Peter_Jones
Well-known
Does anyone use this model of scanner, or have any hints/tips on getting best results from it ?
Also any example scans (35mm) ?
TIA
Peter
Also any example scans (35mm) ?
TIA
Peter
kzim56
Karl Zimmerman
I've been using this scanner for more than two years. For the price, I'm pleased with the results I get from it. I'm using both the included software, and Vuescan on a Mac. If the exposure is good, the Canon software does a good job. Vuescan seems to work better for negatives that need tweaking. I use it mostly for 35mm and 120 BW negatives. Anything more than 600dpi scans take a looong time. It's OK for color but I've started getting scans with processing. One of the arms broke on the 35mm negative carrier. It still works but I have to be extra careful with it. Hope this helps. You can see some examples at flickr.com/photos/kzim.
Karl
Karl
photophorous
Registered User
I use this scanner, but I don't claim to know much about scanning film. I haven't had much luck at all with color film...the colors just don't look right. I use it mostly for B&W, and I scan in color negative mode, using the supplied Photostudio software. I have only made a couple of small prints from the files. I mostly just use them to post on the web, and for that it works great. I think if I did the proper post processing and USM, I could get some pretty good 8x10s, but I doubt much larger would look good. And as Karl mentioned, it is not fast and the negative holders are flimsy. I also have trouble with the negative holder being slightly crooked and covering the edge of some of the pictures sometimes. Still, for the price, I think it's a pretty good deal.
There are lots of B&W examples on my flickr page, but none of the color shots where scanned with the Canon. The most recent shots are from my Bessa, but the majority (mostly in europe set) are from my Canonet. You can see a difference in the sharpness, so don't judge sharpness from the Canonet shots.
Here's a couple from the Bessa / Canonscan combo:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/190/446848548_4031b0f688_o.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/186/447843961_276a6e1942_o.jpg
Hope this helps.
Paul
There are lots of B&W examples on my flickr page, but none of the color shots where scanned with the Canon. The most recent shots are from my Bessa, but the majority (mostly in europe set) are from my Canonet. You can see a difference in the sharpness, so don't judge sharpness from the Canonet shots.
Here's a couple from the Bessa / Canonscan combo:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/190/446848548_4031b0f688_o.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/186/447843961_276a6e1942_o.jpg
Hope this helps.
Paul
nikola
Well-known
I have 4400F which is the same thing... the only difference is width of the possible scan. I'm frustrated with blurry results, and I hadn't have opportunity to compare it with anything...
I'm scanning at 1200dpi in Canon program and just recently started to use Lightzone for post touching (nothing too fancy)... then I resize them to smaller size for web, once I did scanned at 4800dpi (sharpened, desaturated) and printed on Pixma ip1600 using 10*15 photo paper... the results turned out really OK, but I wouldn't use it for anything bigger than that.
I'm scanning at 1200dpi in Canon program and just recently started to use Lightzone for post touching (nothing too fancy)... then I resize them to smaller size for web, once I did scanned at 4800dpi (sharpened, desaturated) and printed on Pixma ip1600 using 10*15 photo paper... the results turned out really OK, but I wouldn't use it for anything bigger than that.
FrankS
Registered User
I have this Canoscan 8400f and most of my B+W gallery images are scanned with it. (Not the early ones, but the later dated ones.) I use the files only to post here, not to print on paper. I'm satisfied with the results, but I"ve never used a dedicated film scanner which I'm sure is much better. For internet posting, the Canoscan is fine.
Peter_Jones
Well-known
Thanks for the replies.
For posting on here, for instance, would it be best (for B&W) to scan as a colour then convert, and are better results obtained from scanning for a decent file size then re-sizing ? I am not impressed with scanning for a given pixel size, the results so far make the images look soft.
I really need to experiment
For posting on here, for instance, would it be best (for B&W) to scan as a colour then convert, and are better results obtained from scanning for a decent file size then re-sizing ? I am not impressed with scanning for a given pixel size, the results so far make the images look soft.
I really need to experiment
nikola
Well-known
ampguy
Veteran
anyone use the 8600f, currently available for about $USD 170? It was reviewed recently in a rangefinder magazine (red cover, editorial issue).
photophorous
Registered User
I just wanted to add a comment. Last weekend I did a very non-scientific comparison between this scanner and the professional Noritsu scans I pay for occasionally. I got some 35mm Provia scanned on the Noritsu, creating 6MP TIFF files for $8 per roll...not exactly top quality, but not bad either. I picked one frame and scanned it on my Canonscan at full resolution, creating a TIFF file that's about 12.4 MP. When I zoomed in to 100%, there was no amount of post processing that could bring out as much detail in the 12MP file as what can be seen in the 6 MP file. I think the moral of the story is, don't place too much value on the resolution claims. Obviously the Noritsu is a high dollar professional machine, but even at twice the resolution the Canoscan recorded less detail.
For web viewing, the Canonscan is fine, but don't expect to make large prints with it. Hope this helps.
Paul
For web viewing, the Canonscan is fine, but don't expect to make large prints with it. Hope this helps.
Paul