8800F vs. G4050

Hi

after a longer search, I have these two buying options, based on my current budget and availability of products where I live.

But I'm not sure which one would be better for my needs. And here they are:

-I need it for scanning 120 film (and some 35mm)
-mostly reversal film, which means there will be a lot of battling with shadow noise, but color negatives also.
-I'd like usable sharpness (at least decent 1600dpi resolution)
-I don't like contrasty scans with crushed blacks, so the one that has better dynamic range would be preferable

Now I am aware that both of them will probably perform similar, but
they cost the same here, so every little detail of advantage would be the thing that leans s by choice into either direction

Things that I don't care about is, color profiling,because I want to have total control, so I usually scan everything as flat as possible (usually using film base as reference) even for negatives (I usually remove the mask myself and adjust the contrast, because I don't trust cheap software)
So, I don't care how good the color turns out by default, or what kind of profiles it has.
I also don't care about speed, because I'll probably scan one picture at a time.
I spend hours on one roll of film anyway adjusting every picture to my needs.

So if either of these has just a little less shadow noise but is slower 3 times, I'd take that one.

Same goes for sharpness.
Right now i have a Canon 4200F, which has terrible resolution, and I don't expect much more from either of these two (getting to scan 120 is improvement enough at this point) , but if I could get just a little improvement It would be great.
I hope 8800F is not the same thing as 4200F only with larger scanning area covered.

Now I've searched this forum, and I saw a comparison of 8600F and G4050, but quite frankly, I don't know what to make of these two crops.
I think someones experience would be much valued.

thank you

HP's scanner support sucks. I would go with the Canon over the HP. Also, have you looked at the Epson line (e.g. V500 is in the same price range as the HP)?

Doug
---
www.BetterScanning.com

By support you mean what? You mean customer support, or physical support of film (holder) ? lol, sorry for the dumb question

But if its customer support, I couldn't care less. I never in my life contacted any manufacturer about anything of the sort. The stores handle any replacements that are needed or repairs.


About V500, well it's interesting. But I don't think it's available over here.
Prices here on scanners are pretty good. I can get a HP or Canon for a little over US price,
but If I ordered anything from another country, I would pay as much as double price for
customs and shipping.

You haven't told us where "over there" is and with that we can give you a bit more help.

I wouldn't recommend either of those scanners if your final intended output is going to be prints. Moreover, I'm not sure the 4050 supports MF; the 8800 does.

No consumer flatbed scanner is going to do as well as a dedicated film scanner for 35mm or MF. If you can go up in price a bit then I strongly recommend the Microtek i800. If you can go up to 600-800 USD then either the Epson V700/750 or the Microtek M1. All of the scanner I mentioned will dramatically outperform those you are considering. The scanner you are considering are basically designed to handle reflective material with a transparency adaptor as an afterthought for the casual user.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ted Harris

You haven't told us where "over there" is and with that we can give you a bit more help.

I wouldn't recommend either of those scanners if your final intended output is going to be prints. Moreover, I'm not sure the 4050 supports MF; the 8800 does.

No consumer flatbed scanner is going to do as well as a dedicated film scanner for 35mm or MF. If you can go up in price a bit then I strongly recommend the Microtek i800. If you can go up to 600-800 USD then either the Epson V700/750 or the Microtek M1. All of the scanner I mentioned will dramatically outperform those you are considering. The scanner you are considering are basically designed to handle reflective material with a transparency adaptor as an afterthought for the casual user.

---

sorry, "over there" is Croatia.

And yes 4050, scans actually up to 4x5, Canon only scans up to 120

I don't plan to make large prints from these scans. If I could get decent sharp 2000x2000pixel images from 6x6 for computer viewing I'd be happy.
I'd still send my film for scanning services for making good prints, this is just for making myself nice digital collections of my films, for enjoying on the computer.

finally some decent comparison

It's not 8800F, but I guess 8600F can speak for his younger brother, I doubt 8800 can be worse than 8600


Here is a neg scan from 8600 at 2400dpi

http://www.heise.de/ct/testbilder/sc...8600f_neg2.jpg

and here is from 4050:
http://www.heise.de/ct/testbilder/sc...g2_2400dpi.jpg


a chrome scan from 8600:
http://www.heise.de/ct/testbilder/sc...8600f_dia3.jpg

and from 4050:
http://www.heise.de/ct/testbilder/sc...a3_2400dpi.jpg


here is how these images are suppose to look like (in terms of sharpness)
on a better scanner. This is from Plustek OpticFilm 7200i :

http://www.heise.de/ct/testbilder/di...7200i_neg3.jpg
http://www.heise.de/ct/testbilder/di...200id_dia3.jpg

this one actually makes every little piece of dust and grain stab your eye, but I think it is a decent reference

Here is both flatbeds pushed to the limits at 4800dpi:

http://www.heise.de/ct/testbilder/sc...8600f_usaf.jpg
http://www.heise.de/ct/testbilder/sc...4050g_usaf.jpg


It seems to me that G4050 is softer than Canon
But Canon seems to show that typical Canon noise, which I've grown so "fond" of on my 4200F, so that's kind of a turn-off
Also, the scans seem to pop out of HP looking quite pleasant in terms of contrast and color. I couldn't match the Canon scans in photoshop easily to the ones from HP.
Though I'm sure with a flatter scan, it would not be such a difference.
HP on the other hand seem to lack noise and grain aliasing.

But the target from USAF is also a big turn-off for me for HP, because
it seems it has some serious optical problems.

I really am not sure how to weigh this. The scans from HP just look plain nice, out of the box, and seem to have more shadow detail and less noise.
While Canon seems to be optically superior.

I think comments on these images would help me decide.