Can Anyone Compare Canoscan 9000f Mk2 Compared To V600

[Smile]

Hello, perhaps somebody has a CanoScan 9000F mk2 and could compare it to Epson V600?
I would like to see some samples of same photo scanned on both.

Like 2400dpi on both scanners. I would like to see also how dust reduction works, what scanner gets better scans with dust reduction on. I would like to scan only photos not negatives or slides.

I haven't found unbiased reviews, so I if you own both and could upload some photos please share.
If you own either one still seeing real world samples would be nice, particularly how dust reduction works.

 

[costadinos]

I don't have both right now, so I can't provide samples of the same film from both, but I've tried all the 9000F, epson V500, V600 and V700. I ended up with a V500 and a dedicated film scanner. As far as resolution goes all are pretty much the same, with the V700 being slightly better. But in any case, the effective resolution is not more than 2000dpi for any of them (you'd gain nothing but file size by scanning at 2400dpi instead of 2000). As for the dust removal feature they all work pretty well, even better so when used with VueScan.

If film scanning will be the main use of the scanner, forget about all of these and go buy yourself a dedicated film scanner (Reflecta and Microtek have current models, but you can also find scanners from Minolta, Nikon etc used). Even the cheapest of these will outperform the flatbeds.

And here's a link with a very good review, most of what is described there for this and the other scanners is pretty consistent with my experience, I'd say it's pretty unbiased:

http://www.filmscanner.info/CanonCanoScan9000FMark2.html

(the particular review is in German, but just find one of the English reviews of the other scanners and have it as reference, the structure of all is the same).

 

[Emulator]

If you use the Google translator it gives a good English version of this filmscanner website.

 

[Smile]

Well as I said I'm looking for comparison of 9000F or mark II that uses FARE3 vs. EPSON V600/700 that uses ICE.

The comparison need to be how good the scanners remove dust from prints, photos, etc. NOT FROM FILM.

I'm going to get a dedicated FILM scanner like you said, I know there is no other way around that.

But I have to retouch photos like this
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/BB/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=7115

Small dust and scratches takes weeks of work to be removed when you scan at 1200dpi. And I wonder if the FARE3 would work as advertised.

Could you or anyone do this test ? What scanner have you got?

Also note the filmscanner site lists that 9000F MKII has 1700dpi, EPSON V750 has 2300dpi. But the EPSON is using FILM lens, and canon using the only lens it has.

So can I use FILM lens with 2300dpi on prints when using EPSON V750? I think it's only for FILM/transparency ? If so then how many dpi EPSON V750 got using reflective mode (can't find this anywhere)?

 

[costadinos]

I have a V500 right now, which doesn't support dust removal for photos, so I can't give you a sample, but I have tried it with a V700 in the past. It only works relatively good for very glossy papers. Most old photos were usually printed on pearl or other textured types of papers, those don't work well, since the scanner detects the surface texture and ruins the scan.

You can only scan transparent media using the film lens (the scanner knows you are scanning a transparency when you remove the white cover).

Lookin atg the photo in your thumbnail, I believe you'd get the best results by using a camera with a macro lens and very diffused light. Two or more softboxes at 45 degrees to the print should do the trick, this usually helps minimize small defects like scratches, whereas the harsh scanner light accentuates them.

 

[Smile]

You can only scan transparent media using the film lens (the scanner knows you are scanning a transparency when you remove the white cover).

Perhaps there is a switch that needs to be pushed (like with a printer when you open the lid) to trick the scanner to use film lens for transparency? It would be good if only a button needs to be pressed.

Lookin atg the photo in your thumbnail, I believe you'd get the best results by using a camera with a macro lens and very diffused light.

This would be better but would require a very expensive back compared to V700, and 9000F seems like a toy price wise. Also resolution is very bad at this method.

Like you said old photos have a texture, this texture needs to be present on retouched photos too. I wonder if 9000F would do a good job since at least it works 10x faster (dust removal with FARE3) judging from few reviews I found about it.

And I "think" it would be more easy to find it without dust under glass then EPSON.

 

[costadinos]

Perhaps there is a switch that needs to be pushed (like with a printer when you open the lid) to trick the scanner to use film lens for transparency? It would be good if only a button needs to be pressed.

You don't have to trick it, once you remove the white mat it automatically goes to transparency mode (there's a hole with a sensor on the back that gets uncovered once you remove the mat, that's how it "knows").
BUT, once you get into that mode, you are also putting in use the light source on the top (the scanner expects a transparent media), so, once you place a photo (not transparent), in the place of the film, you'll get a totally black scan. To do what you ask you should somehow manage to force the scanner to use both lights (the regular one in the bottom is the one used for prints), and I'd guess this is a hardware issue you can't bypass.

This would be better but would require a very expensive back compared to V700, and 9000F seems like a toy price wise. Also resolution is very bad at this method.

Not necessarily. I use a D800, and for example, digitising a 4x6" print that way, it gives around 1200dpi if you frame tightly (7360 pixels divided by 6 inches). If you must have more resolution (why would you want that with a print? anything over 300-400dpi and you end up just magnifying the texture of the paper, no resolution gain of the printed image), you can stitch several shots. I do that all the time for painting reproductions with excellent results. PTGui does a fine job stitching, especially since the original is flat and no geometric distortions are introduced.

 

[turbguy]

I have a Canoscan 9000F (NOT mark II, which I heard was inferior to the non-Mark II).

The dust/scratch removal with either FARE3 or ICE uses a second INFRARED scan after the white-light scan (with an infrared light source in the scanner LID) to detect the defects. Software then clones the defects with neighboring pixels. The maximum width of the light source in the lid on the Canoscan is about 2.5 inches.

Since you wish to remove defects from non-transparent (reflective) materials (photos and prints), neither scanner would work for dust/scratch removal in your application. You CAN force the scanner to scan a reflective print in the transparency "mode" with the driver settings (at least with the Canoscan) by "lying" to it. Similar to 'lying"to a Canon Printer about the paper type to force dye inks to be used rather than pigment inks.

The results would be abysmal as all of the paper and backing fibers would scanned and would show up in the result. IF you can get enough light to pass through the material....

Wayne

 

[turbguy]

BTW, since infrared will not penetrate silver deposits, B&W silver negative films cannot be scanned with either FARE3 or ICE dust/scratch removal. Only dye-based transparencies (E6 process) or color-negative films work. Kodachrome can be really tricky, as it was the most expensive B&W film ever made (the color dyes were added in processing, and not all of the silver was completely removed at times).

And if you are scanning silver-base prints...give up!

Wayne

 

[costadinos]

The results would be abysmal as all of the paper and backing fibers would scanned and would show up in the result. IF you can get enough light to pass through the material....

Even if you got some light to go through, you still wouldn't see any image, just a gray image textured like the inside of the paper. Prints rely on reflected light to be seen (all of their volume is opaque, and features on the surface scatter light in different ways to form a picture), transparencies rely on transmitted light (not all areas are opaque, the differences in transparency are what make the image).