9950F and 4990, a toss-up?

[Mike]

From what I gather, the Canon 9950F and the Epson 4990 is pretty much a
toss-up.

I want something in this price range to scan 4x5 and 120 film. I will
probably end up getting Vuescan.

Is there _any_ noticeable difference in quality? Epson states a higher
Dmax, but someone has mentioned that the measured Dmax of the Canon is
actually higher than Epsons.

Otherwise I will flip a coin

 

[Noons]

Mike apparently said,on my timestamp of 7/09/2005 11:22 PM:

From what I gather, the Canon 9950F and the Epson 4990 is pretty much a
toss-up.

I want something in this price range to scan 4x5 and 120 film. I will
probably end up getting Vuescan.

Is there _any_ noticeable difference in quality? Epson states a higher
Dmax, but someone has mentioned that the measured Dmax of the Canon is
actually higher than Epsons.

Otherwise I will flip a coin

Without the slightest bias:
I think Vuescan works marginally better with ICE in the 4990 than it
does with Canon's version of the thing on the 9950.

Otherwise, pick a coin.

 

[Wilfred]

Without the slightest bias:
I think Vuescan works marginally better with ICE in the 4990 than it
does with Canon's version of the thing on the 9950.

Why do you think so?

 

[Noons]

Wilfred apparently said,on my timestamp of 8/09/2005 6:20 PM:

Why do you think so?

from seeing the results of using one or the other.
Purely subjective, I know: none of them with Vuescan are
real D-ICE anyway. Just the way I see the results.

Still: for the amount of difference, pick a coin is
probably the best advice.

 

[Alain]

From what I gather, the Canon 9950F and the Epson 4990 is pretty much a
toss-up.

I want something in this price range to scan 4x5 and 120 film. I will
probably end up getting Vuescan.

Is there _any_ noticeable difference in quality? Epson states a higher
Dmax, but someone has mentioned that the measured Dmax of the Canon is
actually higher than Epsons.

Otherwise I will flip a coin

Well in Europe the Canon 9950F appears to be more than 20% cheaper.

Anybody experience with scanning dia's with those two scanners?

Is it possible to fill the glass with dia's, start scanning and go
somewhere else while scanning? Or is it in practice scanning a dia at a
time (while there're more on the glass) and adjusting settings for every
dia?

What unattended scantime's are realistisc?

Alain

 

[Noons]

Alain apparently said,on my timestamp of 10/09/2005 10:42 PM:

Is it possible to fill the glass with dia's, start scanning and go
somewhere else while scanning? Or is it in practice scanning a dia at a
time (while there're more on the glass) and adjusting settings for every
dia?

Do you know of any software that does that? It strikes me as
the fast way to do it on multi-strip scans, but I have yet to
see any software do it..

 

[-]

Is it possible to fill the glass with dia's, start scanning and go

Do you know of any software that does that? It strikes me as
the fast way to do it on multi-strip scans, but I have yet to
see any software do it..

Yes, it is possible to scan multiple film frames in a batch with both the
Epson and the Canon.

Doug

 

[Noons]

- apparently said,on my timestamp of 11/09/2005 12:25 AM:

Yes, it is possible to scan multiple film frames in a batch with both the
Epson and the Canon.

No it isn't. You did not understand what I said.
What Epson and Canon call a batch is not this.

I meant:
Put four strips of film side by side on the flat bed.
Now, scan the first frame of EVERY one of them in
ONE single pass of the scan head. Then get the software to
strip off the bits that don't matter and separate the pictures
for each frame into spearate files.

One single pass of the head.

THAT is batch scanning. No scanner program I've seen so
far does this. What they do is more appropriately called
automatic scanning but it certainly ain't no batch.

 

[-]

THAT is batch scanning... {snip}... What they do is more appropriately

called automatic scanning but it certainly ain't no batch.<<

Please provide a definitive reference so that we all can learn from our
errors.

Thanks,

Doug

 

[Alain]

- apparently said,on my timestamp of 11/09/2005 12:25 AM:


No it isn't. You did not understand what I said.
What Epson and Canon call a batch is not this.

I meant:
Put four strips of film side by side on the flat bed.
Now, scan the first frame of EVERY one of them in
ONE single pass of the scan head. Then get the software to
strip off the bits that don't matter and separate the pictures
for each frame into spearate files.

One single pass of the head.

THAT is batch scanning. No scanner program I've seen so
far does this. What they do is more appropriately called
automatic scanning but it certainly ain't no batch.

What's the practical difference? I don't care that each dia is scanned
individualy, as long that I don't have to do something between every
dia. My question is more like how long do I have really to spend
scanning dia's and how long will the scanner be running unattended?

Alain

 

[Noons]

Alain apparently said,on my timestamp of 11/09/2005 5:29 PM:

What's the practical difference? I don't care that each dia is scanned
individualy, as long that I don't have to do something between every
dia. My question is more like how long do I have really to spend
scanning dia's and how long will the scanner be running unattended?

Well, what takes a long time in a scan is the movement of the scanhead.
According to Hamricks own comments in the manual. (no reflection on
his product!).

If you can do more work for each movement, you end up with proportionally
much faster scans. If for example you have four strips and you scan four
frames (one on each strip) in eahc move pass, your total scan time
is 4 times less. Dunno about you, but I'd consider that a major
improvement?


Cheers
Nuno Souto
in sunny Sydney, Australia
(e-mail address removed)

 

[Noons]

- apparently said,on my timestamp of 11/09/2005 10:56 AM:

Please provide a definitive reference so that we all can learn from our
errors.

Let me see if I can make this clear:
there are NO errors by anyone, there is no reference needed.
Did you actually READ what I wrote, or you just glossed over?

What I said - and I recommend you read again - is that
no software does batch scanning. And I explained why.
Care to stop jumping to conclusions?

 

[Steve]

The Epson uses true Digital ICE.

 

[catfish]

try here: http://www.microtekusa.com/smi900.html
or here: http://www.microtekusa.com/smi800.html

for a scanner/software combination that does what you are asking for
as "batch" scanning

 

[-]

What I said - and I recommend you read again - is that

no software does batch scanning. And I explained why.
Care to stop jumping to conclusions?

Yes. We all have. Multiple times. You have chastised those of us who have
tried to be helpful for being incorrect in our usage of "batch scanning" for
multiple film frames. We are just using the standard industry terminology.
For example, the software documentation for EpsonScan, Silverfast and
Vuescan use term batch scanning to describe a similar process to what other
posters here referenced in their helpful post to you and one that is
different from what you advocate. Look it up - the reference files for each
of these software packages is available online. If you do more Googling,
you will find many references where software manufactures have scanning
software that does batch scanning of mutiple film strip frames the same
way - which is not the way you claim batch scanning is done. If we and the
major industry players are wrong because "no software does batch scanning,"
we are certainly open to learning something new. Please just provide a
definitive reference for us.

 

[Alain]

Alain apparently said,on my timestamp of 11/09/2005 5:29 PM:

Well, what takes a long time in a scan is the movement of the scanhead.
According to Hamricks own comments in the manual. (no reflection on
his product!).

If you can do more work for each movement, you end up with proportionally
much faster scans. If for example you have four strips and you scan four
frames (one on each strip) in eahc move pass, your total scan time
is 4 times less. Dunno about you, but I'd consider that a major
improvement?

I follow you, but what are currently realistic times :


Is it possible to fill the glass with dia's, start scanning and go
somewhere else while scanning? Or is it in practice scanning a dia at a
time (while there're more on the glass) and adjusting settings for every
dia?

What unattended scantime's are realistisc?

 

[Noons]

- apparently said,on my timestamp of 12/09/2005 2:36 AM:

Yes. We all have. Multiple times. You have chastised those of us who have
tried to be helpful for being incorrect in our usage of "batch scanning" for
multiple film frames. We are just using the standard industry terminology.
For example, the software documentation for EpsonScan, Silverfast and
Vuescan use term batch scanning to describe a similar process to what other
posters here referenced in their helpful post to you and one that is
different from what you advocate. Look it up - the reference files for each
of these software packages is available online. If you do more Googling,
you will find many references where software manufactures have scanning
software that does batch scanning of mutiple film strip frames the same
way - which is not the way you claim batch scanning is done. If we and the
major industry players are wrong because "no software does batch scanning,"
we are certainly open to learning something new. Please just provide a
definitive reference for us.

Another moron. They're everywhere on the Usenet...
OK, just before I plonk you:

I "chastised" no one. I "advocate" NOTHING. I repeat ONE LAST TIME:
READ what I posted. From the first reply on this thread.
And THINK, before you reply. It helps the general understanding.

I don't give a royal toss what the "industry" or people like you
do, call or make a "standard".
First cab off the rack: you do NOT know what the "industry" says, nor are
you authorised or qualified to speak on its behalf.
Second: FYI: the expression "standard" is not the same as the expression
"common use". People who make "standards" are infinitely more qualified
than the "industry" to do so. Marketing morons use the two without
distinction purely because they are totally ignorant of the correct
meanings.

What is called "batch scaning" by your beloved "industry" is nothing
more nothing less than "unattended scanning". Period.

There is no SIMULTANEOUS scanning of multiple frames ANYWHERE,
and THAT is what the OP question was about and I replied to.
To which you replied (to me, not to the OP. You were "helping"
no one!) that "batch scanning" is available in all scanners.

In other words: you had no clue what was being asked because
you know nothing better, but you felt authorised to make a
stupid claim that no one was contesting to begin with.

Now, because I definitely have no time for idiots:

<plonk>

 

[Noons]

(e-mail address removed) apparently said,on my timestamp of 12/09/2005 1:14 AM:

try here: http://www.microtekusa.com/smi900.html
or here: http://www.microtekusa.com/smi800.html

for a scanner/software combination that does what you are asking for
as "batch" scanning

Thank you. I'll definitely pursue these. Always interested
in a more intelligent way of using flat-becds as I have to do
thousands of scans.

But make sure what's his name "-" doesn't see this, because he'll
contest it: it isn't an "industry standard"...

 

[Noons]

(e-mail address removed) apparently said,on my timestamp of 12/09/2005 1:14 AM:

try here: http://www.microtekusa.com/smi900.html
or here: http://www.microtekusa.com/smi800.html

for a scanner/software combination that does what you are asking for
as "batch" scanning

Now that I've read the info on the site, I see no evidence
anywhere that it is different from any of the others.
Are you sure it can scan more than one frame in a single pass?
Please don't repeat that it "has batch scaning", ok?

 

[Noons]

Alain apparently said,on my timestamp of 12/09/2005 4:24 AM:

I follow you, but what are currently realistic times :


Is it possible to fill the glass with dia's, start scanning and go
somewhere else while scanning?

Yes. Most flatbed scanners can do this either with the native
software - or if that is not capable, with something like
Vuescan or Silverfast. Mind you: most require a jig/template
of some sort, rather than just slapping the dia's on the flat bed.

Or is it in practice scanning a dia at a
time (while there're more on the glass) and adjusting settings for every
dia?

Yes. They all do this - automatically, and call it "batch scanning".

What unattended scantime's are realistisc?

Scan one frame, measure the time. Multiply by the number of dia's
you are scanning. That is the total unattended scantime. Realistic or
not is a subjective evaluation, I'd say. The only thing that "batch
scanning" buys you is not having to individually load and remove dia's
for each scan. I assume of course you are talking about flatbed
scanners, that's what a 4990 or 9950 are.

IMO, a waste. But it's what they all do. Until someone gets a brain
instead of "industry standards" and this situation changes.
With software products that allow you to define your own frames you
can scan more than one physical frame in a single pass although it
requires manual intervention at the end to split the frames off.
But don't even think of scanning the entire flatbed surface in one go:
at the high resolution required by dia's, you'd be talking memory
sizes in the multi-Gb range...