Jump to content

CanoScan 9000F vs. CanoScan FS 4000US


Recommended Posts

<p>CanoScan 9000F vs. CanoScan FS 4000US<br /><br />In a recent query about how the CanoScan 9000F flatbed film scanner compared to other scanners, the OP (Al N. at http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00b9Qj ) asked for comparisons and actual examples. I started to answer, but the answer grew into what would have been a annexation of the original post, so I decided to do a new post, instead.<br /><br />All I personally have to compare the 9000F with in terms of film scanners is my ancient CanoScan FS4000US which I operate on an equally ancient 400 Mhz PowerPC G4 (the infamous and rare Yikes! machine using a super SCSI interface and VueScan software. The speed of the scanner is fine, but the SCSI interface is rather slow. I have detailed my scanning adventures before at http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00arR1 .<br /><br /></p><div>00b9l6-509595584.jpg.6ff1f49653e9da38faa391ee0144480a.jpg</div>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>On the other hand, my CanoScan 9000F is working through USB2 on a iMac 2.7GHz Intel Core i5 machine. Somehow, not only is the 9000F faster, but everything is just peaches so far as handling the images goes.<br /><br /></p><div>00b9l7-509595684.jpg.8fb55fd8d2d0ec141f2e09e212e77cc2.jpg</div>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Here is a CanoScan 9000F scan of the same slide <strong><em>at 9600 ppi</em></strong>. Reduced to 700 max for display here, of course; but the original file is 34.2 MB and 12736 x 8640 pixels in size. The unsharp mask is <strong>on</strong> as well.<br /><br /></p><div>00b9lR-509603784.jpg.9b94fbdeca36bad7c0a405bc29c1e18d.jpg</div>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I think that I am justified in using the older dedicated (not flatbed) 4000 for my best scans. However, as you can see in the examples, the 9000F is quite good looking with the Unsharp Mask turned on, and OK for internet images like these even with the Unsharp Mask off. <br /><br />On the other hand, aside from showing the small amount of CA on a slide shot with a PC-Nikkor 35mm f/2.8 lens on Kodachrome, there is no real reason to push even Kodachrome scanning up to the 9600 ppi that is possible.<br /><br />I emphasize that nothing was done to these images except for "spotting" out a couple of dust motes. Otherwise the images are as they came out of the scanners.<br /><br />I'd personally love to see some Nikon dedicated film scanners results at 4000dpi and unmassaged. I've always heard how good they are, but I've never had the chance to try one.<br /><br /></p>

<p>That's it.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>As far as I know no flatbed scanner does better than 1700dpi, you might like to read this JDM:<br>

http://www.filmscanner.info/en/CanonCanoScan9000F.html<br>

Why don't you connect the FS4000US trough USB, at least mine can.<br>

I remember that the Canon 9000F delivered more natural colors after some warming up and calibrating, otherwise the scans get a red tint. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>My new iMac supports USB 2, but the old CanoScan FS 4000 <strong><em>scanner</em></strong> only has USB1 - that's why I went to Fast SCSI on the old machine 400MHz PowerPC tower.<br>

You could die of old age waiting on the CanoScan with a USB1 connection. I can't imagine that anyone found it usable at that speed.<br>

I have looked for SCSI>USB2 or Firewire converters, but although some were once sold, none seemed to work worth a damn - at least according to everything I could find - and even then there are no NEW ones that I could find the last time I looked. Besides, it is not inconvenient to have a separate machine behind me to chug away while I work on the iMac (my main computer) See the earlier post linked to at <a href="../casual-conversations-forum/00arR1" rel="nofollow">http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00arR1</a>.</p>

<p>Thanks for the link, but I do wonder if the 1700 limit is true. The 9000F certainly seems to produce better images than my CanonScan 4000 does at 1700 ppi.<br>

Give me a little bit, and I'll post a 1700 scan from the FS 4000 of this slide so we can see.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I have to admit, maybe the review at <a href="http://www.filmscanner.info/en/CanonCanoScan9000F.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.filmscanner.info/en/CanonCanoScan9000F.html</a> has a point.</p>

<p>In any case, it's what I have for larger negatives, and even 1700 ppi equivalent works OK for posts like these on P.net. Perhaps I can speed up things even more by now scanning to start with on the 9000F at lower resolution. :|</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Oh yes, I <strong><em>never, ever</em></strong> use FARE or noise reduction, I always turn them off as a result of bad luck with introduction of artifacts on Kodachrome. They are not used in any of the above scans on either machine with either the CanoScan software or the VueScan.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I saw it, but I was looking for other things. I'll certainly try that resolution. Thanks.</p>

<p>If you look at the results in the first pair (FS 4000 @4000) and CanoScan 9000F @4000 with unsharp on, they really aren't to far apart, however. Of course, that may just reflect the true resolution of the FS 4000, for that matter. :)</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...