Canon CanoScan 4400f good enough for film negative scanning?

*deadwolfbones* · 03-17-2009, 04:27 PM

I'm pondering picking up a 4400f today for ~$80 after 10% eBay coupon and 9% MS Live cashback. Was wondering what experience you guys have with this scanner and whether it's got decent bang for the buck.

I've seen some reviews were the reviewers complain that film negative scanning is limited to 300 or 600dpi, but that doesn't sound right to me (probably only with the bundled software?).

So... any gripes, points of interest, etc about this scanner?

I'm only interested in scanning 35mm, not MF film.

Thanks!

ftpaddict · 03-17-2009, 05:26 PM

Originally Posted by deadwolfbones

I'm pondering picking up a 4400f today for ~$80 after 10% eBay coupon and 9% MS Live cashback. Was wondering what experience you guys have with this scanner and whether it's got decent bang for the buck.

I've seen some reviews were the reviewers complain that film negative scanning is limited to 300 or 600dpi, but that doesn't sound right to me (probably only with the bundled software?).

So... any gripes, points of interest, etc about this scanner?

I'm only interested in scanning 35mm, not MF film.

Thanks!

You can't scan MF with it anyway, and yes, the film negative scanning is limited, but you can achieve what seems to be a lot more dpi via interpolation. Which is basically digital zoom, i.e. big load of crap.

Most I got out of it was 1200 dpi, but the scanner wasn't mine and the pictures weren't mine either. Still, they turned out OK.

*deadwolfbones* · 03-17-2009, 06:49 PM

Yeah, I only mentioned the MF because I know someone would recommend the 8800f.

ftpaddict · 03-18-2009, 03:43 AM

Originally Posted by deadwolfbones

Yeah, I only mentioned the MF because I know someone would recommend the 8800f.

Oooh, buy that one. It's excellent bang for the buck.

Venturi · 03-18-2009, 10:20 AM

I have the 4400F. It works pretty good and for scanning the occasional roll of 35mm film it's fine. If you're going to be shooting film on a regular basis and doing your own scanning I would advise to seriously consider a dedicated film scanner.

At hi-res (600DPI / 3600x2400px) it takes about 3hrs to scan a 36exp roll on the 4400F. This includes the actual scanning time and the time between strips you're loading the cartridge, verifying the prescans and saving the scans to disk. If the negatives are curled you can expect an additional 30min just fighting with the cartridge (not the scanner's fault).

One thing that I hate about the CanoScan software is how it sequences the file names. It requires you specify a prefix (like "img") and then the first image will always be named img.tif. Frame #2 will then be img0001.tif. So in order to get them named properly - img0001.tif, img0002.tif, etc. - you have to stick an empty file to reserve img.tif from use. The prefix requirement is annoying as well, but to a lesser degree.
VueScan provides a lot more flexibility and control with scanning and doubles the resolution possible (6700x4440). However it does cost $40 or $80 depending on version and its algorithm for detecting frames on the negative strip are not very accurate so you end up manually "cropping" before the scan run (something CanoScan Toolbox does not provide).

Gooshin · 03-18-2009, 10:37 AM

3 hours for a roll? are you serious?

My work time with the Nikon is waaay faster than that, i did 180 frames in a single day with post processing (maybe 10-11 hours total work)

and thats 16 bit tiffs at 4000 dpi with ICE.