'll say that the Canon scanner is way better than my Epson 3200. Sharpness, color and handling of dynamic range. Very fine detail from my Epson always looks like mush. With the Canon the very fine detail is soft but the edges are their for sharpening. It looks much more like a drum scan before unsharp mask.

I compared a 2400 dpi scan from the Canon to a 3200 dpi from the Epson. Automatic brightness with all other functions, including sharpening set to off. I'm not going to spend a lot of time evaluating the images because a small near-sighted child could immediately tell which image is better. Tomorrow I will try some very dense chromes to see how it pulls out the dark details.

Exploring the full hardware resolution should be interesting but I don't have time now and resolution really isn't the issue with these low cost scanners and large format.

Remember, sample size = 1. Operator error = possible. So don't go buying this scanner based on my 45 minutes of experience. Perhaps I have a bad 3200. But I don't think so because my fine detail from the 3200 looks like other full res images I've seen posted.

Vincent at photo-i is scheduled to do a real review. Perhaps he already has his machine.

The 8x10 question: I'll try an approximation of an 8x10 tomorrow. The lamp measures 7.5 inches. I assume 8x10 isn't 8x10. What is the actual size of a 8x10 chrome?

Don

[yh Kil]

These are from EPSON Perfection 3170 Photo(3200dpi), EPSON EXPRESSION 10000 XL(2400dpi), IMACON Flextight 343(3200dpi). Sorry for many watermarks.

http://largeformatphotography.net/images/fineprint/epson3170_epson10000XL_imacon343.jpg

[Don Miller]

If I can get that target I will scan it.

[Ken Lee]

There is a problem with this forum.

It isn't handling the HTML tags right.

[HC Lim]

I shoot mostly 6x7 and the lab cut my negs or trannies into strips of two or three frames and sleeve them. If I use this scanner, do I put the strips into the scanner or do I have to cut them into individual frames?

[Don Miller]

HC Lim, the scanner has holders for both individual MF up to 6x9 as well as a strip holder. I plan to scan 6x17 with the strip holder.

[Don Miller]

I'd like to post three jpegs that compare the 9950F to the 3200, but I can't log onto my web server account. Can someone host these three jpegs? Email me if you can help. Thanks.

Don

[yh Kil]

These are made from Don Miller.

[Original film]
http://www.largeformatphotography.net/images/fineprint/besttreeweb2.jpg

[Canon Canoscan 9950F]
http://www.largeformatphotography.net/images/fineprint/9950bitweb.jpg

[Epson Perfection 3200 Photo]
http://www.largeformatphotography.net/images/fineprint/3200bitweb.jpg

[yh Kil]

Another sample.
These are from MICROTEK 1800f(1800dpi), EPSON EXPRESSION 10000 XL(2400dpi), NIKON Super CoolSan 4000ED(4000dpi), IMACON Flextight 343(3200dpi), IMACON Flextight 949(3200dpi).


http://largeformatphotography.net/images/fineprint/1800f_10000XL_4000ED_343_949.jpg (http://largeformatphotography.net/images/fineprint/1800f_10000XL_4000ED_343_949.jpg)

[Ken Lee]

The Canon scan shows the presence of dye clouds (the equivalent of grain), while they are invisible in the Epson scan. The Canon shows far more detail in the shadows. In the Epson, the light areas are blown out, while the Canon has retained detail and color.

[Larry Gebhardt]

Wow - I predict a flood of Epsons on the market. I recently got fed up with my Epson 4870 and bought a used Howtek. It hasn't arrived yet, but if I had seen those results before I think I would have just bought the Canon. Have you done any scans of dense areas to see if its noise is better than the Epson?

[tim atherton]

the more I've looked at the online info now, I'm guessing the transparency area isn't big enough for 8x10?

[Don Miller]

Tim, tell me how big a 8x10 is and I'll test that size. It will scan 7x9 but I'm not sure about 7.5x9.5. The lamp is 7.5 inches (it moves).

I sent a better 3200 image to yh Kil for posting. The scan has a quick manual tweak to prevent the clipping apparent in the first image.

[Don Miller]

As far as the visible dye clouds, this is velvia 100f pushed 1 stop so we would expect it to be more pronounced. I find 100f pushes 1 stop nicely. With old velvia I would usually switch to provia for push processing.

[tim atherton]

on one neg 7 3/4" x just under 9 3/4"

tim

[Juergen Sattler]

I just came back from the Photo Expo in New York and did take a look at the new Canon Scanner. The rep there assured me that it would scan an 8x10 negative or slide - the scanning area looked just big enough to do so. What they showed was absolutely amazing. The detail in these scans is unbelievable.

Juergen

[yh Kil]

Another sample from Don Miller. Thanks.


http://www.largeformatphotography.net/images/fineprint/3200scan2.jpg (http://www.largeformatphotography.net/images/fineprint/3200scan2.jpg)

[Ken Lee]

While we're on the subject of scanners, here (http://www.kenleegallery.com/scan.htm" target="_blank) is a comparison I made of the Minolta Dimage Multi Pro Scanner versus the Microtek ArtixScan 2500f at very similar settings. No sharpening. A 6x7 slide. What a difference between a dedicated film scanner and a flatbed. The dMax of each is comparable, but the difference in resolution is telling.



If I had it all to do over again, I would have kept the Minolta and just gotten an Epson 3200 for the 4x5. I may still do that. !

[Ken Lee]

The Canon still wins in terms of resolution, but it's becoming harder to see the difference.

It's easiest to compare images of the same size. So if you upsize the lower-res scan, and place it next to the the high-res, the differences become more obvious. For example, see here (http://www.kenleegallery.com/scantest.htm" target="_blank). The two images were scanned at 1250 and 2500 ppi, but the 1250 ppi image has been upsized to match the larger image. A little sharpening helps the comparison too.

[Don Miller]

The newest file is a 3200 scan with the clipping problem manually corrected.

[Craig Schroeder]

A poster in a Usenet group gave a heads-up the other day about Amazon listing these at $327 (free shipping, too). I was considering one and impulsively bought one at that price when I checked out his information. It has since had the price raised but it might bear watching if you're considering the purchase of a 9950F. Mine is back-ordered to 11/3 at this time.

[A. Andrew Gonzalez]

This reviewer is not very impressed
"...soft but good for refrigerator prints or Web work." ...?
http://www.cnet.com.au/accessories/scanners/0,39026179,40001986,00.htm (http://www.cnet.com.au/accessories/scanners/0,39026179,40001986,00.htm)

[Don Miller]

Scanning 8x10 -

The Scangear software won't let me input 8x10 for a film size. It seems to want to find an image from the standard adapters. I downloaded a test version of Vuescan but it hung in the preview mode. So I don't have an answer for 8x10. It does scan a 7x9 area when doing 35mm strip film.

I have Silverfast software for the Epson 3200 but I believe it is scanner specific. I haven't used Canon scanning software before, but I like it better than Epson or Silverfast. The Canon scanner with Canon software produced a reasonably accurate scan right out of the box with no profiling. (Although I'm sure it can be improved with profiling, which I will do if I use the scanner for more than play).

I'm not going to try and test 8x10 again , but I will take another run through the Canon software to see if I'm missing something.

Tonight I'll find some slides of dark man made objects and maybe we can get a feel for real dmax and noise.

I'm seeing better gradiation of tonal values with the Canon. I'm not sure if this is just a function of higher true resolution, or if the Canon captures more real values than the Epson.

[paulr]

I'm seriously considering one of these scanners to scan b+w negs for a book project.
They will be 4x5 tmx 100 negs, and will be enlarged up to about 3X.
Most of the negs have a relatively low D-max, but there are some exceptions.
I need the scans to be 720dpi at final file size.
If anyone has any thoughts on how this scanner might do for the project, please let me know.

My frame of reference is the epson 1640xl that we have where I work. The results from this scanner are fine, but If I can get significantly better results from the canon, I'll buy it just so I can work on the project at home. How does the 1640XL compare with the 3200?

Thanks!
Paul

[paulr]

Also, no one has mentioned the epson 4870.
Thoughts on this vs. the 9950f?

[Ken Lee]

"They will be 4x5 tmx 100 negs, and will be enlarged up to about 3X. Most of the negs have a relatively low D-max, but there are some exceptions. I need the scans to be 720dpi at final file size. "

Given that the 1640xl actually delivers around 60% of the advertised rate, it really only gives around 1000 ppi. If you want to create output at 720 dpi, then you can enlarge by around 13% , and still retain critical sharpness - a far cry from 300%.



If you want output at 720 dpi, that means you need to scan at 2160 ppi. (That way, when you enlarge and thus divide 2160 by 3, you will still end up with 720 dot per inch). If you use a scanner like the Epson 3200, which actually delivers around 60% of 3200, you will be fine, and you will get really sharp images at the size you desire.

[paulr]

Thanks, Ken ... I'm also interested in a more subjective evaluation that might include actual edge sharpness, tonal separation at the extremes of the scale, evenness of illumination, and while we're at it, which company's magic dust and scratch removal technology works better, if at all.

[Don Miller]

I've sent yh Kil more scan samples to post. This time I used Silverfast with the Epson 3200. The 3200 image was upsized in photoshop to match the 4800 dpi image from the 9950F. The only two conclusions I've drawn are 1) The Canon clearly has more real resolution 2) Color accuracy is significantly better with the Canon.

I realize I don't know how to test dmax or dynamix range. I can change the input and output levels and "prove" just about anything. I'm starting the think that is at least half the value of a professional scan is the skill of the operator.

I'll comment specifically on the scans when posted.

[yh Kil]

Another samples from Don Miller.


http://www.largeformatphotography.net/images/fineprint/barnpano.jpg (http://www.largeformatphotography.net/images/fineprint/barnpano.jpg)
http://www.largeformatphotography.net/images/fineprint/3200crop3.jpg (http://www.largeformatphotography.net/images/fineprint/3200crop3.jpg)
http://www.largeformatphotography.net/images/fineprint/9950fcrop3web.jpg (http://www.largeformatphotography.net/images/fineprint/9950fcrop3web.jpg)

[paulr]

interesting. looks like the canon scan reveals more detail, with a little more sharpness. it also shows a lot of noisy artifacts ... some of them look like streaks from washing a window. i didn't see those on the other canon scans posted earlier, or on the epson scans.

[Don Miller]

Don't judge the sharpness, as these were sharpened by the scanning programs.

These full res crops are from a 6x17 velvia 100f transparency. The film area scanned is 1/4 inch square.

If you don't view the crops with a good, profiled monitor it will be difficult to see the differences. I'm typing this on a laptop and the images look very different from my photoshop system.

Don

[Ken Lee]

Don -

Photoshop allows you to view files as though they were displayed in web browsers (which have a different color space than Photoshop).

Try View > Proof Setup > Monitor RGB.

[Don Miller]

"Photoshop allows you to view files as though they were displayed in web browsers (which have a different color space than Photoshop). "

That's not my point. I've used photoshop since it was mac only.

paulr - those "noisy atifacts" are dye clouds that the canon resolves but the epson doesn't. Looking at the black area both scanners look pretty clean. I see light scratches on the canon scan but not the epson. Could that be the lines you see?

[Ken Lee]

Don - Sorry - I mis-read your statement.

Oops - You meant that your laptop system isn't calibrated, as your other system is. Gotcha

[Larry Gebhardt]

Don, try using the level command in photoshop to set the midtone to about 2.7. This will show the canon is much cleaner than the Epson and resolves much more details in the shadows. Given that I have seen the same problems with my Epson I don't think there is much you can do to fix this. This has been the Epson's major weak point as far as I am concerned - many of my slides are about 1/3 to 1/2 stop underexposed (intentionally to keep clouds from blowing out) and the Epson has trouble bringing up the shadow areas.

[paulr]

"Looking at the black area both scanners look pretty clean. I see light scratches on the canon scan but not the epson. Could that be the lines you see?"

Probably the scratches. I was wondering if they were artifacts (or maybe just something on the scanner glass) because it seems hard to believe that the epson wouldn't resolve scratches that are that obvious.

How does the 3200 compare to the 1640xl? This is the scanner that I can use as a frame of reference.

[Kirk Gittings]

I am officialy part of the "chase the best scanner" addiction support group. Last year it was a 3200 then shortly thereafter a 4870. Generating large paperweights has become a specialty of mine.

Don, I don't want to turn you into the answer man, but the Canon site is a little thin on onfo.

Besides the requirements of my fine art work, I need a scanner that will handle volume commercial jobs. In that regard a scanner of mine must also be able to do the folllowing (which a 4870 will do):

Does it have the ability to batch scan 120 roll film?

and How well does the dust abatement technology work. is it as good as Digital Ice.

Thanks for your input.

[Bernard Languillier]

One question gentlemen,

Epson has released last month in Japan a transparency scanner called F-3200 that can scan up to 4*5. It is a slide in type scanner (like a Nikon 9000 ED for instance). It seems like a potential option for my 4*5 needs. The price is only 55.000 in Japan (less than 500 US$) but was advertized at about 1000 Euro in Europe (more then twice more expensive...).

My guess is that it is different from the flatbed scanner called Epson 3200 in the US.

Can anyone confirm this?

Thank you in advance,

Best regards,
Bernard

[Don Miller]

Kirk, the 9950f will scan two strips of 120 film at a time. The scanning area is about 22-24 cm long each. (I'll look to see exactly the length when I'm in my office). The software does a good job of automatically selecting each image up to 6x12. For 6x17 I had to manually select the image.

I have not looked at the dust/scratch removal yet. Canon does have a new version of their FARE technology with this scanner.

[Kirk Gittings]

Thanks Don,

If the dust abatement software works well without denigrating the image, this might be a great option for my commercial work. I shoot 6x9 commercially and the 4870 will only hold three of those crossways in the holders at a time. It sounds life the Canon might hold up to 6?

Also for my art work the scans from the 4870 are barely adequate at a 16x20 enlargement. The superior acutance of the Canon may push that boundry.

Next question is software. Is it adequate or will Silverfast or Vuescan come out with a version that supports it relatively quickly? Anyone heard anything?

I have an immediate interest in these questions. I have a retrospective show coming up next Sept. and I need to print this winter while the commercial work is slow. Most of the prints will be in the 16x20 range. If I am going to make a scanner switch, I need to do it soon.

Thanks for your help!

[Don Miller]

Kirk, I don't know if the 9950f has better accutance than the 4870.

I tried a technique a few people use with dedicated film scanners that may work even better with these $400 Epson and Canon scanners.

Scan at full res WITH sharpening ON (or apply USM in photoshop) and then downsample to printer size and resolution in photoshop. Edit image and print. So a 4x5 on the Canon 9950F produces about a 1 gig file at 8 bits. Epson has a 360 ppi native resolution so I set image size at 360 ppi and 12 x 15 inches.

I tried downsampling without first sharpening and I didn't see much difference from a scan made at 360ppi at 12x15 output. But sharpening before downsampling seems to provide the interpretation software with information (edges) it can use to make a better small file.
With additional USM I made a sharper file with fewer artifacts than the file scanned at 360 ppi.

I'd like to here from others who have done something like this.

[Kirk Gittings]

Don, Thanks for getting back to me.

I own a 3200 and a 4870 and I think the resolving power is very similar and limited to a decent 16x20 image. I do start out with a large gig plus image but downsize it later after all the work, because I am not always sure when I scan something what I want to print it at and start with a scan large enough for the largest size that I may want to print it at. The images presented here seem to show a real difference between the Epson's and the Canon at a given size.

I am leary of sharpening in the scanner, because it is impossible to undue later. I mostly follow a 16 bit workflow designed by George DeWolf which involves two stages of sharpening in various phases of the workflow in Photoshop. The two involve plugins in Optipix (detail and safe sharpen) http://www.reindeergraphics.com/ (http://www.reindeergraphics.com/) and I add a third if necessary, High Pass Sharpening. These preserve the 16 bit depth of the image and sharpen in three different ways and are designed to more transparent, flexible and artifact free.

Don't ask me to explain any of this. I am frankly a little new to this and I am following the recomendations of some people who I respect alot. Upon inspecting the results though they appear to me to be on the right track.

[Don Miller]

I mentioned sharpening in the scanner as a convenience, as I don't know which sharpening method may be optimal for downresing a file. Also, this is not the final sharpening, but rather a technique to bring out the edge detail before downresing the file.

I now feel that the resolving ability of each successive generation of scanner doesn't matter unless there is a way to get proportionally more detail to the print. I think this is why people are diappointed with each successive generation of scanner. An epson 2400 that actually produces 2400 dpi is a much better scanner than an Epson 4870 that produces 2400 dpi in a file twice the size.

I would like people to try scanning at the max. optical resolution of their scanner. For a (supposedly) 4800 dpi scanner and a 4x5 that will yield something like 1 gig at 8bit color and 2 gig at 16. If you can handle a full optical res 16 bit file, great. But I think it may be more important to start with the full optical detail than 16 bit depth (The whole 16 bit thing is way overblown on the internet, especially with film scans where a good histogram should be set before final scan)

Basically what we have with our consumerish Epson and Canon scanner is a whole bunch of relatively low quality pixels. The issue seems to be how to concentrate those pixels down to fewer but better data points. Simple downresing seems to not be effective in improving the quality of each pixel. But I see a whole lot more real detail in the several scans I've tested by sharpening before downsizing.

The Canon resolves dye clouds in normal process Velvia 100f. If no one with an Epson 4870 sees dye clouds with this film, then I would conclude that the Canon has more real resolution. If the Epson 4870 does not resolve more detail than the Epson 3200, then the smaller file size of the older scanner may make it a better tool.

[Kirk Gittings]

For whatever it is worth, I haven't played with this very much yet. George (who wrote some of the "Tips and Tricks from the Experts" for Photoshops CS) prefers the Interactive Interpolation of Optipix as it "resamples and resizes in an entirely different way" with the "best Interpolating algorithim on the market today". My experience with it suggests that it edge sharpens as it interpolates in a downsize. My prints do appear sharper than Photoshop after downsizing with this software.

[tim atherton]

I think ed hamrick has just added vuescan support for it (may be a few bugs - there usually are)

That would let you chose the maximum image area for one thing (and see how big it actually lets you select) along with all the other extras Vuescan lets you use

[Don Miller]

I've spent some time with the 9950f and now the Epson 3200 working on getting 24x30 prints. My opinion of the 9950f remains good and I do believe it will make acceptable prints in this size for most people using larger formats.

I went back and re-calibrated my 3200 and worked toward getting an acceptable 24x30 print. I thought I got to a point with the 3200 image where the print was "in the ballpark" compared to the 9950f. Comparing the large prints of complex landscapes scenes the Canon not only has better resolution and color, but there is a "rightness" to the details with the Canon that does not exist in the Epson prints. Putting the prints side by side the Epson scan just looks downright odd in some areas.

So for me the Canon is the clear winner in color, resolution and "rightness". The color with the Canon is good without much work. This will be a significant advantage for everyone, with much less frustration for digital printing workflow newbies.

I hope Vuescan works with this printer. I'm at the point now where I would like more options than are available with Canoscan in the advanced mode. (And what kind of name is Canoscan, anyways. Points taken off for the name).

Vincent at photo-i.co.uk has started his "interactive" review. He does a nice job. There is a short cnet review but the writer does not appear to be competent in photographic scanning.

[Ellis Vener]

Don,

Many thanks for the heads up on the 9950F & subsequent progress reports! I have two downstream questions for you:

What printer are you using? How are you profiling your monitor and printer or what printer profiles are you using?

[Don Miller]

Ellis -

Printers are Epson 2200 and 7600. The 7600 uses the Atkinson profiles and the 2200 uses at set of free profiles which name escapes me but that are no longer available due to licensing issues. My monitor is profiled by an older version of the Spyder.

The Epson 3200 is profiled by Monaco EZ Color. When Hamrick gets Vuescan working for the 9950f I will use the profiling feature in that program and buy a set of Wolf Faust's inexpensive and good targets. (Targets at http://www.targets.coloraid.de/ or resold in the U.S. by Digital Light & Color). As I said previously the color "out of the box" is good with the Canon but now that someone makes Velvia and Provia targets inexpensively it makes sense to get the color as precise as possible.

I see the 9950f in stock now at internet retailers. I'm looking forward to seeing others opinion of the scanner.

[Craig Schroeder]

I rec'd my 9950F but have had a house full of visitors during the time and have only had a small amount of time to fiddle with it. I am new to film scanning but perhaps that is a good point of reference for some of you who are contemplating this machine.

My first attempts were with medium format B&W. I was quite pleased with the initial results. It seems that the scanner prefers "meatier" negatives for B&W, especially in the few 35mm strips I tested. I took some 35mm shots this weekend at a Madrigal dinner at my son's school, developed to a density (Mytol[Xtol-like] on FP4+) that I'm accustomed to and really struggled to avoid muddy, unsharp scans. Some older, denser negatives were much better. As the UK reviewer has found, the scanner seems much more adept in the world of color. Slides scan well and color negatives seem like good honest scans to my newbie eyes. The holders are well engineered.

I tried to get Vuescan working with it and couldn't get it functioning with the tranparencies but it seemed fine with the reflective insert.

[Kirk Gittings]

So here it is. Some quicky results.

A 4x5 Ilford FP5 negative scanned on the 4870 with both Silverfast AI and Epson Scan software and the 9950f with Canoscan. Each was done at 2400 DPI at 100% in 16 bit, about 188 MP files.
Why the scanning software would make such a difference I do not know. All of these were unsharpened with no auto-anything turned on.

The 4870 with Epsonscan is clearly the sharpest in the highlights with the best highlight separation and the worst shadow separation.

The 9950f with Canoscan is clearly not as sharp, but has the best shadow separation by far.

The 4870 with Silverfast is clearly not a sharp as the Epsonscan but Sharper than the 9950f. It also has the best midtone separation. It also appears to have the least visible grain.

Does anyone have any thoughts to illuminate these results? Some people have comented that the Canon is better with color, but my tests show similar results with color.

The 9950f is also decidedly faster.

I'm on my way out of town for a shoot so I don't have time to post any images.

[paulr]

Kirk, have you experimented with which scanner/software combination gives the best results AFTER doing normal adjustments (curves, sharpness, etc)?

Also, based on what you see, which scanner/software combo would you prefer if you were making relatively small enlargements from your 4x5 negs .. like 11x14 or smaller?

Thanks,
Paul

[Don Miller]

Kirk, the loss of highlight detail may be clipping. What does the histogram look like in photoshop? I haven't found a way to make Canoscan give a good histogram to photoshop. When Vuescan works with the 9950f it should help this situation with its ability to do high quality preview.
I would try a workflow with the Canoscan sharpening set to ON. Generally the advice is to sharpen last, but there is a semi-magical quality to the Canon sharpening that I haven't been able to duplicate with photoshop and focalblade. The best end result is what matters.

I'm going to look at using Kami fluid. My situation is very different than yours-.I'm looking at 70-80 good scans per year. So fluid mounting would be a minor burden.

I've come to appreciate what a major factor correct technical workflow is to producing professional quality scans.

Don

[Kirk Gittings]

Let me play with it a little bit more and I will get back to you.

[paulr]

After reading Vincent Oliver's many-day review on photo-i, I abandoned my hopes and put in an order for the epson 4870.

Has anyone used the 4870 to scan bw negs using vuescan? I'm curious to know how that works out, since I've heard some criticism of Silverfast's handling of bw.

[Kirk Gittings]

Don,

Yes it appears clipping is part os the problem but more importantly the 4x5 seems to sag more in the Canon, but I solved much of the sharpness problems. See my other thread on side scanning "Canoscan 9950f Am I crazy".

My opinion of the two scanners after much experimentation is this. For the moment I am going to run both scanners, the 4870 for high resoltion 16 bit b&w scans for my artwork (the 9950f has a limit of 10,000 x 30,000 pixels thats a 275 mb 16 bit file which I find a bit limiting ([bad pun!]) and the 9950f for medium quality-high quantity color commercial work on (fresh from the lab) color negatives because the batch scanning interface is superior to the Epson. Better software when it becomes available will sove this I presume. I say "fresh from the lab" negatives because on further investigation I find the Digital Ice of the Epson to be superior to the dust removal of the Canon.

If I were to chose one scanner right now it would be the Epson 4870 with some strong reservations. If Silverfast comes out with software for the Canon and it doesn fall apart from the sidescanning it may become my scanner of primary choice. Neither one is perfect, each has its strengths.

[Franco]

Heve you seen this? : http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/review/2004/10/19/259.html (http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/review/2004/10/19/259.html)

You can translate it with Babelfish.

I've just downloaded more than 200MB of scans and I'm really impressed.

I'm buying right now the 9950F...let me know if someone is still interested in my opinion.

Thanks for all your suggestions above, they were really interesting and helped me a lot.

Bye.

[Kirk Gittings]

I am currently on my 4 th scanner 9950F from Canon. Each one has had subtle streaking in mid tones like clear blue skies along the direction of the scan. The first three got progressively worse. I am checking the forth one now.

I would suggest you wait for them to get the bugs out. I have wasted an enourmous amount of time on this scanner. They have been completely unusable to date.

[Franco]

Thanks for your reply Kirk.
I think a "bug" like that will not fixed soon. Can you suggest another scanner in the same range of price and features? Maybe the Epson 4870?
I'm interested in a scanner for 35mm (easy batch scanning with a dust removal system) to 4X5".

Now I have a Agfa Duoscan (my first and old scanner, 6-7 years ago) and a SmartScan 3600 (it's the same of PrimeFilm, ecc...I've found at least 4 different name for the same model). The SmartScan 3600 has a very poor quality (very slow, 25% of scans with a strange line across the neg/dia, frame not centered, a lot of noise). One years ago I starded with digital (Canon 10D) and I think I will newer go back to 35mm film but I'm always using medium and large format camera. I would like to scan all my old 35mm (a very boring job) in order to have a digital archive. This is my situation.

Bye.

[Kirk Gittings]

I have just rejected another replacement scanner from Canon. Same steaking problem and no help from Canon. Lots of my time wasted on their problem. My Epson 4870 works fine ( I was looking for higher speeds and large volume for batch scans. Don't buy the Canon.

[Franco]

That's incredible. Ok, I will stay away from the 9950F.
Thanks.

[Franco]

Ehi...I found some specs of the new Epson Perfection 4990 here:


http://www.epson.fr/produits/scanners/perfection4990photo/index.shtml (http://www.epson.fr/produits/scanners/perfection4990photo/index.shtml)

and


http://www.epson.fr/produits/scanners/perfection4990photo/specifications/index.shtml (http://www.epson.fr/produits/scanners/perfection4990photo/specifications/index.shtml)

why only in the French site?

[Joseph Santos]

Here is one in english:


http://www.epson.com.hk/scannerdesc.jsp?id=p4990 (http://www.epson.com.hk/scannerdesc.jsp?id=p4990)

[Kirk Gittings]

AS it turns out,

The resolution of my problems with the scanner was a very fruitful and professional discussion with a knowledgeable Canon technical rep. He had a few suggestions that had never been mentioned before such as stray ambient light reaching the film during the scan which I had never thought of. He also said that the scanners I returned had been sent back to their research dept. and they could find nothing wrong with them.

For my part, I think my standards were more demanding than the price point on this scanner would allow technically.

I could not test "stray ambient light" issue as I had already brow beat them into a refund and I had no scanner to try it on. All I know is that my Epson 4870 works fine in the exact same environment that the Canon failed in.

All in all, I think in the end that Canon dealt with me professionally. I hope others will test thier scanners thoroughly.