Scanning

This is a simple comparison between a dedicated film scanner, the Plustek OpticFilm 7300 and a Canon 9000F.

Unless the Canon has improved significantly with the newer 9000F MarkII, this remains valid.

I shot mostly 35mm and I have a few tens of thousands of slides.  I also have 120 film and a medium format camera, so I needed something to scan both.  I got the Canon because funds were limited and I needed a scanner under 200.

I was disappointed with the quality of scan from the 9000F scanning 35mm.  So recently, I managed to get a Plustek for under 120.

A serious difference.  Like between a VHS tape and a BluRay Disc.

Example – from the Canon: full frame

Canon Canoscan 9000F at 7200 dpi

Zoom into the eye, and see how soft the scan is (click to view):

Kayla019-9000f-crop

Crop of eye, notice how it’s completely lacking in sharpness.

Now, same slide from the Plustek Opticfilm 7300:

From the Plustek Opticfilm 7300 @ 7200 dpi

Now, zoom into the eye (again, click to view):

Zoom of the eye – notice clear film grain!

Yes, what appears to the untrained eye as “noise” is actually the grain from the film.  This is what I expect of a good, sharp 7200 dpi scan of a slide!

This is Kodak’s Ektachrome 100SW.   This is a reversal film, which produced a positive color image without needing to be printed.

The 7300 doesn’t have any scratch removal hardware, but I had a Nikon LS-200 from 1998 until it died in 2006, and when it removed dust the resulting image was often soft…  and it never worked on B&W film anyway.

You have to move each slide into place and start the new scan, but it’s easier to use than the other sub-$500 scanners on the market.

This will do until I have the funds for a Nikon V!!

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Technorati
This entry was posted in photography, Uncategorized and tagged , .
e('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s); })();