# Quick scanner question.



## AFarhat (Mar 3, 2015)

Hi all,

I have been doing some researching on film scanners, and I think I have decided on a, Canon 9000f Mark II.  I was wondering if anyone has any experience with this scanner, and could let me know what you think.  The specs seem to be good just wanted to get some opinions.

Thank you!


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 3, 2015)

I use mine to scan 6x7 negs.  At top resolution, I get ~350gb images.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 3, 2015)

is this pretty much the best deal going?


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 3, 2015)

bribrius said:


> is this pretty much the best deal going?



Depends on what you want to scan.


----------



## AFarhat (Mar 3, 2015)

480sparky said:


> I use mine to scan 6x7 negs.  At top resolution, I get ~350gb images.



Thats a big neg. do you then just reverse the scan? I thought you could only do 35mm 120 on this scanner?  How big of a print would that get you? seems huge! 



bribrius said:


> is this pretty much the best deal going?



It seems to be, has the best bit rate and resolution I've found for under 200 dollars,  I just wonder because its not just a film scanner, but a document scanner that has the ability to scan film.


----------



## AFarhat (Mar 3, 2015)

480sparky said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > is this pretty much the best deal going?
> ...



I should have noted, I will be scanning 35mm, possibly some 120 down the road.


----------



## limr (Mar 3, 2015)

I use the previous generation - the 8800. I have had no complaints. As for scanning other sizes, 120 film can be shot as 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9 - these are the typical medium format sizes and they all fit in the 120 masks for the scanner. Just varies how many frames you can do with one pass. 6x4.5 fits 4 frames on a strip using the scanner mask; 6x6 fits 3 frames; the others would fit 2. Oddball sizes can still be scanned without using the mask so long as it fits along the lightbox strip. I've scanned Polaroid negatives - approx 3x4 - but 4x5 is slightly too wide for the 8800. Don't know about the 9000.


----------



## AFarhat (Mar 3, 2015)

limr said:


> I use the previous generation - the 8800. I have had no complaints. As for scanning other sizes, 120 film can be shot as 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9 - these are the typical medium format sizes and they all fit in the 120 masks for the scanner. Just varies how many frames you can do with one pass. 6x4.5 fits 4 frames on a strip using the scanner mask; 6x6 fits 3 frames; the others would fit 2. Oddball sizes can still be scanned without using the mask so long as it fits along the lightbox strip. I've scanned Polaroid negatives - approx 3x4 - but 4x5 is slightly too wide for the 8800. Don't know about the 9000.



Ahhh, that makes more sense, I am still rather new to photography but starting to understand 35 a little better. Thank you for clearing that up for me, about how 120 is shot, and for your feedback on the scanner.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 3, 2015)

480sparky said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > is this pretty much the best deal going?
> ...


just the 35mm to start with, with options for potential future additions.  I was looking at the epson version and the wolverine one too that say 20 mp scan. wolverine is a lot cheaper. Epson seems bundled withe elements, which i will gladly take another copy even though i have one. Just kind of looking around, want fairly decent high quality scan obviously. I don 't like paying for scans.


----------



## gsgary (Mar 4, 2015)

I use an Epson V500 and its good but just picked up a plustek 7500i secondhand for £12 and is very good but only does 35 mm


----------



## bhop (Mar 4, 2015)

Epson V700 user here.  I develop and scan all my own stuff:

These are all mine
Flickr Search v700


----------



## AFarhat (Mar 4, 2015)

Well, ended up getting the 9000f Mark II.  I've done one scan so far and it seems great. I've got some figuring out to do with the settings, so I can get a full res scan.  Once I get some good shots I'll post em up here with the results.  

Thanks for all the feedback!!!


----------



## AFarhat (Mar 5, 2015)

This was shot with Ilford 3200.  I just did a scan with my new 9000f Mark II, set at 9600 dpi.  I am very pleased with how it turned out.  Once I track down some slower film, I will be excited to see a scan of that as well.

Does anyone know about what size print I could get with a scan like this?


----------



## limr (Mar 6, 2015)

35mm, I assume? What's the size of the file?

I know with most 35mm scans even scanned at 1200dpi, I can get good prints up to 11x14. Scanned at higher res, then, goes up from there - I just don't know what the upper limit is.

One thing I'll say about the scanning resolution: I have found that for most purposes, 1200dpi has been more than adequate. Most of my pictures end up on a screen anyway. If I want to print, I'll rescan at 2600. (I haven't yet printed anything larger than 11x14.) I've also read - maybe even here? Perhaps someone with a better grasp on why can chime in - I've read that scanning at higher resultions has diminishing returns.

The upshot of all of this is, you can scan at lower res and still get good scans and it will be a lot faster. If your initial lower-res scan shows you something you're interested in printing or heavily cropping or whatever, then just scan those frames at higher resolutions.


----------



## AFarhat (Mar 6, 2015)

Thank you, thats exactly what I was trying to figure out.  I do plan on doing most of my scans at a lower-res so that it won't take an hour to scan.  If you can get an 11x14 from a 2600 scan, thats just fine for me.  I don't think I'll be needing anything too much bigger than that, but its nice to know that if I have the ability to go larger.

When I transferred it over to iPhoto, thats the only editing software I have right now,  it says the size is 
13,600x8,992 9.1 mb


----------



## WayneF (Aug 28, 2015)

limr said:


> 35mm, I assume? What's the size of the file?
> 
> I know with most 35mm scans even scanned at 1200dpi, I can get good prints up to 11x14. Scanned at higher res, then, goes up from there - I just don't know what the upper limit is.
> 
> ...



I realize this is months old, and I'm very late to the party.  But some unsuspecting beginner might read it.  

Images viewed on the monitor screen came be quite small, to fit on the screen.

But 1200 dpi scans are not really optimum for printing even medium film at 11x14, and certainly not enough for 35 mm.

35 mm film size is 36x24 mm, about 1.4 x 0.9 inches.  Enlarging 1.4 inches to 14 inches is a 10x enlargement.   Meaning if you scan it at 1200 dpi, you can print 10x size at 120 dpi. Which might be acceptable enough in some casual cases, but if you want to print at 10x at 300 dpi, you need to scan at 10x 300 dpi or 3000 dpi.  This is why scanners offer 3000 dpi, not really about resolution, it is about enlargement of that resolution.

It is a very simple ratio,  

*Scanning resolution / printing resolution* is the enlargement ratio.

To print 35mm at 8x10 is  10/1.4 = 7.1x enlargement. 
To print it at 300 dpi needs 300x7.1 = 2100 dpi.
Scan at the next larger round number (like 2400 dpi) and resample to print size, 8x10 at 300 dpi..

I realize you also said "If I want to print, I'll rescan at 2600".  

Which is much better, but you also said "I know with most 35mm scans even scanned at 1200dpi, I can get good prints up to 11x14".   I don't know that, I have higher standards than that.


----------

