Do CIS-based flatbeds are remarkable when scanning film ?

Recently I realized that develop only and scanning film myself would let me

minimise scratched film. I'd use flatbed to get scans for proofing and

occasional 4x6 prints, few frames worth enlarging I'd get scanned on film

scanner for money.

After quick research I've found few references to canon's LiDE 500f flatbed w/

film adapter (now being replaced by 600f) and main statement is that this CIS

sensor based flatbed is doing good job. One sample found on net, though weren't

impressed after recently retouching Reala (ok, 35mm) scanned on fs4000us. That's

OK, this flatbed isn't replacing film scanner, I knew this before.

 

I'm wondering if CIS sensor is adding to scanning quality or is just useful to

help make scanner thinner, eliminate warmup time and minimise energy consumpion

? Probably I'd get same with any CCD flatbed like 4200 or similar Epson

flatbed, or CIS is making flatbed more able to scan film ? Some source mentioned

that CIS sensors are weaker than CCDs in terms of color quality. Then I don't

understand why some people refer to 500f as "first flatbed I actually used to

start digitize my film archive and didn't drop it".

 

Any experience with LiDE series ?

 

TIA,

Andrejs

I don't think there is any advantage to CIS sensors in themselves,

but according to anecdotal evidence on SourceForge's LProf mailing

list, red, green, and blue LEDs, when combined, result in a light

source that produces less metamerism than the fluorescent source

used in most scanners (such as EPSON Perfection line). My Perfection

3200 shows terrible metamerism on an IT8.7 target printed on Kodak

Endura paper, making it impossible to accurately profile the scanner

using this particular target.

Metamerism is a function of the paper and pigment, not the scanner. It has little to do with printer profiles and nothing to do with scanner profiles. It's inevitable with glossy papers and most inks/pigments prior to Epson's current 2400 printer, though it vanishes entirely with many of those earlier printers and either MIS B&W pigments or Epson's color pigments, and most decent quality matte papers. Using Kodak's paper, one is asking for trouble. If one must use glossy, Moab Kokopelli or Costco's cheap Kirkland are credible.

 

The 3200 scanner (which I use along with Nikon V) can lead to beautiful, very sharp prints in B&W and color from medium format (though it's unsharp with 35mm).

yeah, that's rather light source, not sensor itself, what reviewers are raving about. LEDs instead of lamp.

<p><i>Metamerism is a function of the paper and pigment, not the

scanner.</i></p>

 

<p>That's what most people came to think after their experiences

with early EPSON pigment inks. But this is not correct. Metamerism

is

absolutely a function of light source as well as the reflecting

surface. Read <a

href="http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_id=1912&max_rows=25&style=nested&viewmonth=200506">this

thread</a>, and in particular the post by Hal Engel, maintainer of

LPRof, where he says: "<i>The Canon LIDe 20 (and some other

scanners) use three light emitting diodes (one each red, green and

blue) that results in a light spectrum that is very close to sun

light. This minimizes the affects of metamerism. I have never been

able to get good results using a scanner with a florescent lamp with

the inks that I use.</i>"</p>

 

<p><i>It has little to do with printer profiles and nothing to do

with

scanner profiles.</i></p>

 

<p>That's what most people's experiences happened to be, but if your

calibration target metamerises, then the resulting profile will be

correct only for the target itself, and perhaps for a similar

ink/paper combination as well.</p>

 

<p><i>It's inevitable with glossy papers and most inks/pigments

prior

to Epson's current 2400 printer, though it vanishes entirely with

many of those earlier printers and either MIS B&W pigments or

Epson's color pigments, and most decent quality matte

papers.</i></p>

 

<p>No one was talking about Epson printers.</p>

 

<p><i>Using Kodak's paper, one is asking for trouble.</i></p>

 

<p>But some of IT8.7 calibration targets from Wolf Faust are printed

on it.</p>

 

<p><i>The 3200 scanner (which I use along with Nikon V) can lead to

beautiful, very sharp prints in B&W and color from medium format

(though it's unsharp with 35mm).</i></p>

 

<p>Sure, but like most other Epson scanners it uses a fluorescent

light source that does not always lead to colorimetric results.</p>

found page on CIS vs CCD comparison. It's strange how LiDE has become good at scanning, as said by some people.

 

http://www.compareindia.com/tips/All_you_need_to_know_about_scanners.htm#flatbed

<a href="http://eugenescherba.com/files/metamer.jpg" />Here is an

illustration</a> of how terrible the problem of metamerism is with

all recent EPSON scanners. Notice that it is the calibration chart

itself that exhibits metamerism! When it's the calibration target

itself that

metamerizes, what hope can one have in ever calibrating the scanner

correctly?

<p><i>When it's the calibration target itself that metamerizes, what

hope can one have in ever calibrating the scanner correctly?</i></p>

 

<p>I have since acquired a ColorChecker SG, and do not notice any

significant metamerism with this chart. The scanner profiles I am

getting with this new chart seem to be much more accurate for most

objects as viewed under D50 illumination.</p>

Hi, does anyone know if the dynamic range is comparable or ?

 

 

 

 

thanks

 

 

F.P.

Andrejs-

 

 

I purchased both a Canon 8600f (CCD) and a 600f (LED). The 8600f scans were acceptable (35mm Reala) after much sharpening and some color adjstment. The 600f scans were perfect with no need for sharpening plus much better detail and color fidelity as well.

 

 

The results were similar to a dedicated film scanner - however it only scans 35mm one strip at a time and the scanner must be laid flat and an attachment hooked up. Stores away nicely when done though. I returned the 8600f. Does a better job with prints as well.

 

 

Sorry no comparison photos to show, I acciently trashed them.

 

 

 

F.P.

F.P. - thanks for replaying, this is interesting information. Worth considering. If you have some scans from your lide 600f, please share to see.

Here are a couple of pictures scanned with Canon LIDE 600F. I'm still figuring out how to use it since i have bought it yesterday evening.<br><br>

 

Pic 1: http://img61.imageshack.us/my.php?image=0004ty8.jpg<br>

Pic 2: http://img61.imageshack.us/my.php?image=0005zs1.jpg<br>

Pic 3: http://img68.imageshack.us/my.php?image=0007sq2.jpg<br><br>

 

Note: All pictures were scanned from a color negative film from a friend with default settings.