[MattC]

Just wondering if anyone is using this scanner, and what your thoughts may be regarding the results?

I have read the couple of reviews that are available, but would like some real world feedback - especially if you are scanning b&w.

Thanks,

Matt

[MattC]

wow - 200 views, and not one reply - guess it is not that popular!

[klh]

More likely that it is a newer model that few own.

I have the 8800f and give it high praise, especially when coupled with Vuescan. While it can't compete with dedicated film scanners, it is a great value for the money, and gives results that I am pleased with.

[hinman]

I have been using Canon 8800F. It does reasonably job for me but it can be better.

About Vuescan: I never found myself liking Vuescan as compared to the Canon scangear. Maybe I have not tried hard enough. I find the user interface, especially in the preview function to be more intuitive. I usually use the original Canon scangear and check the box for "scan with scan driver" to go into the film scanning advance menu.

You can see some of my scanning on 120 and 135 formats with Canon 8800F
Flickr: Search hin_man's photostream

Here are few of my observations, I don't know if those apply to Canon 9000F

• I don't see much gain in scanning over 2400 dpi, I usually use 2400dpi for most of my scan; occasionally I use 3200.
• The Canon 8800F seems to do better on 120 than the 135 films for me
• The scratch and dust removal (FARE) only works for color negatives and it will cause some lost of detail. In monochrome negatives, there is no option to turn on FARE
• Instead of relying on dust and scratch removal, I found more satisfied results with basic cleaning on negatives with canned air, rocket blower, and emulsion cleaner prior to scanning
• In monochrome b&w negative, the Canon scangear provides extra options for 16 bit grayscale but I can't seem to get it to work. It is the most frustrating. Though the driver can use 16 bit grayscale but the MP navigator default application can't handle the 16 bit output. Some studies on web search suggest importing from Canon from within PSE or other editors to bypass the limitation on MP navigator.
• My recent favorite settings are to turn OFF all editing in the scan for tone, brightness, scratch, highlight, grain correction and rely on PP after the scan

When I compare my scan with that from local lab, my scan on 35mm film does poorly while my scan on 120 seem to do reasonable. it is important not to set too high on expectation.

Thanks,
Hin

[MattC]

Thanks for the replies and information - much appreciated.
I brought the 9000F (about $100 less than the Epson V500) yesterday. I will post some results shortly!

Cheers,

Matt

[artobest]

What are you going to be scanning with it?

[MattC]

Have and will be scanning 35mm and 6x6 B&W mainly.
I will also be trying to scan some old 35mm slides from my parents and in-laws.

[artobest]

It would pay to look around this forum for scanning tips - there's been a lot of discussion here over the years. I used an 8600F for a while (still have it somewhere, actually) and my advice is always the same - scan everything as 16-bit (ie 48-bit colour) positive. For negatives, go into each colour channel and adjust the black and white points manually, leaving a smidge of headroom at either end. Then you'll have a reasonably good starting point for further work in PS or wherever (once the scan has been inverted). Also, don't be afraid of giving the scans a decent whack of sharpening, they can take it.

The main difference you'll see in the scans compared to those from a dedicated film scanner is in shadow detail. There is a small resolution difference too, but careful capture sharpening covers a multitude of sins, especially if you don't plan on printing at very large sizes. Ultimately, for me, the most important thing is good colour and tonality - that's what the majority of viewers notice right away, and the Canon can provide that, with care.

Have fun!

[P67]

Just wondering if anyone is using this scanner, and what your thoughts may be regarding the results?

I have read the couple of reviews that are available, but would like some real world feedback - especially if you are scanning b&w.

Thanks,

Matt

Matt - I've been using said scanner for about 6 weeks now. Previous model was a Microtek i800 pro - for about 2 years using Silverfast. Using the stock Scan Gear for now with the 9000 as it is very good, before upgrading - make that IF.

In a nutshell - this could be the BEST scanner out there for the money. I don't think you could spend twice as much to find a better scanner. It simply blows the i800 away - and that's using stock software. The Canon is just so dang easy to use by comparison it actually makes scanning enjoyable - if that's possible.

First - the film holders for medium format are well designed and easy to use. The i800 had really good holders, but stressed the film with the clamping pressure. The 9000 - slip it under the two little ski's at the one end - lay film down flat - click other end - slide film to adjust - done. Even has a gadget to flatten the curled film - which I have not needed.

I shoot allot of Velvia and Kodak - colour and B&W from Acros to Ilford. It had eaten up every one of them flawlessly. I'm re-doing ALL my scans previously done with the i800. Even scanning some of the new Ektar - even without the IT-8 profile used in SF - has been spot on.

The film had a lot of marks and dust from previous uses trying to prevent CA with the i800. The 9000 - NONE - no CA visible whatsoever. The marks and scratches? Used the infra red FARE on low - almost gone. Used medium strength - PERFECT - I mean not a scratch or mote. Best of all - does not affect the image quality. No softening of features.

I've used the optional methods to dial in the scan using the Recommended method. This allows the gamma change, plus Levels and Curves adjustments with saturation before scanning. Excellent results - although a fair amount of work.

What I like best - is the Colour Match method. This uses your monitor profile - be it Adobe1998 or sRGB etc. I use a Mac - so I calibrate the profile, and refine it. Save the profile, and that's what the Canon uses for scanning. The end result can be fine tuned to match the film type or if you use a Calibrating Device.

Each film type is different - so I've created profiles for them. Example is Ektar - with it's reddish characteristics on skin tones - stronger blues over water or at altitudes - I scan - and put that image on the screen. Bring up Calibration software - and fine tune. Scan - tune and when I'm happy with the result - create a Profile - Ektar Adobe1998.

When I'm scanning Ektar film - I invoke that profile - and get my version of Colour Match bang on. I've done the same for Velvia 100 - Velvia 100F - etc, where there is enough difference between the films to create a separate profile.

Why do that - and not just do it post processing? The effort to create a colour match profile means you do it ONCE. Well, a few fine tunes - then you are done. The resulting scan - means little to NO post processing. Sure - crop - adjust Levels a tiny bit to suit. You can basically just clean up to suit and you are done in a couple of minutes unless you have specifics in mind.

Fast - YES. Normal E6 MF 6x7 scan takes less than 1 minute. The Ektar with FARE on medium - took about 3 minutes. B&W - just fabulous scans - but here I use similar created profiles for each type of film - to bring out the nuance of that film ie: Acros vs Delta 100. But I've found the "Recommended" method better where I can fine tune the scan using the histogram and Curves for each shot. This gets the most out of the B&W - night vs day shots etc, then I fine tune post processing for effect. You can also select scan rates with in between settings like 1600 dpi - right up to 9600.

I could go on - but on the recommendation of emails with Mr. D. Brooks - Shutterbug - and his blog write up on it - I bought the Canon - even over the Nikon 8000ED. He basically said - you can have twice the hardware with the Nikon - or twice the resolution with the Canon.

DigiFotoBlog

I also do film astrophotograhy - and this is where I see a difference using Silverfast - my demo version. Using HDR48 at 2400 - and the Two scan method - it does one pass for highlights, and a second for shadow detail - then combines them into a single film - makes a difference. It would also make a difference for various landscape frames under specific lighting conditions.

Best of all - Canon now bundles SF - with the 9000F. I bought mine without SF - delivered for about $200 in Canada. A friend of mine has the Epson 600 - and although similar specifications - thinks the Canon gives cleaner scans especially on difficult lighting - both using stock software.

I recommend getting an extra film holding tray. This thing is so fast - you spend more time fiddle futzing with change over than scanning. Get another tray loaded whilst the first is scanning.

I have not done any photos or tried FARE on them - yet. I've shot slides all my life. But I do have a mountain of family photos to do. I expect no less from the Canon on those.

Hope this helps.

[Ernst]

Matt,
Been using it for old 1950s black & white negatives (35mm & 6x6) and I think it's hard to beat for the price! Am very satisfied with the speed and quality.