Canon 9000F or Epson V600

Discussion in 'Medium Format' started by cathy_s, Nov 27, 2010.

  1. Looking to buy a Canon 9000F or Epson V600. I read the reviews on here but am wondering if it is critical getting a higher dpi in a scanner. If that is even necessary. I am leaning towards the Epson V600 due to all the great reviews I heard, the ICE software but Canon seems to scan a little better. These are the two models I decided on but not sure which brand to go with. Does the higher resolution really make a difference in the scans? These are mostly for pics, but do have tons of negatives and some slides. Just want a fast, good, reliable scanner to capture both old black and whites, old family photos and more recent ones too. Have photoshop, so will mostly edit with that but am open to a better editor that comes with the scanner.
    -- EPSON V600: Optical Resolution: 6400 dpi. Hardware Resolution: 6400 x 9600 dpi . Maximum Resolution: 12,800 x 12,800 dpi. -- CANON 9000F: Optical Resolution: 9600 dpi. Hardware Resolution: 9600 x 9600 dpi . Maximum Resolution: 19,200 x 19,200 dpi
    Any suggestions? Any experiences with either of these brands or models?
     
  2. Kathy: I have a V600. It pretty much maxes out at 2400dpi although some have said you can get it higher. You can get more bits but its not resolving all those bits differently. So it really stops at 2400. I'm not familiar with the Canon but I wouldn't trust Canon's specs either. Creating bits is not the same as resolving power. You didn't mention what you want to do with the scans when you're done. If its for the web, or slide shows on HDTV, you don't need that many pixels anyway. I've printed medium format to 8 1/2x11" with very good results. I think I can get reasonable 16x20 with medium format as well. I haven't printed 35mm yet. You can see scans of both 35mm and medium format in my gallery.
    I don't use the Epson editor except once in a while. It seems like learning Photoshop Elements is enough for me so I scan "flat" and do my editing in Elements.
     
  3. If you scan film at a scanner's maximum resolution you'd better have a powerful computer and lots of storage. Even so, many people do archive their film by scanning it at actual size at the highest optical resolution of the scanner -- the thought being that they can resize the file to four feet or whatever size they might want to print in the future.
    However, since most of my scanning is done for making 8.5x11 prints or publication, I usually scan film at 300 ppi at the size I need, mostly around 12". I use an Epson V700 with either the Epson or SilverFast software. Editing is done in Photoshop. I did a comparison of a 6x6 negative, one scan done at actual size at 6400 ppi, and another done at 300 ppi sized at 12". The 6400 scan resulted in a 459MB GIF file, while the 300 scan resulted in a 32MB GIF file. It also scanned much faster.
    I'm sure either scanner will work for your purposes; as Alan mentioned, don't get too wrapped up in the manufacturers' resolution claims. I'd be more concerned about how well their scanning software works with my computer's operating system.
     
  4. The real performance of the Canon 9000f is similar to that of Epson 600. 2400dpi is the maximum it can do. Everything above 2400dpi is just white noise which increases the file size enormously but doesn't do anything on scan quality. I scan my B&W 6x6 negs at 2400dpi and 16bit .tiff, sometimes 1200dpi. I read from somewhere that Canon has a native resolution of 1200 and 2400dpi and everything else is interpolated by software. Makes sense to me. Both scanners have lousy neg holders in my opinion. A betterscanning.com neg holder is much better.
     
  5. I've uploaded some samples on this thread here they are from the v500.
    http://www.photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00XjV3
    As the samples are quite large I won't post them again in this thread. If you are interested you can down load the sample from the link above.
     
  6. Cathy,
    Here are some tests on these scanners. You will note that both scanners have actual resolutions under 2000ppi.
    CanoScan 9000
    http://www.filmscanner.info/en/CanonCanoScan9000F.html
    Epson V600
    http://www.filmscanner.info/en/EpsonPerfectionV600Photo.html
    These resolution figures are fine for Internet posting. You will notice a softness if you make 8"x10" prints.
    Also note that for the optimum resolution on the Canon you have to scan at 4800ppi. For the Epson you have to scan at 3200ppi. This can give you very large files to process.
     
  7. Scanner resolution ought to be quoted in PPI (Pixels per Inch) or Line Pairs per Millimetre, and not DPI - DPI is for printers. So that gives you some idea of the technical accuracy and honesty of the resolution figures quoted by Epson et al.
    I have a Canon 9900F which absolutely wiped the floor with an equivalent Epson 4800dpi scanner doing a side-by-side comparison.
    I tested both scanners using a high resolution test plate with bar patterns going down to a 2 micron spacing. The Epson managed to barely resolve the 10 micron wide bars with very poor contrast and showing some astigmatism; giving a true optical resolution of just over 1200ppi. The Canon managed to resolve the 8 micron bars with much better contrast and no discernible astigmatism. That's a true optical resolution of about 1600ppi. I put these differences purely down to the quality of lens used in the two scanners.
    As stated previously, the actual resolution of a flatbed scanner has absolutely nothing to do with the "DPI" figures quoted by the maker. That's just how many pixels per inch are output from the CCD sensor. The real test is what level of detail can be got from the film, and you really shouldn't expect much more than 2400 ppi at most, since the cheap lenses used, coupled with the sloppy film registration simply can't resolve any more.
     
  8. Scanner resolution ought to be quoted in PPI (Pixels per Inch) or Line Pairs per Millimetre, and not DPI - DPI is for printers. So that gives you some idea of the technical accuracy and honesty of the resolution figures quoted by Epson et al.
    I have a Canon 9900F which absolutely wiped the floor with an equivalent Epson 4800dpi scanner doing a side-by-side comparison.
    I tested both scanners using a high resolution test plate with bar patterns going down to a 2 micron spacing. The Epson managed to barely resolve the 10 micron wide bars with very poor contrast and showing some astigmatism; giving a true optical resolution of just over 1200ppi. The Canon managed to resolve the 8 micron bars with much better contrast and no discernible astigmatism. That's a true optical resolution of about 1600ppi. I put these differences purely down to the quality of lens used in the two scanners.
    As stated previously, the actual resolution of a flatbed scanner has absolutely nothing to do with the "DPI" figures quoted by the maker. That's just how many pixels per inch are output from the CCD sensor. The real test is what level of detail can be got from the film, and you really shouldn't expect much more than 2400 ppi at most, since the cheap lenses used, coupled with the sloppy film registration simply can't resolve any more.
     
  9. Sorry about the duplicated post. My submission appeared to have hung in the ether long enough for me to hit "confirm" twice!
     
  10. Which one would you recommend (Canon 9000F or Epson V600) considering only b&w 120 film scanning? I look for a scanner for my b&w 120 films and want to get the best from my negs. I take into consideration buy a film holder fron BetterScanning too. Nikon 9000 it's too expensive for me.
    Thanks.
     

Share This Page