andrejs_ilicuks Posted September 5, 2006 Share Posted September 5, 2006 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugene_scherba Posted September 5, 2006 Share Posted September 5, 2006 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtk Posted September 6, 2006 Share Posted September 6, 2006 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). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrejs_ilicuks Posted September 6, 2006 Author Share Posted September 6, 2006 yeah, that's rather light source, not sensor itself, what reviewers are raving about. LEDs instead of lamp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugene_scherba Posted September 6, 2006 Share Posted September 6, 2006 <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> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrejs_ilicuks Posted September 6, 2006 Author Share Posted September 6, 2006 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugene_scherba Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 <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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugene_scherba Posted September 16, 2006 Share Posted September 16, 2006 <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> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fp_anderson Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 Hi, does anyone know if the dynamic range is comparable or ? thanks F.P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fp_anderson Posted October 1, 2006 Share Posted October 1, 2006 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrejs_ilicuks Posted October 18, 2006 Author Share Posted October 18, 2006 F.P. - thanks for replaying, this is interesting information. Worth considering. If you have some scans from your lide 600f, please share to see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alex_madden Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 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. 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