hipsterdufus
Photographer?
So, awhile ago, I picked up a new Canon 8800F scanner. This is primarily to be used with my 35mm black and white negatives that I am developing/scanning myself for a hybrid workflow. However, while low resolution scans seem to work fine on this scanner, I am disappointed with any very high resolution (4800 DPI) scans. The images always appear soft throughout the entire frame when viewed at 100%, even though I know the image is sharp.
Has anyone else here had similar problems? I am using the film holders that were included with the scanner as well as the Canon software. I do not use any sort of unsharp mask when I scan, as I am trying to get a "digital negative". Is it the software that is making these images look bad? Should I try Vuescan? If so, are there any particular settings that I should be aware of for this scanner when using Vuescan?
I appreciate any thoughts you can offer. I can include examples of the poorly scanned images once I get home from work.
I'm about ready to ditch this scanner if I can't come up with a scan that matches the sharpness of the negative.
Has anyone else here had similar problems? I am using the film holders that were included with the scanner as well as the Canon software. I do not use any sort of unsharp mask when I scan, as I am trying to get a "digital negative". Is it the software that is making these images look bad? Should I try Vuescan? If so, are there any particular settings that I should be aware of for this scanner when using Vuescan?
I appreciate any thoughts you can offer. I can include examples of the poorly scanned images once I get home from work.
I'm about ready to ditch this scanner if I can't come up with a scan that matches the sharpness of the negative.
Lilserenity
Well-known
I used to own the 9900F of which I have to say on 35mm was very very disappointing indeed. In fact so bad I didn't want to put the files up on the web from 35mm.
However, at 4800dpi, any 35mm scan is going to look soft, particularly from a flatbed. I can pretty confidently say that 4000dpi is about the very best you will get from a sharp low grain negative or slide of 35mm on a high quality dedicated scanner like a Coolscan IV/V/5000/8000/9000.
From your flatbed you will be likely getting around about 2400dpi maximum resolution absolute tops, my Epson 4870 for example is also a 4800dpi device but beyond 2400dpi I am not getting any more usable resolution.
From my experience, on a decent flatbed you might just about get a good 8x10" (or A4/Letter sized print) from a file, but beyond that is pushing it.
Also, as a case of your mileage may vary, I saw some good scans from an Epson V300 today, a 35mm only flatbed scanner, certainly better than I got from my 9900F. On a personal level, I found the colour reproduction of the Canons inferior to the Epsons but the dated software for my 9900F may not have helped.
I hope someone can give you some more solid and optimistic advice about your 8800F and black and white scanning but as I say, 35mm on my 9900F (which in theory had better optics than an 8800F despite only being a 3200dpi deiuce) was a very disheartening experience.
Vicky
However, at 4800dpi, any 35mm scan is going to look soft, particularly from a flatbed. I can pretty confidently say that 4000dpi is about the very best you will get from a sharp low grain negative or slide of 35mm on a high quality dedicated scanner like a Coolscan IV/V/5000/8000/9000.
From your flatbed you will be likely getting around about 2400dpi maximum resolution absolute tops, my Epson 4870 for example is also a 4800dpi device but beyond 2400dpi I am not getting any more usable resolution.
From my experience, on a decent flatbed you might just about get a good 8x10" (or A4/Letter sized print) from a file, but beyond that is pushing it.
Also, as a case of your mileage may vary, I saw some good scans from an Epson V300 today, a 35mm only flatbed scanner, certainly better than I got from my 9900F. On a personal level, I found the colour reproduction of the Canons inferior to the Epsons but the dated software for my 9900F may not have helped.
I hope someone can give you some more solid and optimistic advice about your 8800F and black and white scanning but as I say, 35mm on my 9900F (which in theory had better optics than an 8800F despite only being a 3200dpi deiuce) was a very disheartening experience.
Vicky
tammons
Established
Its the scanner.
You will never fully resolve 35mm film with any flatbed even the Epson V700.
The V700/750 are the best of the flatbeds, but they are only good for about 44-48 lp/mm which relates roughly to 2400 dpi drum scan.
You really need a dedicated film scanner for 35mm.
The Pacific Image 7250 pro 3 is about as good as it will get for a new 35mm scanner still in production. It is quirky and you have to check them out when first bought because mine had a bad sensor.
Its good for a clean 3600 dpi.
Don't know how long it would last either.
That scanner is an updated older Kodak scanner.
Besides that a better higher quality used scanner would be a Nikon 4000ED, 5000ED or a VED, all 4000 dpi.
FYI a top scanner at 4000 dpi will resolve around 70-85lp/mm or so depending on the scanner.
The V700/V750 are okay for average medium format and can produce some really crisp 1800 dpi scans. Maybe a crisp 2400 dpi scan if you get a superb one off and use custom holders etc. Still I always found it necessary to overscan at 4800 dpi and reduce.
A good decent 35mm 2800 dpi scanner would be a Minolta scan dual VI. They go on ebay for about $150-250. That would give you at least double the rez you have now, but still only equal to about 10mp.
There is a Minolta 5400 scanner on ebay right now for $500. That is a super sharp 5400 dpi scanner. It is the only scanner I have ever used that came close to fully resolving bluefire microfilm with my cameras.
5400 dpi results in about 40 mp of information.
The problem with the Minolta scanners is keeping the film flat.
Scan 35mm microfilm at 5400 dpi, Printed on a lightjet at 204 dpi that works out to an enlargement potential of 24" x 36" compared to 8" x 12" for your scanner.
You will never fully resolve 35mm film with any flatbed even the Epson V700.
The V700/750 are the best of the flatbeds, but they are only good for about 44-48 lp/mm which relates roughly to 2400 dpi drum scan.
You really need a dedicated film scanner for 35mm.
The Pacific Image 7250 pro 3 is about as good as it will get for a new 35mm scanner still in production. It is quirky and you have to check them out when first bought because mine had a bad sensor.
Its good for a clean 3600 dpi.
Don't know how long it would last either.
That scanner is an updated older Kodak scanner.
Besides that a better higher quality used scanner would be a Nikon 4000ED, 5000ED or a VED, all 4000 dpi.
FYI a top scanner at 4000 dpi will resolve around 70-85lp/mm or so depending on the scanner.
The V700/V750 are okay for average medium format and can produce some really crisp 1800 dpi scans. Maybe a crisp 2400 dpi scan if you get a superb one off and use custom holders etc. Still I always found it necessary to overscan at 4800 dpi and reduce.
A good decent 35mm 2800 dpi scanner would be a Minolta scan dual VI. They go on ebay for about $150-250. That would give you at least double the rez you have now, but still only equal to about 10mp.
There is a Minolta 5400 scanner on ebay right now for $500. That is a super sharp 5400 dpi scanner. It is the only scanner I have ever used that came close to fully resolving bluefire microfilm with my cameras.
5400 dpi results in about 40 mp of information.
The problem with the Minolta scanners is keeping the film flat.
Scan 35mm microfilm at 5400 dpi, Printed on a lightjet at 204 dpi that works out to an enlargement potential of 24" x 36" compared to 8" x 12" for your scanner.
Last edited:
januaryman
"Flim? You want flim?"
Yeah, flatbed scanners are okay, but once you use something like a Nikon Coolscan V ed, you see the difference. Look for a good used Nikon. There are a few on the bay right now, most under $1k.
hipsterdufus
Photographer?
Wow, not the answer I was hoping for, unfortunately. I appreciate all of the thoughts from folks; however, I am tapped out in the money department for awhile. So, throwing money at it isn't a good solution for me.
Not really quite sure what I can do to improve my scans in the meantime. Any suggestions in that department?
Not really quite sure what I can do to improve my scans in the meantime. Any suggestions in that department?
swoop
Well-known
I own a Canon 9950f. But it sits in the corner. I thought the images were good. But then I moved across the country and I guess on the drive the scanner was ruined. It worked fine but every so often it would lock up. And I'd have to restart my scan. Then it developed this issue where one row would always have newton rings without fail.
So I picked up an Epson V700. And only then did I notice just how much better it was than my 9950f. I wouldn't call the Canon horrible. But it certainly isn't the best. An old girlfriend own the Nikon 9000ED scanner. It's the most amazing thing I have ever seen. The first time we used it we couldn't understand why the image was so horrid. Then we zoomed out of 100% and realized it was so good we were actually looking at the silver halide particles that made up the image.
Mablo
Well-known
I own and use 8800f for medium format film for which it's quite satisfactory. It's not very good scanner for 135 film but there are a couple of tricks you might want to try to make it at least a little bit better.
First thing to know about scanners is that increasing resolution does not necessarily produce better scans. Each scanner has one or two "native" resolutions and all other resolutions are created by software. For Canon 8800f native resolutions are 1200dpi and 2400dpi. Stick with those resolutions. Both are good enough for web use.
All "customer grade" flatbed scanners suffer from two basic weaknesses: flimsy neg holders and mediocre scanning software. The second weakness is easy to correct by buying Vuescan scanning software (not too expensive, trial version available). Flimsy neg holders are a real bummer and one of the root causes for soft scans. This is due to the fact that the neg holder cannot hold the neg strip absolutely straight and you cannot finetune the distance between film level and scanner window. You can try to make things a bit better by straightening your negs a day or two between a pile of books before scanning.
First thing to know about scanners is that increasing resolution does not necessarily produce better scans. Each scanner has one or two "native" resolutions and all other resolutions are created by software. For Canon 8800f native resolutions are 1200dpi and 2400dpi. Stick with those resolutions. Both are good enough for web use.
All "customer grade" flatbed scanners suffer from two basic weaknesses: flimsy neg holders and mediocre scanning software. The second weakness is easy to correct by buying Vuescan scanning software (not too expensive, trial version available). Flimsy neg holders are a real bummer and one of the root causes for soft scans. This is due to the fact that the neg holder cannot hold the neg strip absolutely straight and you cannot finetune the distance between film level and scanner window. You can try to make things a bit better by straightening your negs a day or two between a pile of books before scanning.
Last edited: