Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: JB Rasor on December 06, 2014, 06:04:54 am
-
Greetings everyone. I'm in the market for a scanner to use at home, and was curious if some members could steer me in the right direction.
I shoot 35mm and 4x5, but I'd sacrifice 4x5 scans if the quality is great for 35mm. In other words, very few dedicated film scanners can do both at my price point (less than $2,000), so that'd mean going the flatbed route. However, I am very intrigued by the new Epson V850. I'm also looking at Pacific Image PF120 and the Plustek OptikFilm 8200 (a budget scanner at $380).
I know software also plays a major role in choosing a good scanner, which makes the appealing PF120 not so appealing as it uses software that's best been described as "horrible."
So I'm personally leaning toward the Epson V850 and wanted to get some feedback. I'm open to other options as well, but I'm fairly new to the world of scanning film. I read Keith Cooper's review of the V850 and it only nudged me closer to pulling the trigger, but as always I reach out for Lula guidance before traveling into foreign territory.
Thanks everyone and sorry for the long post! I hope it's helpful for others as well.
Best regards,
JB Rasor
-
Well, I have had a V750 since it was first introduced and have been totally pleased. I use it mostly for reflective work but have also done some 35mm transparencies and color negs. I can only think the 850 would be an improvement. I use Epson's own scanning software.
-
Greetings everyone. I'm in the market for a scanner to use at home, and was curious if some members could steer me in the right direction.
I shoot 35mm and 4x5, but I'd sacrifice 4x5 scans if the quality is great for 35mm. In other words, very few dedicated film scanners can do both at my price point (less than $2,000), so that'd mean going the flatbed route. However, I am very intrigued by the new Epson V850. I'm also looking at Pacific Image PF120 and the Plustek OptikFilm 8200 (a budget scanner at $380).
I know software also plays a major role in choosing a good scanner, which makes the appealing PF120 not so appealing as it uses software that's best been described as "horrible."
So I'm personally leaning toward the Epson V850 and wanted to get some feedback. I'm open to other options as well, but I'm fairly new to the world of scanning film. I read Keith Cooper's review of the V850 and it only nudged me closer to pulling the trigger, but as always I reach out for Lula guidance before traveling into foreign territory.
Thanks everyone and sorry for the long post! I hope it's helpful for others as well.
Best regards,
JB Rasor
Hi JB,
Stay tuned for a comprehensive review of the Epson V850 in comparison with other options, if you can wait not too long a while before purchasing. It will also be discussing software.
I don't know what you mean by software "described as horrible". None of the software options are "horrible". The various products do a range of similar and different things, they all drive the scanners and they all work. It's mainly a question of personal preference and how much you want from the scanning software in terms of its features and ease of use, and what you think worthwhile paying for it. There are things best done in the scanner software and things best done in post-scan image editing applications. A properly considered approach to this question is frankly an analytical one based on your needs, preferences and budget. The software products you can use to drive any of these scanners are available in demo versions, so you can do your own homework free of charge and satisfy yourself about what is best for you.
-
Hi Jb,
While pondering the possible scanner purchase, look at this link. http://www.pbase.com/tojo123/image/156930303 (http://www.pbase.com/tojo123/image/156930303)
http://www.pbase.com/tojo123/image/156930304 (http://www.pbase.com/tojo123/image/156930304)
I built this from an old Sinar P. And a hand full of negative carriers.
For med. format and 4x5, you can use a front standard shift and shoot multiple shots as in panoramic. I shoot tethered and speed times are many times faster than scans.
You may have these components just lying around.
No harm was done to the Sinar and it reconverts back to its default state.
-
Yes indeed that is an option, as discussed in considerable depth on this website (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/scannerless_digital_capture_and_processing_of_negative_film_photographs.shtml) recently. It has its set of considerations that need to be looked after, but once the hardware and software aspects of the workflow are settled, it's good. What it costs depends very much on what you happen to have "lying around" and what else you may need to make it work properly and efficiently.
-
Given your discussion, I would buy the dedicated 35 mm scanner and then a refurbished V700 from the clearance center at the Epson store for $450. Full warranty, fast shipping, quick turnaround time if there is an issue. Availability of these is highly variable but Epson had some in stock as of couple of days ago. That would be close to the price of the 850 new and the optics of the V7xx and V8xx are the same.
Doug
-
This also makes sense Doug, but buying refurbished, the OP should probably a V750 - depending on availability - because the fluid mount assembly is very useful for large format work, and on the refurbished market the price difference may not be all that important. As well, perhaps it can be added to the V700 as an accessory, not sure. Depending on productivity requirements, one major difference between the V7xx and V8xx is the lighting - CFL versus LED respectively. The CFLs take time to "warm up" before scanning, which is not the case for the LEDs.
-
JB,
You've got some good advice in this thread so far. I'll just add a little from my own experience. I have an aging Epson 4990 scanner, which predates even the V700. It has done remarkably well on 4x5" and 8x10" negatives, and sort of OK on 2 1/4 negatives, but not very well at all on 35mm.
I managed to borrow a Nikon slide scanner for several weeks a while ago, and I used it to get decent scans of my best 35mm slides and some negatives.
To digitize most of my best film work I have actually used the Epson 4990 to scan my best darkroom prints, sometimes in sections, stitching them in Photoshop. This way I have been able to produce digital prints that match or even exceed the quality of my best darkroom prints.
For the Epson scanner I use Silverfast, which is excellent once you learn its peculiarities (that's also true of LightRoom and PhotoShop, by the way). Since I didn't have Silverfast for the Nikon scanner, I used Vuescan, which is also very good (and has its own peculiarities)
If I were in your shoes, I would go for a 35mm film scanner and a refurbished V750.
-
Very good thoughts everyone! I was a little surprised that the V850 didn't get more votes (that could just be my reading into things). I am a little spoiled as I have used the Flextight X1 at my school for the last year, but that isn't an option anymore.
Is there a particular dedicated 35mm film scanner anyone has used or would recommend? The options are somewhat slim and the reviews are a little mixed. There is the Plustek 120 and the Pacific Image PF120. The Plustek 120 looks good, although no 4x5 option there (not a huge deal).
I don't really understand scanner tech enough to make an intuitive judgement as to what makes a $1300 Plustek 120 a better scanning option for 35mm than a flatbed Epson V850. I'm assuming the way the lens reads the negative, i.e. keeping it flat and maintaining consistent distance would be the major differences?
Anyway thanks again for the guidance guys!
I should add that a catalyst for me, it's been on my list for a while, in getting a good scanning system set up was Mark's recent article.
JB
-
JB, the Epson V850 has just been released. Not enough people have used it yet to hear lots about it, but as I said above - stay tuned.
The Plustek OF120 isn't 1300 - it's normally 2000 and B&H is now running a special at 1800. You can find commentary on it over at Scandig (http://www.scandig.com/filmscanner/plustek/plustek-opticfilm-120-silverfast-ai-studio.html), and his review (http://www.filmscanner.info/en/PlustekOpticFilm120.html) at this link.
if you don't mind slowish operation, for 35 mm scanning you can't do better than a discontinued Minolta Scan Elite 5400. They pop-up from time to time on eBay and elsewhere, sell for much less than the Nikon SC5000ED, and as far as I'm concerned, slower but better. I don't know the Pacific Image product, but in general it's safe to say that on the whole you get what you pay for.
The kind of camera configurations that Todd Shaner and I described in our recent article is fine for all film sizes, but depending on where you are starting from equipment-wise, it could also be expensive, as output quality depends heavily on megapixels, macro lens quality and steadiness of the set-up.
-
Mark you're correct on the price...I wasn't paying attention when I quoted it.
The Plustek looks like a very good product. It's going to be a difficult call between it or the V850, so I'll likely sit tight until the Lula review is posted (assuming we will see that soon :).
I love the V850 for its multi-format capability, but if image quality is being "significantly" sacrificed I'd opt for the Plustek in a flash and find another option for 4x5 scans. I will also look into the Minolta you mentioned, however, and call me spoiled or cautious, I'm very wary of buying used gear when it has as many moving parts as a scanner.
Thanks again!
JB
-
>>because the fluid mount assembly is very useful for large format work<<
Obviously I am biased but the fact that the Epson fluid mount 1) requires you to top mount and thus scan through another piece of glass plus 2) is not height adjustable were deal-killers to me and why I came up with my own version of a fluid mount.
I have a 750 but have yet to see a well-controlled scientific comparison that shows the V750 produces appreciably better scans. The difference in software packages certainly doesn't justify the difference in price between the two scanner models if buying new. You are much better off using the money to upgrade the mounting station and software of a V700 on your own when_buying_new. The $150-ish price difference when buying refurbished is still not convincing to me. As of this morning though, there aren't any refurbished V700s, just V750s, so the choice has been made for us already!
My $.02,
Doug
-
I don't know about the Plusteks, but the Nikon Coolscans have very thin depth of field, so much so that with most slides I have had to use the manual focus ability (check autofocus values as different points on the slide and then enter values manually in a series of scans) to make several scans at different focus values and layer/mask them in Photoshop to get sharp across the frame scans. I know you can't adjust focus with the Plusteks, which has dissuaded me from springing for one to try out. Right now I'm "scanning" with a D800E, but that's a whole different thread.
-
>>because the fluid mount assembly is very useful for large format work<<
Obviously I am biased but the fact that the Epson fluid mount 1) requires you to top mount and thus scan through another piece of glass plus 2) is not height adjustable were deal-killers to me and why I came up with my own version of a fluid mount.
I have a 750 but have yet to see a well-controlled scientific comparison that shows the V750 produces appreciably better scans. The difference in software packages certainly doesn't justify the difference in price between the two scanner models if buying new. You are much better off using the money to upgrade the mounting station and software of a V700 on your own when_buying_new. The $150-ish price difference when buying refurbished is still not convincing to me. As of this morning though, there aren't any refurbished V700s, just V750s, so the choice has been made for us already!
My $.02,
Doug
Using the fluid mount assembly that Epson provides, one depends on whether Epson got the height exactly right assuming the media is flat against the glass. Your new product would allow one to experiment with this, which I have reason to believe is useful.
When you speak of not seeing well-controlled scientific comparisons of the V750 producing better scans - what comparator do you have in mind - the V700?
I agree one needs to be careful buying used and refurbished equipment. Pricing of refurbished should be at a substantial discount to normal retail pricing because there is added risk, unless they are providing the same warranty as for a new scanner, but even then, it's still current second-hand equipment. That said, I haven't seen a rash of complaints from people buying refurbished and used scanners at quite handsome prices, so either it generally works out OK, or those who got burned don't complain on the Internet, so yes, a bit of a grey area, hence the need to check out the products and sellers carefully.
-
.......... Right now I'm "scanning" with a D800E, but that's a whole different thread.
Actually, it's not necessarily a different thread, because "scanning" with a camera is a definite option, as a colleague and I demonstrated in some detail here (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/scannerless_digital_capture_and_processing_of_negative_film_photographs.shtml), in particular the PDF download. I'd be interested to hear (and perhaps so would others), either in this thread, or another one, how you are approaching this and what you are finding.
-
I think what I have decided to do is buy a dedicated 35mm scanner, and perhaps get the V850 for 4x5 scanning. Unless the feedback on the V850 is that it is amazing for 35mm format, but given the nature of flatbed scanners a dedicated 35mm scanner would likely be the best option for me.
After some more research I think I'm going to opt for the Pacific Image Prime Film XA (from my research it is the exact same scanner as the Reflecta RPS 10M, just rebranded). Here is a link to the Pacific Image if anyone would like to take a look:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1007388-REG
I'm in no rush so I'm still going to wait and see what the tests on the V850 show.
I would really like to tinker and put together a set up utilizing a digital camera. However, I've never been a great DIY kind of guy, so who knows.
Thanks again all. Let me know what you think about the Reflecta, if anyone has used it. Unless I'm wrong it is the Pacific Image machine.
JB
-
I think what I have decided to do is buy a dedicated 35mm scanner, and perhaps get the V850 for 4x5 scanning. Unless the feedback on the V850 is that it is amazing for 35mm format, but given the nature of flatbed scanners a dedicated 35mm scanner would likely be the best option for me.
After some more research I think I'm going to opt for the Pacific Image Prime Film XA (from my research it is the exact same scanner as the Reflecta RPS 10M, just rebranded). Here is a link to the Pacific Image if anyone would like to take a look:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1007388-REG
I'm in no rush so I'm still going to wait and see what the tests on the V850 show.
I would really like to tinker and put together a set up utilizing a digital camera. However, I've never been a great DIY kind of guy, so who knows.
Thanks again all. Let me know what you think about the Reflecta, if anyone has used it. Unless I'm wrong it is the Pacific Image machine.
JB
JB, I think your basic strategy makes sense provided the 35mm scanner is a particularly good one. Before landing on the Reflecta, I recommend you take a careful look at the Plustek 8200i. Whatever you do, buy from an outfit to whom you can return the product if you're not satisfied. I also recommend particular attention to any reviews that report on sustained performance over time, because that is where the question of build quality comes into play, quite apart from the scan quality when they are working properly. I would still recommend hanging-out for a while and keep your eyes open for a good Minolta 5400 Scan Elite or a Nikon Super Coolscan 5000ED (the former usually much better value than the latter on the resale market). If you can find one that has a low usage history from a highly reputable vendor, it will likely be better than the comparators from Reflecta and Plustek, but this depends on your comfort level buying second-hand, and as I mentioned above, I agree that substantial care is necessary. If you can hold out a while longer there will be more to chew over re the Epson V850.
-
The Pacific Image Prime Film XA at max scan can take over 10min per 35mm image. If the 1st scan needs a redo...... another 10 min. Been there with scanning......... had a Phase One 4x5 scan back for art copy.
One question is how large to you plan on printing? If your outputting to 12x16 or so, times will not be much of a factor. Also are you shooting a higher percentage of film to digital.
For me, and this is my opinion only, scanning (consumer grade) is an old technology that's past its peak efficiency. Not that quality can not be achieved, but that time vs. quality is not a plus compared to a good DSLR or med format copy. A good digital negative copy setup can be built from an old slide copy unit or an enlarger (sans head) or a modular 4x5 camera (what I have) or any way to maintain proper film plane with the sensor. "DIYing" is/was a required skill in my photo career.
This link is from a 21 year old transparency: http://www.pbase.com/tojo123/image/155692684 (http://www.pbase.com/tojo123/image/155692684) And this from a 35mm dslr (36mpx) 35 year old Kodachrome slide: http://www.pbase.com/tojo123/image/157377539 (http://www.pbase.com/tojo123/image/157377539)
-
Having just published an extensive essay on this subject, obviously I agree with you - "scanning" with a camera is clearly a good and viable option, but the OP doesn't seem inclined to the DIY involved, why I commended his alternative strategy of the scanner route. I think the point you are making about time is an important one for anyone concerned with productivity.
Of course, we all know what a Phase-One back costs - this is so totally out of the league in terms of price ranges being discussed in this thread I didn't want to go there. I have a Phase P40+ back and I was thinking of doing my camera-scanning set-up using this, but when I looked into the cost and capability of the macro lens (4000 dollars and can't focus close enough for a 35mm slide to fill the sensor - would need extenders costing yet more and killing automation, if my memory serves me correctly) I opted for what I reported on. That still involved spending a thousand on the lens and several hundred dollars more on set-up accessories. Over the medium to long term, and for large volumes of work, this investment would pay back quickly in terms of the time value of money. But you also appropriately raised the question of printing size - one thing some of these scanners offer is very large pixel dimensions with corresponding scope to make very large prints avoiding interpolation all along the way, the key consideration being the ability to render detail, which of course depends on the whole scanner assembly, focus arrangements, lighting system and lens, not just pixel dimensions on the CCD.
I agree with you about the state of scanning technology - it is not only old, but passing away - in the lingo of the demographers - the birth rate is below the death rate. Nonetheless, there are some very goods one out there - still. However, over the longer term I expect to see more and more people turning to their digital cameras for "scanning" their film archives.
-
Actually, it's not necessarily a different thread, because "scanning" with a camera is a definite option, as a colleague and I demonstrated in some detail here (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/scannerless_digital_capture_and_processing_of_negative_film_photographs.shtml), in particular the PDF download. I'd be interested to hear (and perhaps so would others), either in this thread, or another one, how you are approaching this and what you are finding.
Hi Mark,
I'm focused on digitizing my Kodachromes from the 80s and on, plus some older family chromes from the 50s and 60s. I started off with a Coolscan IV but ran into flare/blooming problems (even with the mirror cleaned) that really limited PP adjustments. I tried a Coolscan V (I had 3 aborted purchases of Vs and 5000s before I found one that did not have error indications on boot) but the V had even worse flare. (Digging around on the net revealed that the sensor covers in at least the IV and V series is plastic; replacing them with glass fixes the problem - not a cost effective solution. I don't know what the story is with the 9000s.) Anyway, I started off with the Nikon ES-1 and 55mm f2.8 Micro-Nikkor, but the edge/corner quality just wasn't there.
Right now I am using the Olympus Auto Bellows and slide holder attachment with the D800E and a monolight as the light source. (The Olympus bellows has the slide holder attached to the tripod mounting block instead of the rail, with the result that you can focus without altering the magnification ratio, nice if you need to focus stack for severely bowed slides; this also lets you use longer focal length lenses (e.g., 75mm and 80mm) than you can with the Nikon bellows which I also have tried. However, for reasons that utterly fail me, the Olympus slideholder itself only allows movement up and down, so I've modded the Oly slide attachment with a Konica holder to allow four-way movement.
I'm in the process of head to head testing of the Olympus 80mm f4 bellows macro and the Rodenstock Apo-Rodagon D 75mm f4 APO, both of which are optimized for 1:1 reproduction. I'm also investigating the workflow for using greater than 1:1 magnification and stitching (for that I'll be comparing the Oly macro and the Rodenstock Apo-Rodagon D 75mm f4.5 which is optimized for 2:1 and should be ideal for close to 1:2 reversed). Stitching is a bit of a pain and I'm not yet convinced that it yields quality gains at print sizes up to 17x25. (That said, when I was scanning with the Coolscans, I would typically make 3 or 4 scans at different focus values and focus stack and hand mask, so I'm used to dealing with multi-image workflows.)
I'm also playing around with slide mounting methods for digital duping. A lot of the slides I have are quite bowed which poses a DOF problem; also some old family slides are warped from excessive project or heat. The sweet spot for the above lenses is f5.6, IQ goes down a little at f8 and really starts falling off at f8 (as I understand it, at 1:1 a nominal f5.6 aperture is an effective f11, so you are already in diffraction territory even before really stopping down). Right now I'm using Wess AHX mounts, which are full frame plastic mounts with sprocket registration tabs which help to tension and flatten the slide, but only to a certain degree. A recent idea is to use Gepe plain glass mounts with the glass only on the non-emulsion side to see if I can flatten the slide some without affecting image clarity; at first blush I am not seeing Newton rings problems (I see them on the mounted slide but not in the "scans").
I am finding that the D800E can easily handle Kodachrome's dynamic range (with the caveat that I want the prints from the files to resemble the Kodachrome images, i.e., I am not trying to turn Kodachrome shadows into D800 shadows).
One final note, I really liked the grain acutance look of the Coolscan scans and experimented with duplicating in the D800 files it by removing the diffusion glass on the slide holder and using a condenser enlarger head as the light source to get more collimated illumination on the slide (think cold light vs. condenser B&W enlargements). Result: don't even think about using a condenser head, dust and scratches go off the charts with no real increase in grain acutance.
The intermediate bottom line is that I am getting "scans" that have the slide detail of the Coolscan V scan and improved dynamic range, but am not yet getting the crisp looking grain I liked in the Coolscan scans. (I have no interest in suppressing the natural grain of the chromes, to me that's an inherent part of film that I want to retain). So I'm looking at tweaks at the margins to see what more I can squeeze out. For example I'm finding that the Oly and Rodenstock 1:1 macros are so close (in tests on slides in glass mounts to get a perfectly flat test subject) that you have to look closely at 1:1 to see differences on screen, such I expect that with an open mount slide any lens difference will be subsumed by DOF and/or alignment issues. I suspect this is a light source issue rather than a lens issue, though.
I'm documenting my investigations, and will dribble them out the web as I go along.
Alan
-
Very interesting Alan, and a lot of painstaking work involved. Once you settle down with a combination of equipment and processing technique that trots them out the way you want them you'll be cool with that. I was fortunate insofar as my negatives and slides are flat enough that DoF can handle them; but since we published the article, I hit upon using museum glass to definitely assure sufficient flatness. It does not distort, it's crystal clear (if kept clean) and I'm seeing no Newton's rings with it. But my set-up is vertical, with the media lying on a light table, so that helps. All that said, I've been doing a lot of testing work lately and I'm finding those old Minolta (5400) and Nikon (Super Coolscan 5000ED) scanners are really hard to beat for overall resolution of fine detail. From the two camera solutions I've seen first hand to date, they are no more than "as good as", usinf fine equipment, but that's saying a lot, and there is considerable saving of time. What's more, there's always scope for incrementally upgrading it as newer lenses and sensors hit the market, whereas once you leave the world of $400-$2000 scanners, you're into $15,000 - $20,000 scanners - no joy there!
-
Pardon me for asking this and I am not trying to hijack the thread, I too have been looking at scanners to scan in my 35mm stuff and some medium format, mostly 6cm x 6cm and I was looking at the V600 as an inexpensive solution. Anyone used one of the V600's?
Thanks,
Alan
-
Pardon me for asking this and I am not trying to hijack the thread, I too have been looking at scanners to scan in my 35mm stuff and some medium format, mostly 6cm x 6cm and I was looking at the V600 as an inexpensive solution. Anyone used one of the V600's?
Thanks,
Alan
Much depends on what you intend to do with the scans. Is it just to share photos on the internet, is it to keep a digital archive without any specific purpose, is it to print them, and if so, to what likely maximum dimensions? All this matters to what equipment would be adequate.
-
To scan and have digital copies, printing not any larger the 11x17, but probably not all that much printing, mostly to maybe display on the web. It is all ancient stuff and maybe some older negatives. Nothing larger than 6cm x6cm in film size, mostly 35mm. I really do not want to spend $1K or more on a super scanner, and probably most of the images are not going to be that great, mostly just for making digital copies and my own curiosity. From reading the specs the V600 looks like V750 but with smaller image scanning size, I don't need to do 4x5 transparencies.
Thanks,
Alan
-
OK, on that basis - I haven't heard anything about the Epson V600, but I have heard good things about the Canoscan 9000F Mark II (Canon). As I haven't owned or used either I can't give you a first-hand recommendation, but for what you want to do, generically from the specs, either of them would likely be OK. If I were you I'd buy from a shop which will take it back if you don't like it after a few days.
-
Thanks Mark, Amazon stocks it so I may get it from them.
Alan
-
I recommend the Epson over the Canon due to the Epson's slightly higher film suspension height (less chance of Newton Rings) and more user friendly standard software. With that said, you really are pushing/exceeding the limit with a flatbed to scan 35 mm with the intent to print at 11x17". A lot depends on what each person considers acceptable.
Doug
-
I recommend the Epson over the Canon due to the Epson's slightly higher film suspension height (less chance of Newton Rings) and more user friendly standard software. With that said, you really are pushing/exceeding the limit with a flatbed to scan 35 mm with the intent to print at 11x17". A lot depends on what each person considers acceptable.
Doug
Hi Doug - yes I agree that 11*17 for those scanners really would be at the outer limit, but I got the impression the OP's intention is to minimize expenditure and make few prints that size, hence my feedback. Interesting comment on the Epson's film suspension, but in respect of overall image sharpness (within their limits), would you rate those two scanners differently?
-
I probably would not do a lot of 11x17 printing. It is mostly just to scan the film, probably most of it is not worth doing really high end scans, hence not worth spending the money on a high end scanner, but I would like to get some of it online. The Canon looks interesting. I will do some research and read reviews. Thanks again for all the great advice.
Alan
-
You can see my V600 scans, both 35mm and 6x7 on my Flickr site link. The shadows do seem to choke up a bit with 35mm but overall does a fairly good job. I use the Epsonscan software that came with it. You can get a pretty decent 11x17 with the MF film.
-
You can see my V600 scans, both 35mm and 6x7 on my Flickr site link. The shadows do seem to choke up a bit with 35mm but overall does a fairly good job. I use the Epsonscan software that came with it. You can get a pretty decent 11x17 with the MF film.
Hi Alan, I'm interested in seeing your choked-up shadows - and more generally the overall image quality. Grateful if you could provide the direct link to the relevant photos. It's not in your post.
-
Mark,
Click on his link to the web on his LuLa profile. That is how I found them.
Alan
Thanks a lot for letting us know about them.
Alan
-
Thanks Alan, I did that, but there's lots of photos - time's too tight for searching and guessing, so I just wanted a direct link to a couple of examples Alan Klein is concerned about.
-
>>but in respect of overall image sharpness (within their limits), would you rate those two scanners differently<<
In terms of sharpness, I had a hard time seeing an appreciable difference between the Canons and Epsons with the models I bought for testing. Feedback from my customers has a consistently higher level of frustration with the Canoscan software though. Newton Ring complaints are higher too.
Doug
-
My experience is that scanner manufacturers are best at making scanners and software developers are best at making software. I take it for granted with any of these products that serious users are best off with bespoke third-party software. In this particular case, SilverFast's multi-exposure (http://www.silverfast.com/product/Canon/CanoScan-9000F-Mark-II-766/en.html) may be particularly useful, but I can't say first-hand as I haven't used this scanner. Anyhow, all these software products are available for free demo download and I would advise readers, whether they buy one product or another, to test them with demo versions of alternative software.