Mark Marr-Lyon wrote:
>I haven't really done any timing measurements, but the speed is reasonable.
>It's not blazingly fast, but neither is it excessively slow. Yes, I've done a
>batch scan of 30 frames, and it took about 30 minutes or so at 1200 dpi, which
>I didn't think was terrible. It takes 15-20 minutes for a 48-bit 4800 dpi
>scan of an Xpan frame (resulting in a file that's over 300 MB). Turning on
>the dust and scratch removal causes the scan to take longer since it does a
>separate infrared pass. I think that it does a better job with color
>negatives than the Minolta SDII. Slide film is also good, but I haven't
>compared it with the SDII in detail yet. As mentioned in the photo-i review,
>the image comes out of the scanner soft, so you can't be squeamish about
>applying lots of USM.
>
I previously posted that I would not buy this scanner because it and
many other recent Canon flatbeds were not supported by VueScan. I just
was checking for updates to VueScan and see that the latest version adds
support for many Canons, including the 9950. I'm going to try it on my
5000F to see how well it works. He says it requires the Canoscan
software be installed, so it must use some part of the CanoScan to make
the interface.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|