This Canoscan 9000 replaces an inexpensive Canon all in one printer/scanner and a very old Nikon LS 1000 35mm film scanner.
It was very easy to set up with the main work simply to download the newest drivers for Mac OS X Lion. As a flatbed reflective scanner, I have no complaints. It works exactly as it should and has way more resolution than I would ever need (I think!). The big reason to have this scanner is for its ability to scan film up to 6cm wide. I had done quite a bit of scanning with the Nikon back in the day, and I had quit scanning because it was so slow and cranky, both in its hardware and software (Silverfast).
Having experience with a Canon scanner and its MP Navigator interface meant an easy time getting used to the 9000. Using it to import scans into PhotoShop or the included PS Elements gives you essentially the same interface. Some reviewers have complained about the need to do mental arithmetic to get the desired resolution. Not a problem. Just dial in your desired number of pixels per inch (called dpi) and set the output to "flexible". When you are ready to print, resize the image as you like. Other reviewers have complained about the software forgetting settings. I haven't encountered that problem.
Ok, but does it blend? Haven't tried that. Probably too large. However, it scans 35mm slides and negatives well. The scratch and dust removal option (FARE) has been very useful for the many rolls of 35mm negative film I shot and had processed in South America fourteen years ago. Most of the processing was very dirty. FARE is cleaning up this film very well indeed. As I write this, I'm scanning these negatives at fairly low resolution (800 pixels/inch) and with FARE floored. This is to create a db of high quality proofs, so I can see which to lavish high resolution scans on. I have tried high res scans, and they are beautiful. Long before the 9600 ppi max of this scanner the film grain shows up. Who needs to see a lot of detail on the grain? With a very fine grain B&W film and a very sharp image the 9600 ppi might be welcome.
What is not so good? Some reviewers have noted that the film carriers, particularly the 35mm carrier, are lightly constructed. They are right. The 35mm carrier is delicate and must be handled with care. Speed. I would like film scans to be instantaneous. These 800 ppi scans with max FARE correction (costly in scan time) are averaging roughly ninety seconds a piece. It could be worse, and because you can set up eight to twelve frames at a go, then go about your business -- on the same computer or elsewhere altogether, it's not too bad. When the set of scans is done, the software plays a sound clip of your choice to alert you.
I've been using this scanner for only a few days, but it's not making me frustrated and pissed off. High praise from me. Also, it's compact compared to its predecessor and fairly good looking, though not so good looking as the iMac beside it.
UPDATE December 21, 2011:
Roughly two thousand images scanned later, I'm still pleased. Here are some of the things I've learned:
Good film, either negative or positive, is much easier to scan. If the film is high quality, well-processed, and well-exposed, best results come from turning off all image adjustment, and that includes fading correction and grain correction. I use FARE on low for good luck, just in case there's dust I failed to brush off or scratches on the film. For a trip to Africa and the Middle East, I cheaped out on the film, using generic grocery store color negative film. That turned out to be a mistake, but it is largely correctable during scanning by adjusting levels and white balance. That takes time, of course. Another thing I learned while scanning dozens of rolls of film is how to be efficient in handling the film and film carrier. Everyone has to figure that out for themselves, but getting good at handling makes you happier to be scanning than you would expect.
Another thing, I now bulk scan at 1200 pixels per inch (dpi). With FARE on low, a 35mm frame takes sixty-seven seconds. When scanning for a large print, needless to say the resolution should be increased appropriately. I doubt whether there is anything to be gained by going to more than 4800 dpi for ordinary color film.
UPDATE 2, December 31, 2011:
On my mission to bulk scan thousands of frames, I've rethought using FARE at all. When the film is reasonably clean, it's not needed for bulk scanning. Scanning at 1200 pixels per inch without FARE takes less than a half minute. It's almost too fast: Load eight frames and set it scanning. Before, with FARE, I could do something else while waiting; now it's calling for attention every few minutes.
The software has crashed without warning on two occasions, not often considering how much it's been used, but any crash is too much (quadcore iMac OS X Lion, 12GB RAM). The crashes lose the scans that haven't been saved yet, which is never more than one roll, the way I work.
| Manufacturer | Canon |
|---|---|
| Brand | Canon |
| Item Weight | 10.1 pounds |
| Product Dimensions | 18.9 x 10.7 x 4.4 inches |
| Item model number | 4207B002 |
| Is Discontinued By Manufacturer | No |
| Number of Items | 1 |
| Manufacturer Part Number | 4207B002 |
