CanoScan 9000F vs. CanoScan FS 4000US

[roger_smith4]

<p>Looking at both at 4000dpi, the Canon FS4000US is showing you texture in the surface of the bricks that isn't there in the 9000F scan at any resolution. There's a pretty big difference between the two, which would be more obvious using a subject that had more detail to begin with (like a field or trees with leaves.) I've looked at a lot of slide scans and have never seen a FS4000US scan that didn't have more detail or at least film grain at a 100% crop at 4000dpi.</p>

<p>I own the FS4000US and the Nikon Coolscan 5000. The Nikon has a modest edge in resolution, but much less shadow noise when scanning slides, faster times, better Dmax, and better color accuracy. You can get great scans from the Canon but it takes some post-processing and work-arounds. It struggles with contrasty slides.</p>

<p>I recommend IR cleaning on for color negs and non-Kodachrome slides. It has negligible impact on image quality and saves a lot of time.</p>

<p>I put some thoughts on noise with the Canon here:<br>

http://jingai.com/scanningguide/slide%20noise%20reduction.html<br>

Vuescan may well behave differently now- I haven't scanned anything in a few years.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I do occasionally use the IR in VueScan for non-Kodachrome, but if you really clean well before scanning (which I really didn't bother much with here), I still feel manually "spotting" (as it was called in film days) is better.</p>

[marc_bergman1]

<p>JDM,</p>

<p>Thanks for doing this test. I know these can be tedious.</p>

<p>I think Roger brings up a good point. </p>

<p>Seeing actual texture in your scans with the FS4000 is what some other tests miss. I have seen other tests that appear closer in results but that is only from testing very high contrast scenes. They show detail in say a suspension bridge against a light background. Your scene shows a medium to low contrast image where detail can get lost with the flatbed scanner.</p>

<p>I have a Nikon Coolscan V and an Epson 4490 flatbed. I will look for some slides to scan and post them tomorrow.</p>

[joel_tunnah]

<p>That "1700ppi" claim was debunked by an optical engineer online, I can't seem to find the link at the moment... but Canon's own documentation and website claim the stated ppi is optical, not software created. I guess they could be lying by omission.<br>

For me, the end result is what's important, and maybe I have low expectations, but I seem to get great prints (8.5x11) and onscreen images from my 35mm film scans using the 9000F. I uploaded an example (with the white statue) to my portfolio. This was scanned to TIFF using the 9000F at 2400dpi, then sharpened in Aperture (Intensity 0.5, Radius 2.0), and exported as a jpeg. No other changes. How much sharper does it need to be? I don't print walls.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I agree, Joel.</p>

<p>For archive purposes, I think it's still worthwhile to use the FS4000, but I have only the 9000F for larger negatives, and frankly, it's still pretty good even for the smaller formats. Doing strange formats (24x24mm, stereo pairs, etc.) is much easier on the 9000F, as a rule.</p>

[alan_rockwood]

<p>JDM, I scanned a few kodachrome slides with my canon FS4000US using Vuescan and infrared spot cleaning, and it worked.</p>