Canon 9950F... Terrible Shadow Detail, Bad Colors

[Scott Rosenberg]

hey fellas...

i have been playing with my 9950F for two days now and i am on the verge of sending it back. before i do so, i was hoping some of you could tell me if my issues are operator-based, or if this scanner is simply not what it was cracked up to be.

i have two main issues with this unit:
1. the colors are off. i've tried adobe RGB as well as sRGB, but the scans just don't look right. i can get them close spending some time with the channel mixer in photoshop, but i'd rather the scanner did this unaided.
2. the shadow detail is awful. the $150 microtek scanner this unit replaced had better shadow detail.

would switching to another scanner, like the epson 4870 or microtek 6100pro, both which use silerfast, be a better option? is there some setting on the scanner i'm missing?

any help would be appreciated,
scott

[Gem Singer]

Hi Scott,

Scroll down on the list of Recent Topics. Take a look at Kirk Gittings remarks about that particular model scanner.

[Scott Rosenberg]

hi eugene...

i've been following all the 9950 threads pretty closely. in this thread:


http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/topic/500043.html#530943 (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/topic/500043.html#530943)

kirk states that...
"the batch scanning interface, the auto exposure, frame recognition and color balance is superior in the Canon"

it seems like he's having better luck with his, particularily in the color balance. the scanner is pretty sharp, it just falls apart in the shadows. i really hope that it's user error and there's a simple fix.

scott

[Rainer]

Scott,

I´m afraid NO < 1000,- $ Scanner will do, what you expect from it.

If you´re looking for high end quality you´ll have to go for a high-end unit (IMACON 646 at least ... $ 10.000).

The 9950F gives me nice quality on prints up to 20x25". Shadow detail is more likely a printing than a scanning problem.

That´s my limited experience.

I´m quite lucky I guess, as i pay only about $ 9 for a full 250MB Imacon 949 Scan at a local retailer...

Regards,

[Scott Rosenberg]

rainer...

i've yet to try printing any scan from the 9950f. so far i've spent the last two days going through a pile of 'reference' trannies. it's taking me considerable time in photoshop to get the colors back to where they should be, but there's nothing i can do to recover lost shadow detail in the scans.

i'll keep playing around to see if i can get acceptable scans off this unit, if not, i guess i'll try the 4870 or the microtek 6100pro.

sigh.

[RO345]

I'm scanning Velvia 6x4.5s and I'm getting very accurate color rendition. I'm using Vuescan and I've profiled with a Velvia IT8 target. I cant comment about the shadow detail, since I havent scanned many slides that have shadow detail. You didnt mention the type of film you use or the software you are using.

[Scott Rosenberg]

i'm using velvia and e100vs. i'm scanning with the included scangear cs application and editing in photoshop.

[Kirk Gittings]

I have had no problems with the color balance, exposure or shadow detail with the 9950f. As a matter of fact, with the Canon software, I think it is superior in that respect to the Epson 4870 and Epson software. Don't allow the Canon software maybe to clip your shadows, do that manually.

My problem with the 9950F has been subtile streaking along the direction of the scan
in broad areas of middle tone like clear blue skies. I have returned three 9950f scanners so far. Each one has been worse. They just sent me another. After this one I will give up go back to my Epson 4870 and wait for the next generation Epson so I batch scan more and quicker.

[Scott Rosenberg]

kirk...

"Don't allow the Canon software maybe to clip your shadows, do that manually."

what you you mean byt this? are you referring to the 'auto tune' feature?

scott

[Kirk Gittings]

If you use auto exposure, in the histogram window, you will see that the highlights and shadows are "clipped". That is to say that the end point settings clip the highlight and shadow detail so that everything past the points on either end are either pure black or pure white. This is necessary to get a full range of tones but oftentimes the auto setting clips way too much. Either reset these points closer to the ends of the histogram maually and adjust overall exposure with the midpoint or do'nt do the auto exposure at all (shut it off) and do your own histogram settings in photoshop. For my large volume color commercial work I do the former. For my b&w art work I do the later. I need full control for a truly expressive fine art print.

[Scott Rosenberg]

thanks kirk... i'll try that on my next round of scans.

sorry for all the questions, but is 'auto tone' the same as the 'auto exposure' you are referring to?

[Kirk Gittings]

I don't have the newest 9950F hooked up yet so I can't look at it but probably. I'll try to set it up tomorrow.

[Scott Rosenberg]

thanks so much for all the help, kirk. if you hadn't guessed, i'm still pretty green with this digital stuff. i really appreciate all the help. with your tips here, i thinks i'll have the loss of shadow detail issue resolved. once i fix my color matching issues, i'll have one very capable scanning machine.

scott

[Ellis Vener]

What monitor are you using? How is it profiled and calibrated?

[Scott Rosenberg]

ellis...

i'm using a Sony HMD-HX93 monitor. i calibrated it using the gamma wizzard that comes with photoshop, for what that's worth. i know it's not perfect, but i then fine tuned it using a few digital files and their resultant prints from a local lab here. they made me small lightjet prints and save the file that they printed from. looking at the digital file on my screen and the lighjet prints, i got the monitor to closely match the prints. i don't know if this is the right way to do such things, and maybe this is the root of all of the issues i'm having.

scott

[Scott Rosenberg]

ellis... just to correct my previous response, i'm actually using a Sony SDM-HX93 display.

[Kirk Gittings]

Scott,

Well, I hooked up the newest replacement 9950F scanner that they sent me and it had a similar streaking problem as the previous ones. At which point I called support, got the same old tired answers and a refusal to refund my money and an offer to send me another scanner so I went ballistic of course which of course got me knowhere.

Why should I spend more of my time trying to fix their problem? This is 4 scanners I have seen this problem on since I bought the first one 11/29/04. This is a design or manufacturing problem.

Scott in reference to your problem, the Canon software gives a pretty odd looking histogram with Autotone, though on my scans of 120 color negs for commercial clients the autotone worked well enough. For high quality work though I would scan with autotone off and set the clip points of the histogram in Photoshop as I descibed above.

[Scott Rosenberg]

kirk... i'm sorry to hear that you're having such difficulties with the scanner and cannon customer service. i apprecialte all the tips and sincerly hope you get a unit that works!

this is probably a really stupid question, but the photo-i guy resolved the problem you are having by calibrating the scanner with each scan. i'm sure your already knew that, but on the outside chance you didn't, i thought i'd throw it out there.

thanks again,
scott

[Scott McC]

I'm just wondering Kirk. Are you using Vuescan with the 9950. I read a review of this scanner where the operator noticed white streaks in the scans when using Vuescan and came to the conclusion that it was the program and not the hardware causing the problem. I hope this is the case. I am interested in this scanner also and if it's Vuescan causing the problem, they will probably get it solved shortly.

[Kirk Gittings]

No, I was using the native Canoscan software. I think the problem is with the scanner not the software. By the way after 3 replacements I finally got a refund.

In all honesty I had a similar problem with my first Epson 4870 both with both Epsonscan and with Silverfast, but the replacemnt was perfect with either software and I have used it ever since. A great scanner just a bit slow and with a smallish scan area.

[Wayne Cornell]

Received the 9950F for Christmas. Setup took a little while as with all USB connections somer ports eem to work better than others. Now it is working flawlessly. I have scanned more than 100 color negatives and slides and the results have been outstanding. The software handles dust and scratches well and color rendition is super. One observation -- I turned off unsharp mask in the scanning software and use Photoshop.

When you compare the price of this unit to what you would pay for a dedicated film scanner with this resolution and software, the Canon is a no-brainer IMHO -- and I work in graphic arts every day. Yes, there are scanners out there that probably are better -- if you are willing to spend three times the money or more.

[Kirk Gittings]

I can't speak for how this scanner works with 35mm slides or negs, but with 6x9 color trans and negs as well as 4x5 b&w negs, it has subtle streaking problems that show up in clear sky areas along the direction of the scan. They replaced mine three times and all had it. The second one they sent me was much worse. I bought one for my son at the same time and it had the problem also. So I have tested 4 of these from 3 different sources (different assembly times possibly?). He kept his because his quality requirements are much less than mine as he is an IT professional.

The Digital Ice dust supression in the 4870 is slower than the dust supression software in the 9950F, but the DI is superior in the 4870. I had similar problems with my first 4870 also but the replacement has been perfect (6 months and maybe 900 scans). While the scanning software and user interface is better in the 9950F, the Epson 4870 is a higher quality scanner for medium and large format and right now they are selling for under $500.00.

[Craig Schroeder]

I got mine about the same time as Kirk and assume it was one of the initital production runs. I don't have the streaking problem but have struggled to get things as sharp as I expect they should be. I have been so distracted with other projects that I haven't had the time to really get at sorting this completely but just last evening I scanned some snaps from family Christmas activities. I was stunned at the nice prints I got from some 35mm (cropped, besides!) FP4+ in Ryuji's DS-10. I have seen, in general, that the prints seem better than my preview work would suggest. I've decided to keep the 9950F as it is quite good at general platen scanning and will be sufficient for the transparency scanning that I will expect from it.

I feel that it seems to not meet expectations when I'm pressing it at its resolution and bit depth limits. I get artifacts, an overall black speckle pattern and other anamolies at 4800 that don't seem to be a problem at 1200 and 2400. I've also learned to scan b&w in color negative mode with better results than straight grayscale.

[Wayne Cornell]

On virtually any scanner I've used, including some very high end equipment you get a better tonal range by scanning B&W in color rather than grayscale, then converting to grayscale. I haven't had a chance to scan anything larger than 35 mm yet but will be checking out those formats in the near future (almost all black and white).

[Gyuri Godja]

Hi All,

I'm new to this forum as well as to digital stuff, so sorry for stupid questions (and also for my poor english).
Does anybody also have bad experience with the 9950F using medium format? A mostly shoot 6x6 with my Yashica Mat and after reading Mr. Kirk Gittins' comments I cancelled my order this morning.

Has anybody read this?
http://www.photographyblog.com/index.php/weblog/comments/photo_i_abandons_canon_canoscan_9950f_review/ (http://www.photographyblog.com/index.php/weblog/comments/photo_i_abandons_canon_canoscan_9950f_review/)

I couldn't figure out what those "teething problems" are but it sounds officialy admitted bug.

[Wayne Cornell]

I believe that reviewer later changed his mind and completed a fairly favorable review. He apparently had driver problems that were finally resolved and made it possible for him to finish the review. (The first thing I did was download a later driver version from the Canon site).

Although I haven't scanned any medium fortmat yet (I plan to give it a try this weekend) The only problem I have had was with my initial USB connection. Scanner kept locking up. Moved it to a different USB port -- the same one I had been using for my Pacific Image film scanner -- and haven't had a lockup since. I may try it with a firewire connction but I don't have the proper cable right now (it requires a 6-pin connector on both ends of the cable).

Something one needs to remember is that although the Canon 9950f is more expensive that a lot of entry level flatbed scanners -- it's relatively cheap compared to say, a Nikon Coolscan IV or V. Obviously, when you try to be all things to all people (flatbed and film) there are some tradeoffs. But for the price I don't believe it's fair to compare the quality of the scans to what you would get from a dedicated film scanner costing at least twice as much -- if not more. And the price goes even higher if you want a dedicated scanner that will handle larger formats.
I haven't had a chance to really wring out the scanner yet but given the results obtained from 35mm color slides and film, I am more than satisified with the bang I received for the buck.

[Wayne Cornell]

Here's the link to the completed Photo i review


http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Scanners/Canon_9950F/page_1.htm (http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Scanners/Canon_9950F/page_1.htm)

[Gyuri Godja]

Thank you for the answer, Wayne. I'm looking forward to hearing about your medium format results.
Well, I'm completely confused now about this 9950f issue since opinions are so different. I think I will wait for a while with the purchase, maybe I will wait for tests of the new Epson.

[Wayne Cornell]

New models of anything computer-related almost always have teething problems But it has been my experience that most of the problems are software related and get sorted out pretty quick. Usually, it's possible to get around initial problems if you have some scanner knowledge and can manually tweak the settings. If you don't have the background it's a good idea to wait awhile until the major bugs are identified and squashed.

[Gyuri Godja]

Thanks. I have no serious scanner knowledge, that's why i decided to wait and see others' opinion.

[Kirk Gittings]

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.

[Wayne Cornell]

Last night I scanned my first 120 black and white--some negatives from the 1970s -- 2 1/4 x 2 1/4 and film from a Mamiya M645. Did all the scanning at 2400 dpi. By my standards, at least, the results from the 9950F were outstanding.

I had scratch and dust removal set on mendium and it really cleaned up the old negatives. I had unsharp mask turned off and handled that later in Photoshop. The scans came in a little dark for my taste but not so much so that shadows blocked up. Was easily corrected in Photoshop. I did notice that I had to go back after each group of scans and reset output to grayscale because it kept resetting to color. There may be a place to change that in preferences but no big deal.

I got some slight Newton's Rings on on a 2 1/4 x 2 1/4 neg that was sagging a little in the holder. Corrected it by sliding the black masking strip that comes with the holder underneath the film right up to the edge of that particular negative to eliminate the sag. Was scanning with emulsion side up and shiney side down Also tried flipping the neg and scanning with emulsion side down and Newton Rings disappeared.

On one outdoor shot there were some dark and light streaks very noticible in the sky but closer examination of the neg revealed the imperfections were in the negative (too much agitation during development, I suspect).

I've never used the Epson so I can't compare it to the 9950F, but so far I am more than pleased with the bang I'm getting for the price.

[Kirk Gittings]

Unfortunately the streaks I got were definitely in the scan and not in the film. If you rotated the negative the streaks stayed along the direction of the scan. Also each one of the scanners had streaks in different places from the same test negative.

Understand that I used this scanner for awhile and none of my clients ever noticed this problem, but my clients standards are much lower than my own. They are mainly architects and magazines. I have been able to get what I wanted from the Epson 4870, though it is slower and with a smaller useable field.

[Gyuri Godja]

This Newton ring issue is interesting. Can it be because the 120 film holder is too long? I noitced that the Canon applies film holder for two longer strip while the Epson (both 4870 and 4990) three shorter. Might it affect film bulge too?

[Wayne Cornell]

One problem encountered last night: I decided to scan some old 2 1/4 x 3 3/4 sheet film--which turned out to be a little too narrow for the adjustable film holder. The sheet film is thick enough it supported itself without support on one long edge, but I had to mask the gap so exposure would be correct on the prescan. No further Newton problems. I just scan the larger film with shiney side up -- then flop the image back to the proper orientation with the scanning software.

I did notice (somebody may have already pointed this out) that dust and scratch removal is only available in color mode--but not in grayscale.

[Andrew Houliston]

Am looking at buying the Canon 9950F but am concerned that, looking at the documentation, the firewire connection is only supported on the Mac and not the PC. Can anyone confirm this one way or another.

Also is the Epson 4990 worth waiting for? Although the press release says it is 40% faster than the 4870 the specs seem much the same (including the quoted scan times!) and so I expect no improved scanning performance. According to the review at www.photo-i.co.uk the 9950F pips the 4870 at the post.

[Wayne Cornell]

Firewire only works on the Mac, apparently. Tried to install it as firewire on my pc and discovered there are no drivers (it is mentioned in the instruction). Sent a message to Canon asking if any PC drivers are anticipated. Haven't got a reply. USB 2.0 works fine.

[Andrew Houliston]

Thanks Wayne.

Did my homework and as you say USB 2.0 should be fine - actually faster bitrate than Firewire but evidently slower on sustained data transfer such as from portable hard-disks but should be comparable on the scanner.

Does anyone have any news of tests on the new Epson 4990. Currently holding off purchasing the Canoscan 9950F subject to hearing if the Epson 4990 is much improved over the 4870.

[Ruud Jongeling]

This is a review I found. It's French so you might need Babelfish and beware of the size of the scans its linked to.
http://forum.hardware.fr/hardwarefr/HardwarePeripheriques/epson-perfection-4990-sujet-12090-1.htm (http://forum.hardware.fr/hardwarefr/HardwarePeripheriques/epson-perfection-4990-sujet-12090-1.htm)

[Andrew Houliston]

In trying to see what extra the Epson 4990 offers over the 4870 the spec sheet is pretty useless - the quoted scan time for colour 35mm is identical although they claim 40% faster scans in the press release.

You can download the 4990 brochure and HTML user guide from:
http://www.epson.co.uk/products/scanners/Perfection4990Photo.htm (http://www.epson.co.uk/products/scanners/Perfection4990Photo.htm)

I have the brochure and guide for the 4870 in softcopy if anyone is interested just e-mail me directly and I should be able to e-mail (guide is just under 2MB).

One difference I have noticed is that the Digital ICE setting has Standard or High on 4990 whereas the 4870 had no choice.

The wait for reviews is really painful!

[Kirk Gittings]

The only thing that may be a true upgrade is the increased D-Max to 4.0. Is that a significant difference? I believe it is if it is real.

[Kirk Gittings]

This guy did a test (unfortunately in German) comparing the 4870 and 4990 and Nikon 8000 on 6x9 trans. My German sucks but it appears to show a slight improvement in the 4990 still not up to the level of a dedicated film scanner like the Nikon, but of course the Nikon will not do 4x5 and costs over twice as much.


http://www.franzhuempfner.de/tests/contents2.html (http://www.franzhuempfner.de/tests/contents2.html)

[Arne Croell]

Kirk, the German text with respect to the 4870/4990 comparison states that he found more detail in shadow areas, but only a minor/insignificant ("geringfügig") improvement of sharpness. He also states that the scan speed IS faster, and that the area for transparency scans has been enlarged to "A4". The latter might be important for people wanting to scan 8x10.

[Wayne Cornell]

Here are a few more impressions of the Canon 9950f scanner:

I have scanned sever hundred color and black and white negatives, as well as slides ranging from 35mm to 2 ¼ . Since installation I have had no problems with hanging or locking up, although initially I had problems when my computer was overclocked from 1.8 to 2.2 gigahertz. This was during installation and when I dropped down to normal there were no problems. Now that it is running correctly I plan to jack the processor speed back up and see if things work correctly.

I have a great many 35mm black and white negatives and the scanner handles them flawlessly (3200 dpi). It also hae no problems with 2 ¼ except some very high contrast, grainy examples for the 1920s and ‘30s. I was even able to get usable images from them (better than the original print) by tweaking the exposure setting on the scanning software. I san most 2 1/4 at 2400 or 2800 dpi. On black and white negs I scan with monochrome negative input and output to Photoshop as color, then change back to black and white. This seems to hold more shadow detail.

Well exposed modern color negs scan with no adjustment. I have noticed the software has some problems with color neg emulsions from the ‘60s and ‘70s, bringing them in with some background casts (orange or green) but that was easily corrected in photoshop.

Properly exposed slides of all ages and emulsions are handled well. The dust and scratch feature works fairly for all but major defects. I turn the scan software unsharp mask off and handle that in Photoshop where I have more control. I seldom use the grain reduction feature.

I have not gone over the scans with a magnifier but I work in graphic arts on a daily basis and know the material from the 9950f is comparable to anything we do with more expensive in-house equipment or photos we receive from clients. If you wanted to blow a 35mm up to poster size there might be a slightly noticeable difference between scans from the Canon and dedicated film scanners. But by the time it goes through the printing process (normally 300 dpi) only a graphic arts professional would be able to see the difference. Maybe problems experienced by others came from having an earlier model. I am using the scan software available from the Canon site rather than what comes on the installation disk.

It is nice to be able to select and mark several slides or negs, then go do something else while the scanner does its work.

I have not used the Epson scanners in the same class except for the 1640XL and the Canon produces superior results to that machine (which has a lower scan dpi).

Given the price I paid for the Canon -- $60 under list – I couldn’t be more pleased – especially when a dedicated film scanner that will handle up to 4x5 would be well over $1,000.