I am pretty sure that no other film holders will work. I seem to recall one online source that sold canon film holders, but they were expensive, something like $100 each. They are not available from canon. Sometimes (rarely) they appear on ebay.Have you found any after market supplier of the negative holders? Or will ones from any other brand fit? I have seen a number of the scanners for sale on ebay but they do not have their film holders.
My point is that all scan parameters are edited either by the scanner or the operator or both.
Do we know what settings the operator selected?Not true. It is perfectly possible, with Vuescan for instance, to deactivate all post-processing (by which I mean ALL), set the output to 16bit/channel and output a raw positive linear scan to file. This is the raw output of the scanner's CCD line sensor, without any software corrections (including gamma correction). The only potential non-linearities introduced here will be in the realm of extreme transistor thermal noise so largely irrelevant in normal testing conditions.
Given a raw 48bit linear positive, it is then possible to apply exactly the same set of corrections to all raw files used for the scanner comparison (typically, for a black and white image output, there will be a choice of a colour channel to create the grayscale from followed by gamma correction) and then perform a relative comparison of the scanners' output which won't involve any other scanner- or operator- dependent changes to the output.
Do we know what settings the operator selected?
Without knowing the operator settings, the test is meaningless.Why would we assume the operator would alter the baseline settings for one, but not the other, scanner test? Are you suggesting this particular operator might be biased, incapable of running a comparative test, or something else entirely?
Without knowing the operator settings, the test is meaningless.
Again, unless you're running Win 2000 (or 98, XP), you cannot install the Canon TWAIN driver needed to run the CanoScan software. As far as I know, Vuescan, with it's FS4000US driver, is the only software available to work with the scanner. If you don't have Negative Lab Pro (NLP) or Vuescan, you can get demo versions to try them out. NLP has instructions for Vuescan settings to get the Raw file that works the best. Works very well for me!I'd like to try Negative Lab Pro with this scanner. Should I use Vuescan? Any settings I should use?
I still have mine, but since I got an Coolscan 8000ED for medium format scanning it doesn't see much use. In fact, in the last 2 years I've only used it to scan other people's APS film.
As far as I know, there are exactly zero supported SCSI cards for Windows 10, much less Windows 11. I was able to get an Adaptec Driver to work for a while, but I pulled the card a couple of years ago trying to solve what turned out to be an unrelated problem, yes, USB 1 is slow, but most of the time is still spent doing the scan itself. I can't speak to other scanning software -- once I bought Vuescan to address OS incompatibility I stopped looking.
What does that have to do with knowing the settings of the sample pictures scanned by two scanners so we can compare the results in an informed way?So, what is you experience with this scanner that you can share with us?
To help clarify matters, here's what the author of the post on comparison scans at photo.net said: "This scan, and the others below, are all with all sharpening, dust reduction, and other impedimenta turned off on both scanners."What does that have to do with knowing the settings of the sample pictures scanned by two scanners so we can compare the results in an informed way?
Thanks for that. We shouldn't take just the initial scans either any more than you can compare raw images from two cameras to decide which one is better. . It's the final results that count. So post editing comparisons should be included. See below. I started to read his whole report which I recommend others to do the same.To help clarify matters, here's what the author of the post on comparison scans at photo.net said: "This scan, and the others below, are all with all sharpening, dust reduction, and other impedimenta turned off on both scanners."
There is little on which to choose between the two scanner results, I think. This was surprising to me, given that the initial price of the Canoscan FS4000US was about one fourth of the original price of the Super Coolscan LS-9000 ED.
Unfortunately, I haven't found any direct comparisons, except for the one(s) I linked in my earlier post in which the image quality was about the same in the Canon FS4000us compared to the Nikon Super Coolscan LS-9000 ED. Anything beyond that is, I believe, speculative. Scan speed is definitely superior in the Nikon, probably any model of Nikon, and the IR cleaning in the Canon (using FARE I believe) was not as good as IR cleaning in Nikon (using ICE I believe). However, I don't know if that would still be the case if using vuescan's IR cleaning method.My bet is that the old Nikon v is better than any Canon, especially with nikons digital ice system...which does work nicely with VueScan on 10.
Good points.Nikon ICE and Canon FARE cannot be used with normal black and white film. The infra-red channel gets screwed up trying to read through the developed metallic silver as opposed to the dye clouds in C-41 and E-6 films. Curiously enough the Nikon Coolscan performs well using ICE on Kodachrome. This could be a post processing function in Nikon Scan 4.
One or two useful features in Nikon Scan 4 is the ROC (Restore old colours) and GEM (grain reduction - believed to be licenced from Kodak). If you have some desperate old negs these features can save the day in getting good quality scans. There may be equivalent functions in one of the many image processing programs on the market but I'm still using Photoshop CS2 which I don't think has anything similar inbuilt.
Nikon ICE and Canon FARE cannot be used with normal black and white film. The infra-red channel gets screwed up trying to read through the developed metallic silver as opposed to the dye clouds in C-41 and E-6 films. Curiously enough the Nikon Coolscan performs well using ICE on Kodachrome. This could be a post processing function in Nikon Scan 4.
One or two useful features in Nikon Scan 4 is the ROC (Restore old colours) and GEM (grain reduction - believed to be licenced from Kodak). If you have some desperate old negs these features can save the day in getting good quality scans. There may be equivalent functions in one of the many image processing programs on the market but I'm still using Photoshop CS2 which I don't think has anything similar inbuilt.
This is not the case. I'm running Win 10 Pro (I7/32GB) with an Adaptec 29320LPE Ultra320 PCI card. It's installed with the AdaptecAic78xx_for_AHA_29xx driver package. With Vuescan, the FS4000US works perfectly!
Yes, it can be made to work and I even noted that I had done so in my response. But it's not supported. See:
https://ask.adaptec.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/17425/~/what-adaptec-products-are-supported-in-windows-10?
AFAIAA, that is the only one.Are you aware of any PCIe SCSI cards? There is one in the link above, Adaptec 29320LPE, however these seem to be $400 on ebay, which is way too much for me.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?