Scanner question CanonScan 9000f mark II

[Fred von den Berg]

Hi, I'm thinking of upgrading to a CanonScan 9000F mark II. Does anyone know the ins and outs of this machine and whether or not it works well with Mac OS 10.9.5?

Thanks.

 

[Ysarex]

Hi, I'm thinking of upgrading to a CanonScan 9000F mark II. Does anyone know the ins and outs of this machine and whether or not it works well with Mac OS 10.9.5?

Thanks.

Drivers are available for your MAC OS so you should be OK there. I assume you want to use it to scan film? Try and get some sample scan to examine before you buy and read this: Detailed test report flat bed scanner Canon CanoScan 9000F Mark II; evaluation of the image quality of the scanner

Joe

 

[Derrel]

Hi, I'm thinking of upgrading to a CanonScan 9000F mark II. Does anyone know the ins and outs of this machine and whether or not it works well with Mac OS 10.9.5?

Thanks.

Drivers are available for your MAC OS so you should be OK there. I assume you want to use it to scan film? Try and get some sample scan to examine before you buy and read this: Detailed test report flat bed scanner Canon CanoScan 9000F Mark II; evaluation of the image quality of the scanner

Joe

Good link, as always, Ysarex. I read a bit of that, and went to the section liunked withgin the article, that on image quality testing of the Canonscan, in which they noted:

"This is why we of course test the resolution of the new CanoScan with the USAF-test chart. The horizontal lines of the element 5.1 and the vertical lines of the element 5.2 can be barely distinguished, so that in accordance to our resolution table we achieve a resolution of approximately 1700 ppi. This corresponds to approximately 17% of the nominal value of 9600 ppi. Thus, compared to the previous model, there is a slight increase: The CanoScan 8800F could make 1600 ppi. Nevertheless, the achieved resolution value is still much too low in order to print out the scans of 35-mm film material without any big loss of quality in larger formats than 13x18 cm. Good film scanners provide resolution values up to 3900 ppi (Nikon Super CoolScan 5000) or even 6200 ppi (Hasselblad Flextight), even some film scanners of a lower price category partly achieve some values exceeding 3000 ppi.

A scan with 1700 ppi provides an image file with approximately 4 megapixels; today, such a value is outperfomed by the most simple digital cameras. In order to achieve an effective value of 1700 ppi, the pattern should be scanned with 4800 ppi. The scan of a 35-mm negative or a 35-mm slide with 4800 ppi provides an image file with 32 megapixels. But from these 32 million pixels only 4 million is actually real information contained in the scan; the remaining pixels are double and multiple. Thus, in case of scanning film material, the Canon CanoScan 9000F provides some extremely inflated image files which have to be reduced to a rational size after the scanning in a very laborious image processing."
********

I was wondering if that image sharpening software application on-sale now for $19.99, the software you linked to yesterday, SHARPEN Projects 2018,might be helpful in elevating the perceived level of detail from scan files made by a scanner such as this Canonscan?

SHARPEN projects 2018

 

[Fred von den Berg]

Hi, I'm thinking of upgrading to a CanonScan 9000F mark II. Does anyone know the ins and outs of this machine and whether or not it works well with Mac OS 10.9.5?

Thanks.

Drivers are available for your MAC OS so you should be OK there. I assume you want to use it to scan film? Try and get some sample scan to examine before you buy and read this: Detailed test report flat bed scanner Canon CanoScan 9000F Mark II; evaluation of the image quality of the scanner

Joe

Thanks, Joe. I'll read the link in depth later and try to look at some scans made with this equipment, but after skimming through the article, it may not be what I was hoping for after all.

 

[Ysarex]

Hi, I'm thinking of upgrading to a CanonScan 9000F mark II. Does anyone know the ins and outs of this machine and whether or not it works well with Mac OS 10.9.5?

Thanks.

Drivers are available for your MAC OS so you should be OK there. I assume you want to use it to scan film? Try and get some sample scan to examine before you buy and read this: Detailed test report flat bed scanner Canon CanoScan 9000F Mark II; evaluation of the image quality of the scanner

Joe

Good link, as always, Ysarex. I read a bit of that, and went to the section liunked withgin the article, that on image quality testing of the Canonscan, in which they noted:

"This is why we of course test the resolution of the new CanoScan with the USAF-test chart. The horizontal lines of the element 5.1 and the vertical lines of the element 5.2 can be barely distinguished, so that in accordance to our resolution table we achieve a resolution of approximately 1700 ppi. This corresponds to approximately 17% of the nominal value of 9600 ppi. Thus, compared to the previous model, there is a slight increase: The CanoScan 8800F could make 1600 ppi. Nevertheless, the achieved resolution value is still much too low in order to print out the scans of 35-mm film material without any big loss of quality in larger formats than 13x18 cm. Good film scanners provide resolution values up to 3900 ppi (Nikon Super CoolScan 5000) or even 6200 ppi (Hasselblad Flextight), even some film scanners of a lower price category partly achieve some values exceeding 3000 ppi.

A scan with 1700 ppi provides an image file with approximately 4 megapixels; today, such a value is outperfomed by the most simple digital cameras. In order to achieve an effective value of 1700 ppi, the pattern should be scanned with 4800 ppi. The scan of a 35-mm negative or a 35-mm slide with 4800 ppi provides an image file with 32 megapixels. But from these 32 million pixels only 4 million is actually real information contained in the scan; the remaining pixels are double and multiple. Thus, in case of scanning film material, the Canon CanoScan 9000F provides some extremely inflated image files which have to be reduced to a rational size after the scanning in a very laborious image processing."
********

I was wondering if that image sharpening software application on-sale now for $19.99, the software you linked to yesterday, SHARPEN Projects 2018,might be helpful in elevating the perceived level of detail from scan files made by a scanner such as this Canonscan?

SHARPEN projects 2018

Software like Sharpen Projects could be a useful assist but it complicates the process and is not a real substitute for real resolution, but yes it would help. I'm lazy and it get's harder to brave the traffic to drive over to the lab where I have better hardware. One liability of decades as a college prof is that you rely on the perk of using school hardware. Here at home I have an Epson V600 but I usually end up cursing it every time I use it.

Scanner resolution claims are so bogus they'd make used car salesmen blush. Epson claims 6400 X 9600 for their V series scanners which should start you scratching your head right away thinking about those rectangular pixels. I'd frankly be surprised to find the Epson scanners managing 2400 ppi. not that it matters if you can't get the film holder to place the film in the focus plane -- way too much time lost shimming the bleepin film holder.

Here's another product Fred might want to look into: The Single Channel Variable Height MF Film Holder For Canon 8800F 8600F

Film scanning is a PITA.

Joe

 

[Fred von den Berg]

OK, so I've read a little more and found some scans on the net to look at, which look quite good as far as I can tell, but am a little confused as to the resolution information.

This is what I'm using at the moment and what I'd like is to move up a little in overall quality:




Would the 9000F mark II be an improvement?


My budget is about 200 to 300 USD, so I'm not looking for a professional level device but would like to move on a step or two. Setting up a darkroom is not an option as we simply don't have the space, but I enjoy the experience of using and developing B&W film and I'd like to get files I can then get better prints from.

 

[Derrel]

I agree-film scanning is a PITA. For a few years now, I've been meaning to set up a digital SLR-and-flash+macro lens film and slide digitizing system. One day I actually set about rummaging through my lenses, extension tubes, and so on, but came to the stumbling block of how to make a good, stable slide-holding device, to hold my 35mm mounted slides at the right distance from the front of a macro lens...and I never solved that part of the setup, and I let the project drop right there.

Still thinking about the best way to hold both slides, and 35mm film negs cut into 5-,6-,and 7-frame strip lengths. Maybe an older actual slide duplicator. I dunno...I have years' worth of film I want to access, and wet darkroom printing is costly and time-cosnuming and I'd never be able to print all the pictures I'd like to see...gotta' get away from the scanning of film if I ever want to get those older images into an easily-accessible format (computer .JPG files).

My EPSON flatbed is in storage right now. My old Minolta 35mm film scanner is slow, and runs only on a now-ancient PowerMac G4/450 from 1999. I too need a more-modern way to access my B&W negative and my color negatives and my color slide film archives.

 

[Ysarex]

OK, so I've read a little more and found some scans on the net to look at, which look quite good as far as I can tell, but am a little confused as to the resolution information.

This is what I'm using at the moment and what I'd like is to move up a little in overall quality:

View attachment 151899
View attachment 151900

Would the 9000F mark II be an improvement?


My budget is about 200 to 300 USD, so I'm not looking for a professional level device but would like to move on a step or two. Setting up a darkroom is not an option as we simply don't have the space, but I enjoy the experience of using and developing B&W film and I'd like to get files I can then get better prints from.

I think the 9000F is a step up from what you have but not a big step up. Given your budget and given that you don't require the muti-format capability of the 9000F this would probably be a better route to go: Plustek OpticFilm 8100 Film Scanner 783064365321 B&H Photo Video

Joe

 

[Ysarex]

I agree-film scanning is a PITA. For a few years now, I've been meaning to set up a digital SLR-and-flash+macro lens film and slide digitizing system. One day I actually set about rummaging through my lenses, extension tubes, and so on, but came to the stumbling block of how to make a good, stable slide-holding device, to hold my 35mm mounted slides at the right distance from the front of a macro lens...and I never solved that part of the setup, and I let the project drop right there.

Still thinking about the best way to hold both slides, and 35mm film negs cut into 5-,6-,and 7-frame strip lengths. Maybe an older actual slide duplicator. I dunno...I have years' worth of film I want to access, and wet darkroom printing is costly and time-cosnuming and I'd never be able to print all the pictures I'd like to see...gotta' get away from the scanning of film if I ever want to get those older images into an easily-accessible format (computer .JPG files).

My EPSON flatbed is in storage right now. My old Minolta 35mm film scanner is slow, and runs only on a now-ancient PowerMac G4/450 from 1999. I too need a more-modern way to access my B&W negative and my color negatives and my color slide film archives.

Toyed with the same idea, but have never fully implemented it. I'm just going to die with most of it not scanned and then my wife and son will pitch it all -- I can live with that.

Joe

 

[Derrel]

SNIP>>>>Toyed with the same idea, but have never fully implemented it. I'm just going to die with most of it not scanned and then my wife and son will pitch it all -- I can live with that.

Joe

Ummmm...yeah...I know whatcha' mean...

 

[Fred von den Berg]

OK, so I've read a little more and found some scans on the net to look at, which look quite good as far as I can tell, but am a little confused as to the resolution information.

This is what I'm using at the moment and what I'd like is to move up a little in overall quality:

View attachment 151899
View attachment 151900

Would the 9000F mark II be an improvement?


My budget is about 200 to 300 USD, so I'm not looking for a professional level device but would like to move on a step or two. Setting up a darkroom is not an option as we simply don't have the space, but I enjoy the experience of using and developing B&W film and I'd like to get files I can then get better prints from.

I think the 9000F is a step up from what you have but not a big step up. Given your budget and given that you don't require the muti-format capability of the 9000F this would probably be a better route to go: Plustek OpticFilm 8100 Film Scanner 783064365321 B&H Photo Video

Joe

Thank you very much, Joe. I really appreciate the time you've taken: a great help. They have this item available on Amazon locally