Canon's CanoScan FS4000

Version 1.2, Page 7, ©2001 by Dale Cotton, all rights reserved

Workflow

My own workflow by-passes both of FilmGet's problems. When I get a new roll of (neg) film back from the neighbourhood mini-lab, it is cut into 4-frame strips. I scan two or three strips at a time with no adjustments at 1000 ppi. I then exit to Photoshop, save the scans to disk, and note any frames that look to be keepers. These low-res scans serve both as a reference for each roll of film and for any e-mail or web posting I may do.

When I've finished scanning all frames at low resolution (about half an hour per roll), I can go back to do 4000 ppi scans of any worthwhile candidates for printing. Here again I make no adjustments in FilmGet except cropping and enabling FARE at normal strength. By using the 42-bit setting the resulting scan file contains all available latitude for subsequent editing with much more sophisticated tools, at the cost of a greatly lengthened scan time. No problem: I switch to something low-key like e-mail or web browsing for the duration. The PhotoSmart scanner balks at losing any CPU cycles, but the Canon takes it in stride.

As mentioned, I have a 533 MHz PC and use the USB connection option. My scan time at 4000 ppi and 42 bits is 5 minutes with 512 MB RAM without FARE, and 9 min 45 sec with FARE. There was no appreciable change in these times when I upgraded my RAM from 192 MB to 512 MB (although the upgrade makes a dramatic difference in subsequent editing).

Thanks to the FS4000's improved colour accuracy and FARE, my post-processing is often limited to tweaking levels and curves to add contrast and the digital equivalent of a warming filter, plus sharpening (after reducing the image's bit depth to 8 bits per colour). Gone is the tedium of dust spotting and often also of colour balancing neg film.

Analysis

I haven't owned or used either the Nikon or the Polaroid competition, but from all I've read about them the Canon is the pick of the high res litter for home use, if you primarily do neg film. I'd hate to be in the position of shopping for a 4000 ppi scanner for transparency film. The Nikon LS4000's resolution and Dmax would seem to make it the obvious pick. But. Is it true that the Nikon has problems with edge-to-edge sharpness and throws away more sharpness when Digital ICE is used, while making ICE non-optional by highlighting even the most minute speck of dust? Does the Nikon software still crash with alarming regularity? Then there is the Polaroid SS4000. Resolution looks good but bit depth is only 36. And is it true that the Polaroid's film holder masks off part of each film frame?

On the other hand - I don't do commercial photography - but for any high volume or rough-handling situation I would hesitate to recommend the Canon. With a SCSI connection and a fast computer, throughput may not be an issue. Viewscan may provide the software batch-handling you need. What concerns me is the fragility of the film holders, the lack of a full film roll feeder for 35 mm, and possibly the ruggedness of the film holder feed. Another issue in some production environments may be FARE's inability to handle scratches, in spite of its superb dust speck handling.