kai_griffin Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 Just found this on CNET:<p><a href="http://reviews.cnet.com/Canon_CanoScan_9950F/4505-3136_7-31127727-2.html?tag=top">Canon 9950F review</a><p>Let's hope Vincent has better things to say about it when he gets to do his detailed review! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilfred_van_der_vegte1 Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 I'm also interested in this scanner, especially now that Ed Hamrick has announced VueScan support for the 9900F and 9950F. I hope that Vincent will test the 9950F with VueScan as well, because it seems the Canon software is the decisive factor in all the negative reviews I read on these scanners so far. Yet, the effective resolution of the 9900 is already said to be higher than that of the Epson 4870 (2400 dpi based on ISO testing, against 1400-1700 for the Epson). That's what makes them interesting for me, plus the attractive pricing, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack paradise Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 You say "Very Mediocre" and the review says "Fair at 6.8/10" That's not the same thing. The review faults the scanner for its contrast. Newbies want contrast right out of the box. I don't. I prefer a scan that is soft as to contrast, that preserves both highlights and shadows. I will make the decision as to contrast and don't want the scanning software to do it for me. Once data has been lost, expecially in the highlights, it cannot be recovered. About film scans, the reviews states that the scanner is on a par with other scanners tested recently, soft but good for refrigerator prints. I do not know which scanner they're comparing to, but if it's the Epson 4870 or even the Epson 3200, then the reviewer needs to take a second look. What films were used? If it's 35mm then I would agree but then a flatbed is a medium format and lf film scanner, not a 35mm film scanner. That's what dedicated 35mm film scanners are for. There are just to many unknowns with this review, and therefore, is of no use to me. I'll have to wait for Vincent Oliver's review. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kai_griffin Posted October 25, 2004 Author Share Posted October 25, 2004 Jack, I agree with your sentiments, and think Vincent will do a better job of analysing this scanner than CNET can. OK, I'm very picky, and to me "Fair" equates to "Mediocre" -- especially if Canon are claiming this scanner to be a replacement for their dedicated FS4000 film scanner. It's got to rate better than "Fair" to achieve that goal. Still, like you, I'm not convinced that CNET know what they're talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danny_wong2 Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 This is what happens when computer guys review photo equipment Let wait for the judgement from our peers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kai_griffin Posted October 25, 2004 Author Share Posted October 25, 2004 I just had a look at CNET's Epson 4870 review, and the same guy reviewed it and more or less rubbished its film scanning capability, too. I feel a lot better: clearly this guy isn't remotely qualified to be reviewing these scanners, since the 4870 is already established as a good film scanner, particularly for MF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattb1 Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 It's too bad canon abandoned film scanners for a flatbed. If they could make one like Microteck it might not be so bad. IMHO, it has NOT been established that any of the Epson's are "Good" film scanners. I just took a look at the 4870 review and it looks accurate to me. Good for web work and small prints, any thing more and its success will depend greatly on the expectations of the user and the subject matter. IMHO, not what I want to use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gundars_kulups Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 Wilfred, where did you hear about Hamrick supporting Canoscan scanner? Any new about 8000F?<br>Regards,<br>Gundars Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chip l. Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 I doubt that Canon would give up on film scanners, unless they thought the 9950 would be up to the challenge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmatt Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 The scanner arrived earlier today and I have been scanning a bit so far ... nothing really conclusive (nor I am experienced) but it looks really good to me ... I have a Nikon Coolscan III and the results are much better on the CanoScan 9950F ... You can check my ongoing review of it <a href="http://pokies.typepad.com/virtual_possum/">on my blog</a>, hope this will help ... please post comments if you want some additional information Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmatt Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 BTW, the support for 9950F to VueScan was added in 8.1.5, more information on the <a href="http://www.hamrick.com/vuescan/vuescan.htm#changes">ChangeLog</a> from Hamrick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suchismit1 Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 ..Or just that Canon didn't want to pay them as much for the review as they asked, if anything at all. Remember a major source of revenue for these sites is "review fees". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now