Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing 
Thread started 26 May 2013 (Sunday) 14:25
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Disappointing results scanning 35mm film Canon 9000F Mark II

 
LCCEosRebelT1i
Junior Member
25 posts
Joined Aug 2009
     
May 26, 2013 14:25 |  #1

Hi, I recently purchased a Canon 9000F Mark II primarily to archive my old 35mm negatives and also to scan film that I am currently shooting. I did a lot of comparing between the Epson v600 and Canon and didn’t see much of a difference, so I decided to buy the Canon since it was on sale. Unfortunately, I am disappointed with the results I am getting. I seem to get severe blotchiness on my Kodak Ektar 100 film scans, and severe digital noise on older Fuji 400 scans. (These are the only two types of film I have tried so far.) I downloaded VueScan and the results are better, but I still notice the problem. I am wondering if the scanner is defective, or if this what I should expect for a sub $200 scanner? Would I see better results from the Epson? I have gotten some good frames from the Canon software, but overall the results are so varied, that it will not work for me when it comes time to archive my entire negative collection, as I’m not willing to process thousands of individual images. I have tried various different settings in the Canon Scangear software as well as turning everything off, nothing seems to help. The prints from my negatives look fine. Any advice is appreciated, Thanks!

These were all scanned at 4800dpi

Kodak Ektar 100 ScanGear Fading Correction – Medium

IMAGE: http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3787/8835878987_ea7b0d576c_b.jpg

Kodak Ektar 100 ScanGear All adjustments off
IMAGE: http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2822/8836509228_a4b94c55b3_b.jpg

Kodak Ektar 100 VueScan Contrast Adjusted
IMAGE: http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2817/8835878841_d5fe9d8e94_b.jpg


Kodak Ektar 100 VueScan Contrast All adjustments off
IMAGE: http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5456/8835878579_6e8394e2ac_b.jpg


Fuji 400 ScanGear Fading Correction - Medium
IMAGE: http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3805/8835879443_1f94554b3c_b.jpg


Fuji 400 ScanGear Fading Correction – Medium
IMAGE: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8135/8844584523_6d39fb24ff_b.jpg

Fuji 400 ScanGear Fading Correction – Medium 100% Crop
IMAGE: http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3687/8835879047_37a179be5a_b.jpg



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Geonerd
Senior Member
Avatar
541 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2009
Location: Aridzona
     
May 26, 2013 16:33 |  #2

Yea, that's not remotely right. Flatbeds can't quite match the raw resolution of a dedicated negative scanner, but their tonal scale is generally quite good.

I don't suppose there's a layer of protective plastic film over the scanner window that needs to be peeled? ;)


"Consulting the rules of composition before taking a photograph is like consulting the laws of gravity before going for a walk!" - E. Weston

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LCCEosRebelT1i
THREAD ­ STARTER
Junior Member
25 posts
Joined Aug 2009
     
May 26, 2013 17:15 |  #3

Geonerd wrote in post #15969736 (external link)
Yea, that's not remotely right. Flatbeds can't quite match the raw resolution of a dedicated negative scanner, but their tonal scale is generally quite good.

I don't suppose there's a layer of protective plastic film over the scanner window that needs to be peeled? ;)

I removed all the plastic on the inside of the scanner, but left the plastic on the outside for now.

I forgot to mention that these were all 4800dpi scans.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
N2bnfunn
Senior Member
Avatar
697 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 56
Joined Dec 2010
     
May 26, 2013 17:47 |  #4

It got a 4 out of 6 rating...


Canon 1DX Canon EOS R EF 70-200 L 2.8 EF 50mm 1.2 L 24-105 4.0 L 24-70 2.8L II Canon Pixma PRO-1 3 Canon 600EX-RT Speedlites

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sssc
Senior Member
Avatar
567 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 16
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Ohio.SW
     
May 26, 2013 20:53 |  #5

LCCEosRebelT1i wrote in post #15969828 (external link)
I removed all the plastic on the inside of the scanner, but left the plastic on the outside for now.

I forgot to mention that these were all 4800dpi scans.

Hope this helps you pretty good read. I think your scanning at to high of a DPI myself
http://www.scantips.co​m/ (external link)


Keith-EOS R 7D MarkII EOS REBEL T2i 18-55,55-250.85 1/8. 100-400L. 10-22 f/3.5-4.5. 24-105mm f/4L IS,70-200 II,RF 24-105

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tony-S
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,903 posts
Likes: 200
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
     
May 26, 2013 21:44 |  #6

First, I wouldn't scan 35mm with any flat bed scanner. They simply don't have the resolving power (and I use an Epson V700 for my medium and large format scans). You should consider investing in a PlusTek 8200 AI. Expensive, but probably the best 35mm scanner available. Second, there's no point in scanning more than 1800 ppi with your Canon because anything above that just increases file size without increasing image resolution or detail. The flatbed scanner manufactures are misleading in their resolution claims. The sensors are capable of 4800 or 9600 dpi, but when you consider the relatively poor lenses then the tops for the Canon or Epson V600 is about 1800 ppi. I use 2400 ppi on my Epson V700, even though it's rated higher than that.


"Raw" is not an acronym, abbreviation, nor a proper noun; thus, it should not be in capital letters.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
boerewors
Goldmember
Avatar
1,948 posts
Joined Sep 2009
Location: South African living in Indonesia
     
May 27, 2013 01:53 |  #7

I found a 70mm negative from back in the days when my wife and i were sweethearts. I have no scanner but i did this: pinned it up against a cardboard cut out and some back lighting on a white piece of paper, slapped on a macro lens and took a shot with my camera. The results were pretty darn good once i got the exposure right. Maby thats a bit red necked of a solution but hey, i now have a large print from that and it looks sweet :)


The most important piece of gear you own, resides in your head and its called your brain.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bob_A
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,438 posts
Gallery: 48 photos
Likes: 46
Joined Jan 2005
Location: Alberta, Canada
     
May 27, 2013 02:38 |  #8

If you're looking to do really high quality scans then I agree with the others that have recommended a dedicated film scanner. I have a Nikon Super Coolscan 5000ED, and while discontined, a used one is still the best 35mm non-drum scanner available. Used ones sell for a bit more than their original mrsp.

The only issue is that the Nikon software does not play well with Vista and does not work at all with Win 7. I use mine on a Win 7 pro machine running Virtual XP and it works great. The sanner is also supported by popular third party scanner software.

Instead of spending over $2000 on a really good scanner, I'd recommend looking into using a scanning service like Scan Cafe. Scanning takes lots of time ... Which is better spent taking photos :)


Bob
SmugMug (external link) | My Gear Ratings | My POTN Gallery

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pwm2
"Sorry for being a noob"
Avatar
8,626 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2007
Location: Sweden
     
May 27, 2013 03:05 |  #9

Right now, I feel prio 1 is to figure out what is wrong.

The scanner isn't that bad. If scanning ink-jet prints, I could understand if a scanner picks up interference. But I wouldn't expect this kind of results from an analog negative. The crystals in the film may have a certain size but shouldn't be aligned so evenly that the resolution of the scanner interacts like this.

The first and last scan looks absolutely terrible, while the scanner is supposed to be quite good - you really sure there isn't some plastic film accidentally hidden somewhere? Maybe some plastic that was never intended to be there but a result of some goof when they manufactured the scanner?


5DMk2 + BG-E6 | 40D + BG-E2N | 350D + BG-E3 + RC-1 | Elan 7E | Minolta Dimage 7U | (Gear thread)
10-22 | 16-35/2.8 L II | 20-35 | 24-105 L IS | 28-135 IS | 40/2.8 | 50/1.8 II | 70-200/2.8 L IS | 100/2.8 L IS | 100-400 L IS | Sigma 18-200DC
Speedlite 420EZ | Speedlite 580EX | EF 1.4x II | EF 2x II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
41,634 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2502
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
May 27, 2013 10:52 |  #10

This is a section of the image from a very old Kodacolor neg (c. 1962) scanned with a Canon 8800F...

IMAGE: http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i63/wiltonw/POTN%202013%20Post%20Mar1/negscan_0001a_zpscbc14622.jpg

The full image for reference
IMAGE: http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i63/wiltonw/POTN%202013%20Post%20Mar1/negscan_0001s_zpsfcfdd365.jpg

You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tzalman
Fatal attraction.
Avatar
13,467 posts
Likes: 193
Joined Apr 2005
Location: Gesher Haziv, Israel
     
May 27, 2013 11:26 |  #11

The prints from my negatives look fine.

A 35 mm negative or slide scanned at 4800 ppi is 4500x6750 pixels. Viewed at 100% zoom that is like looking at a 45 x 67.5 inch print. Made many prints that size?


Elie / אלי

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mavgirl
Senior Member
647 posts
Joined Mar 2013
Location: Dallas area
     
May 27, 2013 14:15 as a reply to  @ tzalman's post |  #12

Don't scan at 4800 DPI. There is no reason to. Consider the file size you want and what size prints you wish to make from the scan. Base your DPI choice on that. You'll be much happier with the results.

With Epson scanners you can put in the output size and the DPI and it will do all the math for you. Not sure if Canon scanners have the same options.

I've scanned thousands of frames of film, both positive and negative from 110 to 8x10 with my older Epson 4870 and I always get outstanding results that make beautiful prints. Though sometimes I have to wet scan to avoid Newton rings.


6D/50D/350D with too many lenses
Calumet 4x5, Pentax SV 35mm, Canon A-1, Rebel G and many more toys...

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LCCEosRebelT1i
THREAD ­ STARTER
Junior Member
25 posts
Joined Aug 2009
     
May 27, 2013 15:05 as a reply to  @ Mavgirl's post |  #13

Thanks for the replies. I scanned the negatives at 4800dpi because to my eye that yielded the best results, in terms of sharpness and detail. When scanning lower than 4800dpi or higher the resulting scans are noticeably softer.

When I said the prints look fine, I meant there is no blotchiness or grain. I scanned a few of the prints and compared them to the negatives and the scanned prints have no blotchiness but are slightly softer than the scanned negatives. A few of the scanned prints actually look better. So the main issue I'm having with this scanner is negative scans.

-The last photo on my original post is a 100% crop to show the digital noise.

Fuji 400 Scanned Negative

IMAGE: http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3805/8835879443_1f94554b3c_b.jpg

Fuji 400 Scanned Print
IMAGE: http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5342/8857874411_79fb301c38_b.jpg



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Geonerd
Senior Member
Avatar
541 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2009
Location: Aridzona
     
May 27, 2013 15:08 |  #14

This is not a matter of "Flatbeds aren't as good", this is a gross malfunction of some sort.

You should get results similar to those found in this review: http://www.imaging-resource.com/SCAN/CS90​00/9000F.HTM (external link)

You might try disabling FARE, the infrared dust removal system. Other than that, "I hope you saved the receipt!"


"Consulting the rules of composition before taking a photograph is like consulting the laws of gravity before going for a walk!" - E. Weston

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
lsquare
Goldmember
1,932 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Apr 2008
     
May 29, 2013 08:14 |  #15

First of all, what's the native DPI for this scanner?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

41,507 views & 0 likes for this thread
Disappointing results scanning 35mm film Canon 9000F Mark II
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Jpcullen
1198 guests, 221 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.