I was set on buying 8600F after reading the reviews. However, when I
visited the showroom today, I was apprehensive about buying it as it's
bulky compared to the 4400F.

What I normally do is to scan documents, mostly letters so that I
don't have to keep the hardcopy. In addition, I want to scan all my
photos and film for "safe keeping". After scanning the photos/film, I
would just scan my letters. So scanning photo/film is may be a 6
months afair, I guess.

What I see the dif between the 2 is that 4400F scan 6 film frame while
the 8600F scans 12. I'm ok about that. THe other thing is FARE,
which 4400F does not have. How impt is this to scanning film ? Is
the scanning speed difference between the 2 significant (I have the
specs but I want to know in practice, really significant) ? Please
give me your opinion.

What about getting Lide 600F ? It has FARE too.

Any other things about these 2 scanner I should take note of ? I
don't want to buy and regret. Please give me some advice. I
appreciate all your inputs. Thanks very much.

After reading more about LiDE 600F, I like it for it's size and no
need to AC power. However, I'm concern about the CIS sensor. I read
negative things about it quite some time back. I wonder if they have
improve ? Thanks again.

On May 14, 12:52 am, dingdongdingd...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I was set on buying 8600F after reading the reviews. However, when I
> visited the showroom today, I was apprehensive about buying it as it's
........

Forgot to mentioned. Why I also consider LiDE 600F is that it has
FARE. But it's no point if the image it bad. Please advise me.

On May 14, 10:30 am, dingdongdingd...@yahoo.com wrote:
> After reading more about LiDE 600F, I like it for it's size and no
> need to AC power. However, I'm concern about the CIS sensor. I read
> negative things about it quite some time back. I wonder if they have
> improve ? Thanks again.
>
> On May 14, 12:52 am, dingdongdingd...@yahoo.com wrote:> I was set on buying 8600F after reading the reviews. However, when I
> > visited the showroom today, I was apprehensive about buying it as it's
>
> .......

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
<snip>
>
> What I see the dif between the 2 is that 4400F scan 6 film frame while
> the 8600F scans 12. I'm ok about that. THe other thing is FARE,
> which 4400F does not have. How impt is this to scanning film ? Is
> the scanning speed difference between the 2 significant (I have the
> specs but I want to know in practice, really significant) ? Please
> give me your opinion.
>
Fare works well, and it will save you HOURS of work in Photoshop fixing
dust spots and scratches on your films.

I use a canon 9950F, the even bigger brother to the 8600F, and negative
scans can be slow at higher resolutions, and Fare does use an extra scan
cycle for its operation. Scan speeds on my 9950F are about two minutes
per negative, at 2,400 ppi with fare. Quality is very good for prints
up to about 8x12.

Fare uses the extra pass to scan the film with infra-red light, to which
the film dyes are transparent, so the resultant image contains only
opaque detail, such as spots and scratches, and this image is used to
correct the normal scan by filling in the spots etc. with the immediate
surrounding color.

Colin D.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Colin. Thanks very much for your reply. I don't know if you are
familiar with the Canon CS 4400F (with FARE) and LiDE 600F (with
FARE) ? . I don't scan books or thick materials. So a CIS is
alright for me and I like a slim scanner.

But is the CIS quality good enough compared to CCD for document /
photo scanning ?
Also, would a CCD without FARE give better film scanned quality or a
CIS with FARE ?

Thank you very much for helping with the analysis ... very much
appreciated.

On May 16, 11:16 am, Colin_D <nos...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> dingdongdingd...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > What I see the dif between the 2 is that 4400F scan 6 film frame while
> > the 8600F scans 12. I'm ok about that. THe other thing is FARE,
> > which 4400F does not have. How impt is this to scanning film ? Is
> > the scanning speed difference between the 2 significant (I have the
> > specs but I want to know in practice, really significant) ? Please
> > give me your opinion.
>
> Fare works well, and it will save you HOURS of work in Photoshop fixing
> dust spots and scratches on your films.
>
> I use a canon 9950F, the even bigger brother to the 8600F, and negative
> scans can be slow at higher resolutions, and Fare does use an extra scan
> cycle for its operation. Scan speeds on my 9950F are about two minutes
> per negative, at 2,400 ppi with fare. Quality is very good for prints
> up to about 8x12.
>
> Fare uses the extra pass to scan the film with infra-red light, to which
> the film dyes are transparent, so the resultant image contains only
> opaque detail, such as spots and scratches, and this image is used to
> correct the normal scan by filling in the spots etc. with the immediate
> surrounding color.
>
> Colin D.
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> Colin. Thanks very much for your reply. I don't know if you are
> familiar with the Canon CS 4400F (with FARE) and LiDE 600F (with
> FARE) ? . I don't scan books or thick materials. So a CIS is
> alright for me and I like a slim scanner.
>
> But is the CIS quality good enough compared to CCD for document /
> photo scanning ?
> Also, would a CCD without FARE give better film scanned quality or a
> CIS with FARE ?
>
> Thank you very much for helping with the analysis ... very much
> appreciated.
>
> On May 16, 11:16 am, Colin_D <nos...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>> dingdongdingd...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> What I see the dif between the 2 is that 4400F scan 6 film frame while
>>> the 8600F scans 12. I'm ok about that. THe other thing is FARE,
>>> which 4400F does not have. How impt is this to scanning film ? Is
>>> the scanning speed difference between the 2 significant (I have the
>>> specs but I want to know in practice, really significant) ? Please
>>> give me your opinion.
>> Fare works well, and it will save you HOURS of work in Photoshop fixing
>> dust spots and scratches on your films.
>>
>> I use a canon 9950F, the even bigger brother to the 8600F, and negative
>> scans can be slow at higher resolutions, and Fare does use an extra scan
>> cycle for its operation. Scan speeds on my 9950F are about two minutes
>> per negative, at 2,400 ppi with fare. Quality is very good for prints
>> up to about 8x12.
>>
>> Fare uses the extra pass to scan the film with infra-red light, to which
>> the film dyes are transparent, so the resultant image contains only
>> opaque detail, such as spots and scratches, and this image is used to
>> correct the normal scan by filling in the spots etc. with the immediate
>> surrounding color.
>>
>> Colin D.
>>
>> --
>> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com
>
>
Sorry, but I don't have any experience of lide scanners, or the 600F or
the 4400F scanners.

Fare of itself has no effect on scan quality of films, but be aware that
because it relies on an IR scan to which film dyes are transparent, it
will not work on reflective copy, or black/white silver-based films as
silver is opaque to IR.

This post may be late, as I am experiencing delay problems with my news
server Teranews.

Colin D.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com