and 30 seconds on Kodachrome to produce a 40 MB 48 bit Tiff file. Even with FARE Medium enabled it only took an average of 1 min. So I'm going with 600 dpi as a standard for photographs, because frankly there's no good reason for more especially when you just start to see ink jet patterns and minute dust, aside from simple fact that a 102 MB file doesn't take a supercomputer linked to server farms for storage, unlike the 409 MB 1200 dpi files when things begin to add up.Īfter a number of tests I found that 2400 dpi resulted in the sharpest scans, which may not seem to make sense at first but it was true nevertheless.
and 44 seconds to produce a 409 MB 48 bit Tiff file that was, very critically speaking, sharper than the 600 dpi scan, however, you have to uncheck the thumbnail view in ScanGear to do this and you would never be able to tell the difference on an 8 x 10 anyway. At 600 dpi it took 26 seconds to produce a 48 bit 102 MB Tiff file that would be better for larger reproductions. At 300 dpi with 48 bit color it averaged around 9 seconds for an A4 size document and it produced a 51 MB Tiff file, which I found to be more than adequate for PDFs that were much better than than my MX870 or Lide600F.
Canoscan 9000f review software#
In reality, the Canon ScanGear software produced the best results and was much easier to work with. In fact, after profiling it with two different IT8 targets using third-party software I found that all this resulted in was a loss of color neutrality and an exaggeration of contrast, which I really didn't care for on either count. Regarding Platen use with flat documents and photographs, I found the scanner to be very fast, and it produced excellent quality in terms of color accuracy and neutrality. This is a summary of what I did found on the Mark II: So in fact, there may be indeed be no difference in image quality between recent manufacturers of the two models. I'll speak to that momentarily, but keep in mind that I cannot really account for the validity of anyone else's results. Unfortunately, I could not compare it to the original 9000 F since I don't have one available, however, my 9000 F Mark II seems to perform better based on the early reviews of the ori. I picked up my 9000 F Mark II two days ago and since then I have run a number of real-world tests on it. That being said, the following is a photographer oriented review in that image quality is valued first and foremost. As any real photographer knows when it comes to equipment, the proof is in the photograph.
0 kommentar(er)
