Canon scanner 9900F vs. Epson 3200

Looking at some of the evaluations in http://www.photo-i.co.uk/

the optics of the Canon scanner in some of the test scans appeared

sharper than Epson's and even the Imacon. This scanner is said to

have excellent optics although the evaluations rate the Epson very

slightly better mainly because of the software. However I feel that

since the hardware is the more permanent component I'd rather get the

best optics and wait for better software to come along as it usually

does. I am wrong?

 

One problem with these scanners seems to be blocked highlights. Can

this not be dealt with in the software settings?

 

The film carriers for either scanner seem to load the 4X5 film off

centre. Has anyone made their own carrier so that the film will

occupy the centre position?

 

Has anyone purchased the Canon scanner who could provide user's

information as to its performance and quality? Are there any reasons

why I should not go for the Canon scanner rather than the Epson 3200

Pro?

Many thanks.

I believe that in that review they comment that the Canon only appears sharper because it produces more contrast.

Ditto what Carl said.

 

And even if it's slightly sharper, even the finest hardware in the world is of no use without software. Better software might come along the way or it might not, my crystal ball is a bit dim now you see :)

This is a flatbed scanner. It is not as sharp as a dedicated filmscanner. I have runed a test compering it with my Nikon 8000ED.

 

I wouldn't expect the Canonscanner to be any better that the Epson.

http://www.fotoimport.no/image3.jpg

Julio,

 

When you say that the scanners block highlights, are you talking about slides or negative film? With negative film, because of the much lower dynamic range, you seldom have such problems when scanning. As far as I know it was not ordained on high that photographers must always use slide film.

 

Dag,

 

Your comparison shows that the Nikon 8000ED shows more detail than the Epson 3200. But without knowing the degree of magnification, it is hard to judge how significant the difference is. What size film did you scan, and how much magnification of the image is involved in what you show?

Both scans where done at the maximum optical resolution. Epson 3200dpi, and Nikon 4000dpi. I also tried to print out copies on my Epson 2100 in size 24x30cm (10x14"). The differense is very easy to spot on a print in that size. The original negativ is a sharp Kodak Tri-X 135 format.

DAG: Did you scan a mounted slide or strip film? With film strips the neg can locate outside the sweet spot. For me the Nikon is not an option as it does not handle 4X5 but your comparisons are useful, thanks.

With the first test I had used USM as good as possible with both scans. I am now enclosing a test (from a 4x5" negativ) where no USM is applied. The Nikon scan is rescaled from 4000dpi to 3200.

Dag, I still don't understand. First how did you use the Nikon 8000ED to scan a 4 x 5 negative? Second, what are the actual pixel dimensions of the region you showed us with everything scanned at 3200 ppi? They are certainly not the full frame. The Epson scanners may not be world beaters, but the left hand side of your latest example looks very bad compared to my scans of 4 x 5 with an Epson 2450 at 2400 ppi. I would have to magnify so my image size was about 100 pixels or less across for my scans to look like that.

 

I ask this question because it is relevant to how important the difference is. Even if I used no sharpening whatsoever, I would have to magnify my 4 x 5 scans to enormous dimensions before I saw anything but subtle losses of detail, certainly nothing like your example. I would have to be entering the domain where pixelization was beginning to be an issue. See for example, my scans of 6 x 7 at

 

math.northwestern.edu/~len/photos/pages/e2450.html

First, to scan a 4x5" negative in a Nikon 8000ED you have to cut it down to panoramic format (6x12cm). Thats what I did (just for the test).

 

Second, the scans I show is a smal part of the original scan (100% in PS, rihght?). Im not saying that the Epson scan is bad. I made a 20x24" print with my Epdson 9600 of the 4x5" negative and it was very good. But the Epson 3200 is not as sharp as the Nikon 8000ED. It is not close to show the actual grainstructure in the film.

 

My point is that you will get a sharper scan with highend scaners like the Nikon or drumscans. If you schould make a big print,like 40x60" then you would se the difference.

Thanks all for your responses. One respondent points out that the Canon 9900 scanner in the review was shown to have more contrast but that the Epson 3200 was better. Contrast happens to be one of the criteria by which optics are judged. Higher contrast is always better particularly when radial and tangential lines both have it. It seems too early to ask for a comparison of the two scanners as users of the 9900 have yet to chime in. One respondent makes a good point about software, indeed who knows if better software will ever be available for the Canon 9900 while that for the Epson is already here and working fine. If the Canon 9900 has the better optics it would be a pity if better software would not come along. Thanks again.

Canon has a VERY poor track record on software. Look at their support page for drivers and you will notice an absence of XP drivers for their older products. They seem to have a sell it and forget it policy. Too bad!

As a Canon 9900F owner, I'm currently experiencing much frustration with the ScanGear software and would advise anyone currently trying to decide which scanner to buy, to go for the Epson 3200. Epson's software is obviously superior, and there is a choice of what you can use. In the case of the Canon 9900F, the ScanGear software is still somewhat unpredictable and there is no choice. Both LasarSoft Imaging (SilverFast) and Hamrick Software (VueScan) have stated that they will not be supporting the 9900F, unless Canon release the relevant commands. So, 9900F owners are a bit trapped really! I suppose Canon are aware of the problem - they have, after-all released one ScanGear upgrade? The question is, do they care enough to go for another upgrade - or, at least, release those commands for other parties to have a go?

 

Regards

 

Dick Axbey

Finally someone who really owns a 9900F. Usually all opinions point to the same web page with comparison.

 

I would like to hear how the FARE works.

 

Despite of bad software, I think what I really need is hardware based dust removal. How well does that work? Can you use it when you want to get the best quality scans or does it interfere with quality or give artefacts.

I would scan medium format for printing and 35mm for "web-page quality".

How bad the Canon software really is?

Is there something that I can't overcome by using mostly photoshop for all adjustmens?

If anyone's still following this thread, here's my hard-fought wisdom to share. Not being able to stand the conflicting reports, I bought BOTH and tested them side by side. I'm returning the Epson. The reason? In my opinion, the Canon is a superior scanner. It's a very tough call, with Epson's advantages being better software (no question) and sturdier film clips. However, Canon's F.A.R.E. technology is amazingly simple and effective (even at the "Soft" setting, which is what I plan to use except for the most damaged negatives), and produces good results that can be tweaked in Photoshop pretty easily to correct any color/etc. that you couldn't adjust to precision in the Scangear program. The LaserSoft software that ships with Epson is cumbersome and tedious, at best. Also, I'm not sure what this was due to, but my film scans on the Epson had unacceptable color artifacts and halos on a few minor portions of the image (at 100% magnfication they were visible and at 200% they were grotesque).

 

The other pros of the Canon are that it simply feels like a more solid machine and can generate "index" prints for up to 24 negatives in a snap. That means you can make a contact sheet in seconds. I haven't found a way to do that with Epson, which only could hold 12 frames at a time anyway.

 

I should disclose that I already have an Acer Scanwit 2720, which scans exclusively slides and film at 2700 dpi. Comparing scans from Canon, Epson, and the Acer side-by-side shows that, despite the 3200 dpi rating of the flatbeds, they just cannot match the level of detail captured even by the low end film scanner. (Neither the Epson nor the Canon could match it for sheer detail captured). But, the Acer also shows all the dust and scratches with equal precision. So, the Canon is a nice adjunct to my already sufficient scanning capability that will allow me to get quick defect-free results with little effort (no hours of photoshopping those specks in the sky).

 

I hope this helps anyone else who is on the fence.

Esa

 

Sorry for the delay in responding.

 

I was intrigued to learn that the prime reason for choosing a particular scanner might be is it's ability to deal with dust, scratches and faded negatives etc. However, you probably have a need to be able to deal with very old image material, in one form or another. Most of my experience has been with comparatively recent material, and negatives at that, and it has only been necessary to take limited advantage of the available FARE function. However, the ability of the hardware/software to remove dust and scratch marks is excellent, with little price paid in terms of image quality. I am a little more wary of the grain reduction facility. Incidentally, USM in ScanGear for the Canon 9900F is crude, and probably better carried out post-scan, in something like Photoshop, where there is much finer control.

 

I still think that the main problem is one of colour and here the software is not very good. It really is difficult to get on top of what is happening. Scanned results, can quite often, look nothing like the preview. I would not go so far as to say the software is unstable, but it's certainly not predictable. Some results are just downright terrible. Such a pity, as the scanner is well built, has good optics and could be one answer to scanning multiple negatives. At least with the Epson 3200, if you don't like the in-house software, you can use alternatives. Hence my comment about 9900F owners being trapped at present!

 

Do have a look at Vincent Oliver's www.photo-i.co.uk . He has carried out detailed reviews of both Canon 9900F and Epson 3200 scanners. As reviews, they really are excellent. The forums on the site also make for interesting reading, for example, "Epson and Canon Scanners", in the context of what we have been discussing.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Regards

 

Dick Axbey

What if you just use 3rd party software like Vuescan (which I hear is pretty good). Does that overcome the issues of the Canon Scanner and make it superior? I just say this because everyone seems to be down on the software, but with other software is it much better?

Vuescan is not available for the Canon 9900F and probably will never be. It is already available for the very recent and new Minolta 5400 but not the Canon which predates it..

It is it available for any 3rd party application though? And if so, wouldnt that solve the software complaints everyone has?

 

-Scott

Scott: I am not sure what you mean about being available for a third party application. If by that you mean that Vuescan is available for any scanner, it is not. The scanner software must issue commands that the hardware understands and must be programmed accordingly. Vuescan recognizes is programmed to recognize many scanners but the Canon 9000 is not one of them. Other scanner software like Lasersoft's Silverfast is sold specifically for one scanner at the time. If you have two different scanners you have to buy the software twice.

If you are running a Mac and want to use the Canon 9900f through OS X then you will

need at G4 processor and if you have a powerbook the it should be at least 550MHz.

Not sure if the Epson 3200 has the same issues. I would have liked to know this info

prior to purchase.

I was in the same quandary about whether to buy the 3200 or the 9900f. At the time, I

had a very specific application, and the Canon won out because the CanoScan Toolbox

supports multi-pages scans direct to PDF. That was the deal maker for me. The Epson

did not allow that. Also, if memory serves, the Epson drivers were not yet OS X native,

but I can't be sure about that.

 

Having had the 9900f for a while, it worked about as expected for my primary

application, which was scanning multi-page documents into PDF files.

 

Recently, I've started scanning photos. The Canon driver is very basic. But I have to

say I have not experienced unpredictable results of the kind mentioned by a previous

poster. What I see in the preview is what I get in the final scan. (That was often not the

case with LinoColor-Hell software, which many consider to be very good, on my Ultra

Saphir II.)

 

I just set the preferences to the scanner's factory supplied ColorSync profile, and don't

bother to make scan-by-scan color corrections. I'm going through old family photos

and scanning them to preserve them. There is no precise color to capture accurately

and fuss over since the originals are drugstore processed snapshots. But to my eyes,

using ColorSync, the results are pretty close. I'm fully satisfied with the color capture

considering that I don't have time to tweak each scan. My issue now is volume. I need

to set it and forget it and get something reasonably close that can later be edited and

further corrected in PhotoShop.

 

Regarding sharpness, my only observation is that the scanner can resolved surface

dust on prints that I can't see just by looking. I haven't been using the dust and

scratch removal feature, and might explore it. I pretty much wanted to reserve all

options for PhotoShop, figuring that except for huge color and brightness corrections

that trash the histogram, I'm better off making changes with PS tools, not Canon

tools.

 

However, for my own photos that I would like to take more care with at the scanning

stage, the Canon software is definitely feature poor. I was surprised and disappointed

to learn that Hamrick and Lasersoft don't support the 9900f, for understandable

reasons. That makes me annoyed at Canon.

 

The other disappointment is the speed of the scanner. If speed is an issue for you, be

aware that Canon's specs are designed to be totally misleading. Canon make public

only the time it takes the preview or scan to complete ONCE THE SCAN HEAD IN IN

MOTION... which is the minority of the time. They leave out the much lengthier

calibration and pre-preview and pre-scan time where the scanner is thinking about

making a scan, which is at least three times or more the actual time required once the

device is actually making the scan. Naturally, they fail to draw that distinction in their

marketing materials.

 

Another annoying thing about Canon is they don't make TWAIN drivers for OS X,

which prevents the scanners from being used directly in Acrobat. Since buying the

9900f, I think I read that TWAIN drivers were released for the 3200, which might have

solved my primary direct to PDF requirement, and would have left me with a faster

scanner that can be used with Silverfast and VueScan.

 

On the other hand, I live and die by my LiDE 30 scanner for simple document scans.

But the timesaving features in the CanoScan Toolbox that enable one click scanning

aren't available at the higher resolutions above 300dpi. For those, you're forced to use

the actual driver, which forces you to open the scan in a user defined application

afterwards. So one might as well make the scan within PhotoShop to begin with.

Besides the ToolBox can't tell that PhotoShop CS is an application, not a folder, and

always tried to launch PhotoShop 7 in Classic Mode instead of OS X.

 

Doug

Sorry to but in again so soon, but I just read the article about the upcoming Epson

4870 on www.photo-i.co.uk. Might be of interest for people who can want until

January 2004.

The online reviews noted that Canon developed Photoshop plugins for scanner

support instead of Twain. Thr driver, ScanGear, works on any app that supports

Photoshop plugins, and also shows you an integrated panel for adjusting the

resolution, image size, and scale, and it has similar capabilities in terms of adjusting

the contrast and brightness, or adjusting the color via curves. <p>

 

If you don't have Photoshop or any app that supports its plugins, you can use

CanoScan Toolbox, a stand-alone application for speaking with scanners over OS X.

<p>

 

<i>just read the article about the upcoming Epson 4870 on www.photo-i.co.uk.

</i> <p>

 

It's here: <p>

 

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/News/Nov03/Epson4870.htm <p>

 

There's also at least one photo.net thread about it froma week ago: <p>

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006VJ6