[Mac+]

I need a scanner for all my negs. I have been shooting 35mm and want to be able to archive them myself now, as opposed to handing them over to a 3rd party.

I suspect the person whom I hand them over to uses a high end negative (drum) scanner (perhaps something similar to this) but I don't want to blow that much money.

Essentially I'm after:

• compatibility with OS X (a good software experience is a bonus - not a necessity at this point)
• dedicated negative holder
• ability to scan many negatives at once
• stellar optical quality/resolution

I have been looking at the Canon CanoScan 9950F - anybody here had experience with it? (DG, if you are reading, I couldn't find out the DMAX rating from this page.)

Are there any other brands or models you have had experience with and can comment on?

Cheers.

I looked at related threads but most focussed on print scanning and the negative film scanner threads did not receive too many replies. The most helpful thread was almost two years old, so I'm posting this in case there are more recent opinions to be shared.

[ghoti]

Are these color negatives or b&w? If the latter, I had horrible results with a Nikon LS-30 a few years ago. It looks like b&w negatives can only be reasonably scanned on a drum scanner, or whatever they use for Kodak PhotoCDs (or whatever those were called).

At any rate, scanning negatives is extremely tedious and annoying (you spend 50% of the time blowing dust off the film). Depending on how many negatives you have and how much time you are planning on spending, it might make sense to have them scanned instead.

Edit: and looking at that scanner now, I would reconsider your plan. Unless flatbed scanners have gotten a lot better in the meantime, the quality of those scans will be mediocre. There is a reason why they make dedicated film scanners.

[Mac+]

They're colour negatives. I might pay for the b&w ones with the professional scanner.

What do you mean by your last statement? That it might make sense to pay for them to be scanned by somebody else?

(At the moment, I want to have control over the process and don't think I'd mind doing it myself - although I do have *heaps*. I understand that it could become tedious, but I want to be able to archive when I want and not have to continually have to pay for it.)

[BuonRotto]

Whatever you buy, just use VueScan, and you can't go too wrong.

[ghoti]

This was mostly meant as an experience report from somebody who tried something similar, and gave up. I thought I'd never switch to digital, so I bought that film scanner for convenience. The whole thing took forever (this was still using SCSI), there was dust everywhere, and tweaking the settings to get good results was no fun at all. I gave up pretty quickly and sold it again, and later switched to digital, problem solved I still have thousands of unscanned negatives (mostly b&w).

My remark re the scanner was that I would get somebody who has that scanner scan a negative for you to see what quality you get. My experience with scanning negatives is about five years old now, but seeing the noise levels of the (cheapo, admittedly) flatbed scanner we bought a few months ago, I would not expect good results from such a scanner. Same thing with the Dmax. These things are made for reflected light, where you simply don't get the contrast you will get with film. And the dark areas are often very noisy.

Sorry to be so negative, but I just wanted to make you aware of some of the potential pitfalls. Maybe you're not deterred that easily.

[ghoti]

Originally Posted by BuonRotto Whatever you buy, just use VueScan, and you can't go too wrong.

What the hell, you're going to think I've got some issues, but I can't resist. VueScan is one of the most overrated and unusable pieces of crap that I know of. The software included with my scanner made a lot more sense and produced much better results than VueScan, and I didn't have to type in 100 arbitrary numbers. I really don't get what people see in that program.

[Mac+]

That's fine, fish, I don't take you as being negative. I appreciate the honesty and real life experience feedback.

That flatbed scanner will do 30*35mm negs at once and it is pretty high quality (not a cheapo), so I thought it would alleviate some of the pain with my goal of scanning my negs and being able to archive them as well as hopefully print poster size for the odd one or two.

I will switch to digital (with a full frame sensor) at some stage, but I will still have to deal with my negatives and I don't want to have to keep paying for them or be at the mercy of the scan person.

[Mac+]

Originally Posted by ghoti What the hell, you're going to think I've got some issues, but I can't resist. VueScan is one of the most overrated and unusable pieces of crap that I know of. The software included with my scanner made a lot more sense and produced much better results than VueScan, and I didn't have to type in 100 arbitrary numbers. I really don't get what people see in that program.

I was just going to ask BR whether VueScan would *really* be necessary. I thought that the scanner would come with some decent software, but I didn't know for sure. I have not used manufacturer provided software, nor VueScan, so I don't know what works best.

Not ragging on you BR, because I appreciate your input, but I just found ghoti's reply quite forthright.

[curiousuburb]

We've recently been getting to know a Nikon Super COOLSCAN 9000 ED at work.

Global link US Link

Not cheap, but some very impressive scans and clever software.
Firewire is a good thing™ for 4x5 negs at 4k resolution.

Google spit back this link of scanner recommendations while I was hunting the Nikon above. YMMV

[BuonRotto]

Oh, don't get me wrong, VueScan is a &^*%$ing lot of work to get set up right. I hate the UI. A lot. However, I've gotten the absolute best results from it. It's a horrible app in terms of user experience. But damn it all, I just can't say enough about how much better the same negatives come out from it versus both manufacturer's software (which is usually just as big a pain) and even other third party software that have far, far better UIs. It just gets much better dynamic range from the negatives once you've spent some serious time with it.

Feel free to do a search on VueScan on this site. Ah, hell with it, I did it for you. It was a complete pain to figure out. Hate the steppers with a burning passion. Hate the lack of proper feedback. It took me probably a week of tinkering all evening to start getting used to it. I simply was not satisfied with the other softwares' results, even with their curves controls and such.

The manufacturer's own UIs aren't much better than VueScan, mainly due to performance suckage. If you don't have Photoshop, make sure the manufacturer also includes a TWAIN driver because Image Capture has a nice TWAIN scanning UI.

[Dorian Gray]

Originally Posted by ghoti Unless flatbed scanners have gotten a lot better in the meantime, the quality of those scans will be mediocre.

They have improved massively over the last few years. Really high-end flatbeds (over £10k) have put most drum scanners out to pasture. Photographers were never the target market for drum scanners, so when the prepress market disappeared, so too did new drum scanners (only one or two companies still make drum scanners). On the other hand, you can now get a used drum scanner from around £2000, because nobody except a few photographers wants them. But parts and servicing may be expensive or unobtainable, and you would probably need an old computer to do the scanning. And using a drum scanner is difficult and very time-consuming (probably an hour per scan, realistically).

In the more sensible price range, flatbeds have improved even more. The Epson V700 and V750 are among the best, although they are a bit fussy with film height. Prints and files from these two scanners reveal a quality that is absolutely stunning for a flatbed. The Canon 9950F doesn't seem to be very popular here in the UK and I've never used one myself. I've heard that the software is pretty woeful, but I don't always agree with popular opinion on whether software is good or bad. Every scanner I've ever seen has been compatible with OS X, so I wouldn't worry about that aspect. The only thing I would check carefully is whether they work with Intel Macs.

You say you want "stellar" optical quality. That's quite a strong word! You also say you want to scan 35 mm film. Flatbeds are fantastic for 4x5 and even medium format, but they still suffer in shadow detail (with slides; with negs they should be fine in this regard) and sharpness compared to a dedicated film scanner, especially with 35 mm film. You could get a better film scanner on the used market for less money than a new 9950F. Or you could get a new Nikon COOLSCAN V ED for a bit more than the 9950F. Now that Konica Minolta has dropped out of the picture, the COOLSCAN range stands head and shoulders above the competition. The V ED costs $550 at B&H, so it's not cheap, but the image quality is really impressive, it scans quickly, and it is built to last. It also has Digital ICE which is all but essential if you don't want to pull your hair out (I don't know how the Canon's infrared cleaner compares: maybe it's great too.)

One big benefit of the flatbeds is that you can scan prints.

Here are a few comparison images between an older Nikon COOLSCAN 4000 (similar quality to today's V ED) and the Canon 9950F. 100% view makes the 9950F look bad, but remember that the scanning resolution is so high (about 24 megapixels) that a print may look acceptably sharp at fairly large sizes even if the 100% view doesn't look great. The Epson V700 would fit in between those two, though probably closer to the COOLSCAN than the 9950F. Notice that the 9950F doesn't seem to resolve the film grain at all, even on that old Ektachrome slide. The Nikon takes a stab at it, though exaggerating the grain in the process. With modern Fujifilm stock like Astia 100F even the Nikon wouldn't resolve the grain cleanly.

And just for fun, here is a 6000 x 4698 pixel 47 MB TIFF from a 4x5 slide, scanned at about 1200 DPI with an ancient Howtek D4000. (A small JPEG of this image is available here.) As you can see, the quality is simply astounding. A bit of unsharp mask voodoo and that would make an impressive print. And that old scanner can go a lot higher than 1200 DPI.

A Howtek D4000 in nearly-usable condition is actually on eBay right now.

Anyway, to stop babbling on, affordable flatbeds have got much better recently, but still don't equal a dedicated film scanner, despite the odd claim to the contrary on the internet. If you insist on "stellar" quality that's something to keep in mind, though budget, local availability, etc. will all factor into the decision.

[Mac+]

Originally Posted by curiousuburb We've recently been getting to know a Nikon Super COOLSCAN 9000 ED at work. Global link US Link Not cheap, but some very impressive scans and clever software. Firewire is a good thing™ for 4x5 negs at 4k resolution. Google spit back this link of scanner recommendations while I was hunting the Nikon above. YMMV

Thanks curiousuburb. The Nikon coolscan line up looks good, but I'm not sure of the prices or availability over here. I'll put them on my list to check out, but budget wise I thought they'd be out of my price range. Of course, something I neglected to mention earlier is that I don't mind going for a high quality flatbed scanner as it will also suffice for papers (tax and banking documents, etc.) should the need arise.

Thanks for the Ken Rockwell link too. I usually take his recommendations with a grain of salt, but his heart seems to be in the right place.

[Mac+]

Originally Posted by BuonRotto Oh, don't get me wrong, VueScan is a &^*%$ing lot of work to get set up right. I hate the UI. A lot. However, I've gotten the absolute best results from it. It's a horrible app in terms of user experience. But damn it all, I just can't say enough about how much better the same negatives come out from it versus both manufacturer's software (which is usually just as big a pain) and even other third party software that have far, far better UIs. It just gets much better dynamic range from the negatives once you've spent some serious time with it. Feel free to do a search on VueScan on this site. Ah, hell with it, I did it for you. It was a complete pain to figure out. Hate the steppers with a burning passion. Hate the lack of proper feedback. It took me probably a week of tinkering all evening to start getting used to it. I simply was not satisfied with the other softwares' results, even with their curves controls and such. The manufacturer's own UIs aren't much better than VueScan, mainly due to performance suckage. If you don't have Photoshop, make sure the manufacturer also includes a TWAIN driver because Image Capture has a nice TWAIN scanning UI.

Thanks again BuonRotto.

If I get a decent scan in the first place (without using VueScan) won't Aperture provide me with enough tools to wring out detail and finesse the image further as I need? I'll keep that thread as a reference, should I need it, but it will depend on my satisfaction with the software that comes with the scanner I end up purchasing obviously.

[BuonRotto]

Yep. Really, try the scanner software first. I've not used the Nikon software in a long, long time (it was barely ported from OS 9 and was PAINFUL to use due to poor responsiveness). The rule though is that you want to get the best-exposed scan first because after you scan, everything subsequent to that is losing info, i.e., detail. In other words, don't go for "punch" in colors or contrast when you scan, do that in Aperture afterwards. When scanning, make sure you have detail in your shadows and that you don't blow out your highlights. You'll never recover them post-scan. Your images may looks blah, but you'll have the most range of color and detail to work with when you do want to make your pictures "pop".

I suppose that's another reason why my experience might be different than ghoti's with regard to VueScan. VueScan's priority is to get the maximum amount of detail from the negative. It does not try (by default) to create the most "wow" looking scan with the brightest, most saturated colors, or strongest contrast. These things always lose detail, though it's a fair trade of course. It's how I've always shot my photos: capture color as I see it, maximum grain of detail. Then I go back and will selectively drop detail through the editing process in order to create more dramatic color and tone. I can always go back and re-edit that way.

[Mac+]

Originally Posted by Dorian Gray You say you want "stellar" optical quality. That's quite a strong word! You also say you want to scan 35 mm film. Flatbeds are fantastic for 4x5 and even medium format, but they still suffer in shadow detail (with slides; with negs they should be fine in this regard) and sharpness compared to a dedicated film scanner, especially with 35 mm film.

Well, when I wrote "stellar" I just wanted to get across that I didn't want a suggestion for some cheap flatbed. With optics, you usually get what you pay for and I'm prepared to pay a bit more than what a "Mum and Dad" might consider reasonable for a scanner. My primary purpose is to scan 35mm negs, so the shadow detail should be OK, as you mentioned, with a flatbed. The other advantage being that a flatbed can also scan other *things*. However...

Originally Posted by Dorian Gray You could get a better film scanner on the used market for less money than a new 9950F. Or you could get a new Nikon COOLSCAN V ED for a bit more than the 9950F. Now that Konica Minolta has dropped out of the picture, the COOLSCAN range stands head and shoulders above the competition. The V ED costs $550 at B&H, so it's not cheap, but the image quality is really impressive, it scans quickly, and it is built to last. It also has Digital ICE which is all but essential if you don't want to pull your hair out (I don't know how the Canon's infrared cleaner compares: maybe it's great too.)

Going by the review you linked to the Canon FARE system is appreciably faster than the Digital ICE system and it holds its own in terms of dust removal, etc.

Back to the COOLSCAN V ED: Having just read up on this model, and based on the recommendation from you and curiousuburb, I'm open to being swayed. I'm not sure what I give up though.

• I would have thought that the 9950F with a capacity for 30 frames at once would be quicker than the COOLSCAN with only 6 frames per loader.
  
• This loader also has to be purchased as an optional extra, whereas the holders are included with the Canon.
  
• The Canon has a maximum optical resolution of 4800x9600 dpi. The COOLSCAN says the image sensor is 3946x5969 pixels. (Roughly speaking, is this like saying 46MP for the Canon and 23.5MP for the Nikon per image?) I presume I'm comparing apples with apples here - does that mean the Canon is capable of higher resolution when scanning? This would be an important factor when making enlargements wouldn't it? Please clarify this point for me - I want to understand it clearly.
  
• The other comparison that stands out is 16 bit colour on the Canon, 14 bit A/D conversion on the COOLSCAN.
  
• Finally, the Canon also offers flatbed capabilities.

Originally Posted by Dorian Gray One big benefit of the flatbeds is that you can scan prints.

I thought I just mentioned that.

Originally Posted by Dorian Gray Here are a few comparison images between an older Nikon COOLSCAN 4000 (similar quality to today's V ED) and the Canon 9950F. 100% view makes the 9950F look bad, but remember that the scanning resolution is so high (about 24 megapixels) that a print may look acceptably sharp at fairly large sizes even if the 100% view doesn't look great. The Epson V700 would fit in between those two, though probably closer to the COOLSCAN than the 9950F. Notice that the 9950F doesn't seem to resolve the film grain at all, even on that old Ektachrome slide. The Nikon takes a stab at it, though exaggerating the grain in the process. With modern Fujifilm stock like Astia 100F even the Nikon wouldn't resolve the grain cleanly.

Thanks for this link.

I prefer the Canon over the Epson in terms of sharpness - but the warmth or colour rendition seemed out of whack.
As for "clean-up" duties the Canon was 3x faster than the Epson, so that's a plus for it. (Granted this is not the Epson V700 being assessed, but just what I'm reading from the comparison.)

That said the Canon still seemed a tad soft for 35mm film. The reviewer thought it good, and excellent for other formats, but preferred to keep his dedicated film scanner for 35mm film.

If that is the case and the price and availability don't prove limiting factors, I'm willing to give the Nikon a shot. I would appreciate it if somebody could spell out those differences I mentioned above so I know that I'm not unwittingly setting myself up for disappointment.

Originally Posted by Dorian Gray And just for fun, ... drum scanning blah blah ...

Yeah, looks nice - but out of my price range and overkill for my slightly more modest aspirations. I did love the colours in that photo though.

Originally Posted by Dorian Gray Anyway, to stop babbling on, affordable flatbeds have got much better recently, but still don't equal a dedicated film scanner, despite the odd claim to the contrary on the internet. If you insist on "stellar" quality that's something to keep in mind, though budget, local availability, etc. will all factor into the decision.

Yes, I think that local availability will be a factor. I have not seen the Nikon COOLSCAN V ED over here, although I haven't been actively searching for it. I will add it to my list and hit the electronics markets again this week. Thanks for chiming in.

[BuonRotto]

Originally Posted by Mac+ [*]The Canon has a maximum optical resolution of 4800x9600 dpi. The COOLSCAN says the image sensor is 3946x5969 pixels. (Roughly speaking, is this like saying 46MP for the Canon and 23.5MP for the Nikon per image?) I presume I'm comparing apples with apples here - does that mean the Canon is capable of higher resolution when scanning? This would be an important factor when making enlargements wouldn't it? Please clarify this point for me - I want to understand it clearly.

The scanner will only pick up as much resolution as the negative contains. If you're scanning 35mm negatives of 100 speed film, you're talking about roughly 20 MP images, or 4000 dpi, give or take IIRC. Finer scanning resolution won't, well, resolve the negative beyond this because the negative doesn't have any more resolution to give! You end up picking up more grain noise usually. It's like a digital zoom on a P&S camera: it make images bigger, but not more detailed.

added: This guy gives a better explanation.

[Mac+]

Thanks again BR, but can you please explain to me what you mean by 4000 dpi? I know it is dots per inch, but how was this figure derived?

For example, it says on the COOLSCAN V ED's brochure that the

optical resolution of 4,000 dpi delivers 35mm film scans at a resolution of 21 megapixels (3,654 x 5,646 pixels).

My value of 3946x5969 came from the SA-21 film adaptor scan range.

How can I make a comparison of that to the Canon which just says 4,800 x 9,600 dpi? This is what is confounding me. How can I make a meaningful specifications comparison?

Also, by your logic, is there a theoretical maximum resolution (or dpi) value for scanning 35mm film, whereby any larger numbers are just superfluous?

[BuonRotto]

Oh, the 4000dpi and 20 MP were my ballpark numbers. Let's see... 35mm film is about 1-3/8" wide, and I think 100 ISO film is about equivalent to 5600 pixels wide, so... that's 4072 dpi, and 5600 * 4000 (1-3/8" * 1") = 22,400,000 or 22.4 MP. Those are just ballpark figures. The Nikon info is probably more accurate. They're assuming the same things I am with more accurate numbers.

Anything larger than these numbers, assuming you won't be scanning anything bigger than 35mm or scanning lower speed film (e.g., 64 or 50 ISO), is superfluous. The Canon isn't going to buy you more detail or accuracy with its much higher pixel count, it will just have 4 pixels for each grain in the film, not adding detail or accuracy, but introducing some noise and a LOT of file size.

I wouldn't eliminate the Canon for having extra resolution, just that it isn't really a factor in your decision if my assumptions (35mm film, 100 ISO) are correct. If it's the better choice otherwise, you can just scan at a lower resolution with it. No point in having files that are 4 times bigger but have no additional info/detail in them.

[ghoti]

Originally Posted by Mac+ I would have thought that the 9950F with a capacity for 30 frames at once would be quicker than the COOLSCAN with only 6 frames per loader.

But that's only if your film is still in one piece. It can load one film strip with a maximum of 30 frames (which is kind of an odd number), but if all your film strips are cut into 4- or 6-frame pieces, there is no difference.

Originally Posted by Mac+ This loader also has to be purchased as an optional extra, whereas the holders are included with the Canon.

Really? That was included with my LS-30.

Originally Posted by Mac+ The Canon has a maximum optical resolution of 4800x9600 dpi. The COOLSCAN says the image sensor is 3946x5969 pixels. (Roughly speaking, is this like saying 46MP for the Canon and 23.5MP for the Nikon per image?) I presume I'm comparing apples with apples here - does that mean the Canon is capable of higher resolution when scanning? This would be an important factor when making enlargements wouldn't it? Please clarify this point for me - I want to understand it clearly.

A 35mm frame is 24mm*48mm in size. You can convert that to inches (1in = 25.4mm) and then figure out how many pixels you get from such a frame. The numbers will all be similar though, and a 4000dpi film scanner will give you much better results than the few additional pixels you get from the nominal 4800 (you can't make use of the 9600, because you need square pixels - and the 9600 is just a theoretical number, anyway).

What you could try is to get a good film scanner from ebay, or perhaps find somebody through craigslist or similar (local photo club?) who has a film scanner and will let you use it in exchange for some money - or perhaps for scanning some of his/her negatives

Originally Posted by Mac+ The other comparison that stands out is 16 bit colour on the Canon, 14 bit A/D conversion on the COOLSCAN.

But that's again just a number. If the lower 4 bits are only noise, that is pretty meaningless. Don't just compare numbers, or at least include numbers like signal/noise ratio etc.

[zippy]

I have a Canon 9950F on my desk at work, and an 8400F at home. I really like them - they are fast and easy, and meet my needs. Granted, I'm not as knowledgeable about photography and film as many other users on here, and I haven't compared to other products. All I know is that it is pretty easy to mount a bunch of negatives in the little carrier, and then batch scan the lot of them. And the quality certainly meets the 'average man's needs'.

One thing to note: The carrier for negatives will hold 30 negatives: in 5 rows of 6. I'm not sure about you, but all my negatives come cut in strips of 4, so to scan a full 30, I'd have to start cutting some of those up so that I could get 6 in a row. I'm not willing to do that, so I just end up scanning 5 rows of 4 at a time.

[Mac+]

Thanks BR - I really appreciate you taking the time to answer my questions.

Oh, so if it is set at 4000 dpi and 35mm film equates to (roughly) 1" by 1and3/8" then, all up you have 4000*5500=22MP. Got it.

So, the Canon may be able to scan at higher than 4000dpi, but it might not realise that much extra detail.

Cheers, BR. I approve (+) of your posts.

[BuonRotto]

Yup, and ghoti makes a good point about noise and bit depth with these scanners. That detail might be useless if there are too many abberations (color noise, highlight fringing) from the scanner.

I have to admit though, one thing that's always confused me is how these scanners are claim 48 bit color depth, but does any means of output put that to use? Displays are 8 bit, printers are something like 6 bit... yeah, this is where someone else needs to take over.

[Mac+]

Whoah - all in now!

Ghoti - Your explanation is even more clear to me, wrt to the mm conversions. (Except that part about making use of the extra 9600)

Also, I'm not into eBay or Craigslist. I'd prefer to research it, demo if possible and then buy once, buy well, hopefully.

One more thing, as zippy mentioned, the negative holder is a 5 by 6 holder.

zippy - thanks for the experienced input as well.

Positive rep to all! (gee, I'm generous)

[Dorian Gray]

Originally Posted by Mac+ Going by the review you linked to the Canon FARE system is appreciably faster than the Digital ICE system and it holds its own in terms of dust removal, etc.

You're right, quite a big time difference there. It also works very well (I was under the impression that Digital ICE was the only game in town). Fact is, the only Canon scanners I've personally used are the old CanoScan FS4000 film scanner and an eighty-quid flatbed I bought five years ago.

For a full-res scan with Digital ICE, a COOLSCAN V ED (dumb name or what? And why the all-caps?) takes about 2 minutes per frame. I think Nikon claims 38 seconds or something. That may be the case without ICE, but in reality scans take about 2 minutes each. This doesn't include loading the holder, though that is quick and easy. But as the Canon flatbed takes up to 30 frames at a time, it's obviously more of a fire-and-forget kind of workflow, which may appeal to you. Be aware though that you'll spend at least as much time in Photoshop tuning each image as the actual scan time. Scanning is seriously slow business unless you have a Hasselblad Flextight. On the other hand, unlike ghoti, I quite enjoy it. But I get a peculiar satisfaction out of doing repetitive tasks, whereas most people find that extremely boring.

I'll try to answer your specific queries:

Originally Posted by Mac+ I would have thought that the 9950F with a capacity for 30 frames at once would be quicker than the COOLSCAN with only 6 frames per loader.

It may be, but that will depend on the real-world scan times of the Canon. If around 2 minutes per frame, scan times will be comparable to the Nikon if you are present at the computer to load the Nikon with 6 at a time.

Originally Posted by Mac+ This loader also has to be purchased as an optional extra, whereas the holders are included with the Canon.

Perhaps you could double-check that in the Australian/Chinese market, because here in the UK the Nikon most certainly comes with both the SA-21 (negs or film strips) and MA-21 (mounted slides) adaptors. You can of course buy additional ones for a faster workflow, but there's no real need as it doesn't take long to load.

Originally Posted by Mac+ The Canon has a maximum optical resolution of 4800x9600 dpi. The COOLSCAN says the image sensor is 3946x5969 pixels. (Roughly speaking, is this like saying 46MP for the Canon and 23.5MP for the Nikon per image?) I presume I'm comparing apples with apples here - does that mean the Canon is capable of higher resolution when scanning? This would be an important factor when making enlargements wouldn't it?

Canon claim an optical resolution of 4800x9600 DPI. This is however a gross exaggeration. The mechanical quality of the scanner: wheels, belts, etc., will not deliver anything like that resolution. Neither will the optics. So the scanner will busily output all those pixels, but most of them will be the same as their neighbour. If printing to a huge size, you'd therefore be better off enlarging the image in Photoshop using bicubic resizing. As I said, I haven't used this scanner, but judging from sample images online and Epson flatbed quality, I would be very surprised if its true optical resolution was higher than 2800 DPI. Nikon claim 4000 DPI. The difference is that the Nikon has mechanical and optical parts that deliver something quite close to that in reality. Perhaps a conservative estimate of resolution would be 3600 DPI for the COOLSCAN. You can see in the review I linked to that the Nikon is much sharper than the 9950F (which doesn't resolve the grain at all) despite its supposedly lower resolution.

Now, I would dispute BuonRotto's assertion that 100 ISO film is limited to 20 megapixels or so. Fuji Astia 100F is much sharper than that. I have slides with fine structures that would require about 60 megapixels of true optical resolution to resolve the lines. Note that I am not saying that a 60 megapixel digital camera wouldn't outclass these slides in overall image quality: it would in most people's opinion. But digital gets its quality from a high MTF (modulation transfer function, i.e. contrast) at low spatial frequencies and a very high signal-to-noise ratio. Its MTF at high spatial frequencies is zero or very close to zero. Whereas an MTF curve for film tapers gracefully from ~100% at very low spatial frequencies, to 10% (and eventually zero) at very high spatial frequencies. Here's the MTF curve for Astia 100F:



As you can see, it delivers a 20% response at 100 cycles/mm. Any decent 35 mm camera lens can deliver high MTF at 100 cycles/mm, so with meticulous technique (tripod, etc.) we could record something with close to 20% contrast (maybe 15%) at 100 cycles/mm. Old Harry Nyquist maintained that we would therefore need to sample at twice that frequency, but that assumes the sampling is in phase with the signal, which is not the case here. Disregarding that, the scanner the would still need to sample at 4800 DPI (true optical resolution) to "see" 100 cycles/mm. More realistically, we'd be talking in the 7000 DPI range, which is around 70 megapixels.

In other words, the megapixel count of a scanner cannot be meaningfully compared to the megapixel count of a digital camera, BUT, the scanner nevertheless needs a very high megapixel count to deliver the image quality on the film.

Originally Posted by Mac+ The other comparison that stands out is 16 bit colour on the Canon, 14 bit A/D conversion on the COOLSCAN.

Both scanners output a nominal 16-bit image. Internally, the Nikon has a very high quality 14-bit analogue-to-digital converter that delivers a high signal-to-noise ratio (much higher than any digital camera, and it needs to be to probe the shadows of dense slide film). The Canon will assuredly by significantly lower than that, though I'm not sure of the exact figure. This won't matter much for scanning colour negs anyway, because the maximum density of a colour negative, which corresponds to the brightest highlight in the image, is still pretty low. The COOLSCAN range of scanners are famous for their colour negative scanning quality (they were the first consumer scanners that really succeeded in that area), but this is mostly a software thing rather than hardware, i.e. you need accurate profiles for colour neg as you can't just visually compare the scan to the film on a light table and adjust to match.

Originally Posted by Mac+ is there a theoretical maximum resolution (or dpi) value for scanning 35mm film, whereby any larger numbers are just superfluous?

In my opinion, and I like "stellar" quality too, I would say no. As I mentioned above, even colour film can contain real detail beyond 4000 DPI. Some black and white films, especially specialist films like microfilms, resolve absolutely ridiculous numbers in certain conditions: we're talking well above 12,000 DPI or 200 megapixels, although nearly all 35 mm lenses would significantly limit that figure. But more practically, film has grain, and that grain can be beautiful if accurately scanned. Scanning ISO 100 slide film at 4000 DPI does not reveal the true structure of the grain: grain aliasing exaggerates the silver or dye clumps, making the scanned image more grainy than the original, and introducing artefacts that take away from the beauty of the organic grain pattern. A drum-scanned image at 11,000 DPI or a Flextight image at 8,000 DPI reveals a fascinating grain quality that is very similar to what I see when I project a slide with my Leica projector (with SUPER-COLORPLAN lens (more dumb all-caps!), arguably the best consumer projector lens on the market, which resolves the grain pattern with great detail).

Here are some more sample images between the Epson V700, COOLSCAN 4000 (similar to the V ED) and 9950F. I didn't do this review so I can't vouch for its accuracy. I'd wouldn't be concerned about the colour differences because profiles will make all the difference there.

[BuonRotto]

Originally Posted by Dorian Gray blah blah blah

Me: "Guh."

[Dorian Gray]

I do have a tendency to go on and on.

I also made a mistake there when I said any decent lens will deliver pretty decent contrast at 100 cycles/mm. You'd actually need a very good lens, and it would still only deliver good MTF at low image heights (i.e. not at the edges of the frame). But the point remains that the scanner would need very high resolution to retrieve that detail, even if it would be wasted at the edges of the frame.

Mac+, don't worry too much about resolution. Even the 9950F can no doubt deliver a high-quality scan, judging from sample images on the net. But a dedicated film scanner like the COOLSCAN would outclass it for very large prints. Of course you pay for that quality in dollars and no ability to scan anything other than 35 mm film.

[BuonRotto]

I was just reacting to how much more you know about this stuff than I do. It's all Greek to me!

[Mac+]

Fellas, thanks for all the feedback.

DG - I want to reply to your post thoroughly, but it will have to wait until the morning. I love getting into the nitty gritty of a topic before I commit to buying something, so thanks again for all the info.

Oh yeah, I couldn't help thinking of Nyquist today when reading some earlier responses and thought of bringing his theory up. My knowledge was based on audio sampling though - but I suspected the parallel could be drawn.
Not sure if you remember or know of the Fairlight, Synclavier, E-Mu and Akai samplers from the late 80s early 90s? What a great and inspiring era that was for music technology.

[Dorian Gray]

Originally Posted by Mac+ Not sure if you remember or know of the Fairlight, Synclavier, E-Mu and Akai samplers from the late 80s early 90s?

Never heard of any of those. Before my time, I suppose.

Looking forward to your eventual decision, Mac+ (if you do go ahead and get a scanner). At the sort of money you're thinking of spending I doubt you'd be unhappy with any of the choices. I do love spending other people's money!

[Mac+]

I went out today, trying to locate that COOLSCAN V ED (I don't mind the all caps, and I much prefer this name to the nondescript numeral based models anyway ... what the heck does 9950F or V750 stand for anyway? That said, I have no idea what the V or ED imply. ) ... but had no luck.

"Mei you" - Don't have.

My next step was going to be to try and locate a store in Beijing, and see if they could ship it down, or ask my wife to pick it up for me when she next travels there ... but then I realised something quite fortuitous.

I tutor two young Japanese boys over here and their father works for Nikon. They know that I shoot with Canon gear, but I might ask if he could try and get that film scanner into Nanjing. It would be a bonus if it came with a "laoshi" discount. Have to wait and see.

The more I think about it, the more I think a dedicated film scanner will suit me. I don't think I'll ever end up shooting medium format and for normal flat bed scanning of documents (as opposed to negatives) an "all-in-one" unit should do the trick - when the time comes.

I'll keep you guys posted anyway.