New Canon 9900F flatbed

[abufletcher]

Can someone explain why flatbed scanners are supposed to be so

inferior to dedicated film scanners? I've just been looking at the

new Canon 9900F flatbed scanner and with 3200dpi, USB 2.0 + Firewire,

and the ability to scan up to 24 slides at a time, it looks VERY VERY

attractive.

 

I've also been looking at film scanners (and have read posts here

about them) and I'd be comparing this flatbed with the Minolta Scan

Elite II, the Nikon Coolscan IV, and the Canon 4000FS. BTW, the

Coolscan is currently the cheapest of the three in the local shops

here in Japan.

 

Anyway, I don't plan to be making enormous prints -- probably never

larger than 11x14. For what I do, I don't see any point whatsoever

in waiting to see Minolta's rumored 5000+ dpi scanner.

 

Anyway, are there any obvious optical reasons that a flatbed -- no

matter how good -- just can't stand up to a film scanner?

[abufletcher]

Forgot to add that it also has what Canon is now calling FARE Level 2.

[costas_lymbouris]

For an unbiased view on the capabilities of this scanner have a look at photo-i. http://www.photo-i.co.uk/index.html

 

The Canon 9900F review is here

 

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Scanners/Canon%209900F/page_1.htm

 

To summarise the review, in general the Canon 9900F is an excellent scanner that would benefit from some improved software. For 35mm film scans, the quality is less than that which could be obtained from a dedicated film scanner but as you point out there is the possibility of scanning 24 negatives at a time.

 

As with all things in life, pros and cons; decide by what capabilities are the most important to you.

[abufletcher]

Thanks for the heads-up on this review. Sadly there really are no free lunches -- and no perfect scanners.

[upscan]

Donald: Thus far your question has not been answered. Pete Andrews in the Large Format Forum did answer that question and as I recall that has something to do with the properties of the photosensitive elements used. As for the Photo-i review I saw it. It gave the Epson 3200 the best marks but I have questions regarding some of its conclusions. The Epson 3200 showed less contrast than the Canon 9900, and high contrast is one of the criteria by which optical systems are judged. Thus I have some hesitations about the Photo-i evaluation except for their software evaluation which gives the Epson the advantage and I have no reason to doubt. As for 35 mm film scanners I think you will do best with the Canon 4000SF which is a great scanner comparable with (or better than) the top of the line Nikon which is almost 2X as expensive. If 35mm is all you need the scanner for I'd go with the 4000SF.

[erik]

hmm. the film scanners you listed are twice the proce of the Canon 9900f; is your

range that wide?

 

I read taht review a couple of times. the only worry I have is that of all the things

where subjectivity comes into play, software analysis seems about the worst. So I'm

not sure that it would keep me from buying the unit. to be hones, i'd LOVE to buy

it--but my wife won't let me :)

 

Personally, if you're scanning pictures slides and negs, I'd take the 9900 and FARE

2.0--good dust reduction that'll even do Kodachrome film--over the better Epson

software any day. But neither can touch a film scanner. Why? Size, basically, and

transport issues, and cost--if you have $500 to buy a new portrait lens, you'll get a

better lens in 35mm than in MF. When you optimize design for a small area you can

get higher accuracy in both resoluton and color fidelity than when you have to try to

apply it to a larger area. you can design your lenses differently. You can use smaller

gearing in your transport. And so on.

 

Of course, Murphy's law applies: If you get a flatbed, you'll immediately get requests

for above-3200-dpi scans to make into posters, or you'll immediately realize that all

your archived slides have a crazy high DMAX and the flatbed won't do it. OTOH if you

get a film scanner, you'll immediately start wanting to scan prints, documents, and

medium format.

[martin_nikolo]

Canon did not post its dynamic range number. You think it is better than the 3.4 of Epson 3200? Why would they hide it?

[erik]

Hmm, i'm trying desperately to recall the link.... drat. Anyway, I'm pretty sure

(others, please help me on this?) taht the 3.4 DMAX claimed by Epson is actually a

theoretical DMAX, established simply by the x-bit scanning.

 

Hmm. never mind. I think I remembered taht the theoretical DMAX is log(2^(bit

depth)) which for a 48 bit machine (16 bits per channel) is 4.8. So if you ever see a

4.8 claimed dmax for a 48 bit baby you KNOW it's a lie in reality.

 

The 3.4 DMAX is about what you theoretically get for a 12 bit machine. I'm not sure

of the Epson bit depth but that may answer your question.

 

Erik

[akajohndoe]

I think I'm going to buy a 9900F tomorrow. I looked at the Epson 3200, but believe I like the Canon Better. I have a good dedicated 35mm film scanner, but need a MF 6x7 scanner and don't want to buy another expensive dedicated film scanner.

 

Any comments?