Welcome to Photo.net: A Community of Photographers

Home > Equipment > Canon > Canon Canoscan FS4000US

Canon Canoscan FS4000US

by Bob Atkins

The FS4000US is designed to scan mounted 35mm slides (up to 4 at a time), 35mm negatives or unmounted 35mm slide strips (up to 6 frames) and APS film (up to 40 exposures). There is no provision for scanning uncut rolls of 35mm film and there is no slide feeder for unattended scanning of more than 4 slides at a time. If you want to scan more than 6 frames at once, APS is your best bet (actually your only option) as the FS4000US will automatically scan all 40 frames on a roll of APS film.

Scans can be made of positives (transparencies) or negatives in either in B&W at 8-bit or 14-bit depth or in color at 24-bit or 42-bit color depth.

This is a 35mm film scanner of course, so it does not scan prints or medium or large format slides and negatives.

How good is the Software (Canon FilmGet)

Some people make a big deal about scanner software. Can you correct colors easily? Can you correct contrast? Can you sharpen the image? Personally this doesn't bother me too much, since I expect to tweak every scan in a real image processing program like Photoshop, Picture Publisher (which the a program I tend to use most) or even Photoshop LE or Photoshop Elements which are bundled with most scanners (Photoshop LE 5.0 ships with the FS4000US). Just about any image processing program is better than just about any scanner software. The only advantage that using the scanner software might have is if the scanner software worked at greater bit depth than the final output image. For example if you told the scanner to output a 24-bit color image, but the scanner internally scanned at 42-bits and did all its corrections at 42-bits, then converted the result to 24-bits and output the file, then that would be better than editing the uncorrected 24-bit file. However this scanner doesn't do that. All the software corrections seem to be done at the 24-bit (8 bits per channel) level, whether the final output file is 42-bit or 24-bit. For the very best possible results, scan at 42-bit color depth, don't do any corrections with the supplied "FilmGet" software, output a 42-bit file and edit that in a 42-bit editing program. Then convert to a 24-bit file if that's the final form that you want.

The software installed easily. The scanner is plug and play of course, so you simply attach it to a USB port, power up the PC and the usual hardware install dialog pops up. You put the CD in your CD drive, tell the installer to look on the CD for the driver and away it goes. The first time I tried this, for some reason it installed the Spanish language version. Fine if you speak Spanish I guess, but I don't. A simple reinstall, making sure it got the file from the "English" subdirectory, fixed the problem.

filmget.gif (11358 bytes) The Filmget software which is supplied with the scanner is a TWAIN module, not a stand alone program. It is called from your image processing software and transfers the scanned image to the calling program. It has modest capabilities for correcting

  • Color
  • Histograms
  • Curves
  • Brightness
  • Rotation

As well as the usual controls over:

  • Scanning resolution
  • Cropping
  • Color Depth
  • Media type
  • Dust removal level
  • Focus (auto/manual)
  • Exposure (auto/manual)

In general the software is functional if not state of the art. Image update (showing the results of your changes) is somewhat slow and the degree of control is somewhat limited. That being said, the software works, doesn't crash, is reasonably intuitive and is capable of transferring the image into an image processing program, which is more or less all I need it to do!

One slightly annoying feature is that the preview scan is done with the current dust removal setting and dust is removed in the preview image. One the one had this is useful to get a very general feel for how effective dust removal will be. On the other hand it slows the preview scan, and if you decide to change the dust removal setting, you have to do another preview scan since the old one (with whatever cropping and corrections you made to it) is erased. I suppose this is a feature, but it's one I could live without.

As mentioned earlier, one software "quirk" that others have noted is that it seems that the Canon Filmget software does all its image processing at the 8 bit level. This isn't a big deal with 8 bit images (i.e. 24 bit color images), but it is for 14 bit (42 bit color) images. If you process the 14 bit image at 8 bit precision and then save it at 14 bits, you lose information. If you want to scan 42 bit color images and need to process them to do color, density or histogram corrections, take the unprocessed output from the FS4000US and use an image processing program that can handle processing 16 bit (48 bit color) files.

Ed Hamrick's popular Vuescan program supports the FS4000US if you don't like the Canon software. It's much more flexible and offers many more options, though the price for this is a steeper learning curve and less intuitive interface. There's also a financial cost for the software too ($40), but you can get a trial version for free to see if you like it. Try it, see if you like it and register it if you do. Personally I still se the Canon software.

Neither Filmget nor Vuescan will allow you to scan 35mm true panoramic negatives (24mm x 60-72mm) in one scan, even though the filmholder windows are 72mm wide. Apparently this is due to a hardware, not software, limitations so don't expect any software to be able to do it. For panoramic negatives you have to scan in two parts then combine them with software.

How good is the hardware?

Pretty good! The FS4000US has the reputation for excellent optics and is regarded as one of the sharpest 4000dpi scanners around. I have no reason to question that based on my scans. So far mine (which is around one year old) has shown no mechanical problems, though it's only been subjected to light "amateur" use. The film and negative holders are good and the APS module worked perfectly the first time I plugged itin. The scanner makes all sorts of "whirring" noises and moves the film carrier back and forth several times before each scan, but that's the way it's designed I guess. Doesn't seem to result in any problems.

resolution.gif (25560 bytes)

Above are a set of cropped scans of a high resolution "chrome on glass" copy of the 1951 USAF resolution test pattern. The leftmost image was scanned at 2000dpi and upsized by 200%. The middle image was scanned at 3000dpi and upsized by 133%. The rightmost image is a direct scan at 4000dpi, original size. It's quite clear that image quality improves as resolution increases. This isn't surprising of course, but it does show that the scanner isn't optically limited, i.e. the imaging system can take full advantage of the smaller step size used in high resolution scans. This image also answers the question "is it worth the extra expense of a 4000dpi scanner". The answer is, that, if you want to extract the maximum possible information from a slide, scanning at 4000 dpi is an advantage. As in all things it's really a user decision whether any added expense is worth any added performance. You don't need 4000dpi to scan for the web, but it's very useful if you're making large prints.

Techspeak: If you want real numbers, at 4000 dpi the last resolved pattern is group 6, set 2, which is 72 lp/mm. The horizontal component of group 6, set 3 is resolved, corresponding to 80 lp/mm. The theoretical maximum resolution at 4000 dpi, based on the Nyquist theorem which requires sampling at twice the signal frequency, should be 78 lp/mm. These numbers are approximate since we're looking at square waves not sine waves, but still it seems clear that the scanner is operating very close to the theoretical limit of resolution. It is also apparent that the autofocus funtion is working well, since any focus errors would result in lower resolution.

Real World Example

deer.jpg (70978 bytes)

This is the full frame image, scanned at 4000dpi and downsized to fit on the page. The area in the red box is reproduced below at full scale or as indicated.

2400crop2.jpg (24650 bytes)

This is a scan made at 2400dpi on an HP Photosmart scanner. It has been upsized by 167% to match the size of the 4000dpi scan shown below.

4000crop2.jpg (36617 bytes) This is a scan made at 4000 dpi on the Canoscan FS4000US scanner, reproduced actual size

While the difference between the 2400dpi and 4000dpi scans isn't "night and day", the 4000 dpi scan clearly resolves more detail. The film grain is just starting to show up at 4000dpi, wheras at 2400dpi the grain isn't resolved. This image was shot on Sensia 100 film. With a higher resolution film like Velvia, the difference between scans at 2400dpi and 4000dpi might be expected to be greater since more detail would be recorded on the film.

Scan times

All these scan times were measured on a 550MHz AMD K6 PC (Windows 2000 Pro, 512MB RAM, 20GB free disk space) using the USB 1.1 interface. The times are from clicking on the "go" button to the end of the operation and so take into account time taken to move the slide carrier to the correct location (slide #3 in these tests) plus any other setup time as well as the actual scan and data processing and transfer time. Prior to full frame scan the scanning area was limited to the actual visible area of the mounted slide (the slide crops a little off the full frame image). The size of the full frame scans was approximately 5380 x 3550 pixels, making a 19MP image (57MB file at 24-bit color) and a 34.16mm x 22.54mm scanned area.

OPERATION
(all in color mode)

 Dust Removal OFF Dust Removal ON Standard Dust Removal ON Strong
Calibration (done once at startup) 33s 33s 33s
Thumbnail scan (4 slides) 15s 15s 15s
Preview scan 38s 54s 54s
4000dpi 24 bit full frame scan of mounted slide (5380 x 3550 pixels) 4m 01s 6m 28s 6m 38s
4000dpi 42 bit full frame scan of mounted slide (5380 x 3550 pixels) 4m 13s 6m 45 6m 58s

It's interesting to note that scan times don't depend on whether the scan is done at 24 bit color depth or 42 bit color depth. This suggests that either scanning is always done at 42 bit, or that scan time is limited by the scanning itself, not by the data transfer rate. The extra time required for standard and strong dust removal is almost the same, suggesting the same algorithm is used in each case but with slightly different parameters. The scanner also has a SCSI port and connecting via SCSI may result in somewhat shorter scan times. I haven't tested this because the scanner is fast enough for my needs and I don't really want to mess with SCSI devices unless I have to! A faster processor would slightly reduce the overall times by speeding up the image processing functions (e.g. dust removal), but the difference would not likely be very significant since a faster processor won't speed up the scanner itself or the USB data transfer rate. This scanner isn't a speed king, but it's fast enough for me.

FARE (Film Automatic Retouching and Enhancement)

That's "dust and scratch removal" to most of us! Does it work...YES. It really does. Does it reduce sharpness...NO, or at least so little that it's hard to tell. Dust removal works by recording an infrared channel along with the usual red, green and blue channels, then using the information in the IR channel to tell the difference between dust and image. Scans take maybe 50% longer, but for a dusty slide it's well worth the extra time. The images bellow were cropped from full frame scans. Hardware techniques such as this are much more effective at dust removal than purely software techniques and cause much less loss of sharpness.

dustremoval2.jpg (45447 bytes)

FARE does not work on conventional B&W negatives or on Kodachrome color slides. It does work on all C-41 and E-6 process films (color slides other than Kodachrome, color negatives and chromogenic B&W films). The reason it doesn't work is related to the infrared transmission characteristics of the film, which are different for C41/E6 and conventional B&W/Kodachrome.

Scanning or a Digital SLR?

I don't think there's much doubt that if your goal is digital images, you are better off shooting with a digital SLR than shooting film and scanning. It's cheaper, MUCH faster and a LOT less work. The drawback is that the digital SLR will cost you from $2000 to $8000 depending on the image quality you need. However, shooting with a digital SLR doesn't get any of your existing slides and negatives into digital form, and most photographers have LOTS of existing film based images. So even the digital SLR shooter probably still needs a film and slide scanner!

Digital SLRs are also a rapidly evolving technology, so today's new model is likely to be next month's "also ran" and next year's "obsolete model". Given that DSLRs are now fairly common, I think that we will see much slower evolution of film scanners. The current 4000 dpi level is probably as far as the "prosumer" 35mm scanner will go. Higher resolution probably won't buy you much and the market for higher resolution scanners will be affected by the dropping prices on DSLRs. If I'm going to spend $2000+, I'm going to be looking at a DSLR, not a 6000dpi 35mm film scanner. So I think that now is a pretty good time to buy a scanner. Prices are reasonable, the technology isn't obsoleting new models every few months and even if higher resolution models appear, the marginal improvement in scan quality will probably be quite small. Though scanners with a larger dynamic range would certainly help with "difficult" (dense) slides, today's scanners are pretty good for 95% of properly exposed images. Canon claim a D-max of 3.4 in 24-bit mode and 4.2 in 42-bit mode for the FS4000US.

Conclusion

If you want a 4000dpi scanner with dust removal, this one is a bargain. If you want the ability to scan APS film it's even more of a bargain as it comes complete with an adapter for APS film! The scan quality is very high and the price is reasonable. It doesn't have an automatic slide feeder, so if you intend to routinely scan 1000s of slides that might be a drawback. It doesn't have a roll film adapter either, so if you want to scan uncut rolls of 35mm film, you're out of luck. The 4000dpi 35mm Nikon Super Coolscan 4000ED does have roll film and slide feeder adapters, but they are not cheap. Here's a comparison based on 02/2003 prices at B&H photo. For most users I think the Canoscan FS4000US is a better deal, though for  professional users who intend to do lots of scanning on a routine basis, the Nikon may well be a better buy because of the available accessories (but which push the total system cost to 2x to 3x that of the Canon).

  Canon Canoscan FS4000US Nikon Super Coolscan 4000ED
Base Price $800 $1475
APS adapter free (included) $195 ($1670 total)
Roll film adapter not available $480
Automatic slide feeder not available $460

The best features of this scanner are:

  • Optical performance
  • Price
  • Very effective dust and scratch removal (FARE)

Features that could be better are

  • Scan time
  • FilmGet Software (TWAIN driver)

I'd give this scanner  4stars.gif (1018 bytes) overall and 5stars.gif (1062 bytes) for value

Specifications (from Canon)

Type Desktop Film Scanner
Optical Resolution Maximum 4,000dpi
Optical Density Range 3.4 in 24-bit mode
4.2 in 42-bit mode
Film Type
35mm
Color (Positives/Negatives),
Monochrome (Positives/Negatives)
•Mounted slide film
•Filmstrip 
Advanced Photo System (IX240)
Color (Positives/Negatives),
Monochrome (Negatives)
•Mounted slide film
•Cartridge
Scanning Pixels 35mm
3,780 X 5,669 pixels
Advanced Photo System (IX240)
2,457 X 4,315 pixels
Scanning Area 35mm
24.0 x 36.0 mm
Advanced Photo System (IX240)
15.6 x 27.4 mm
Light Source Cold cathode mercury fluorescent lamp
Scanning Element Charged-Coupled Device 3-line color image sensor
Scanning Gradation 14-bit scanning for each color (RGB)/16-bit, 8-bit output
Focus Mode Auto/Manual (selectable)
Interface USB1.1/SCSI-2
Interface Connectors USB connector x 1slot/SCSI half-pitch 50-pin
connectors x 2 slots
(Use interface switch on bottom panel.)
Power Supply 100-240 Volts AC, 50/60Hz (switches automatically)
Power Consumption (maximum) Operating: 35W, Stand by: 12W
Dimension (W x H x D) 92 x 144 x 368 mm (3.6 x 5.7 x 14.5 inches)
Net Weight 2,400g (5.3lb.)

All text and images  (C)Copyright 2002-2003 Robert M. Atkins All Rights Reserved

Readers' Comments


Add a comment



Leif Goodwin , February 14, 2003; 06:11 P.M.

The highlights in the Heron image look horribly burnt out?

Bob Atkins , February 14, 2003; 06:20 P.M.

They are. My fault, not the scanner's I think! I may replace the images with better ones, but I had the heron image on hand when I wrote the review.

Bryan Che , February 14, 2003; 06:30 P.M.

I have this scanner and also have been extremely satisfied with it. It produces excellent images, and I have had no problems with it at all in over a year of use.

I have hooked up my scanner with a SCSI interface. With FARE on normal and 42-bit mode, scans take about 2-3 minutes.

I have also found the TwainTiffBatcher program quite useful. This program allows you to make batch scans with FilmGet. It will write each scanned file to disk and unload it from memory as soon as it is done with that file. Then, it will proceed to the next frame you have selected to scan in FilmGet. You can download TwainTiffBatcher for free at: http://www.goof.com/~mmead/TwainTiffBatcher

Bob Atkins , February 14, 2003; 07:03 P.M.

I changed the image of the Heron with blown out highlights for one with a deer without blown out highlights!

Bill Tuthill , February 14, 2003; 09:30 P.M.

Brian's SCSI timings echo those sent to comp.periphs.scanners on 2003-02-04, when New User claimed 108 seconds for SCSI scans versus 241 seconds for USB scans.

David H. Hartman , February 15, 2003; 05:55 A.M.

Bob,

How is the scanning of conventional B&W negatives? I wonder if the cold cathode mercury fluorescent lamp veils minor scratches and dust the way a diffusion head does on an enlarger.

Thanks for a good review!

Bob Atkins , February 15, 2003; 12:29 P.M.

B&W film scans well, but there is no real removal of dust or scratches. I don't know if the relatively diffuse light source helps because I've never done a test against a scanner that uses a relatively more collimated light source. I suppose there may be some difference but I doubt that it's significant.

The only way to get dust and scratch removal from B&W negatives would presumably be to shoot chromogenic (C-41 process) B&W film, which should allow FARE to operate as it does on any other C-41 film.

Robert Ardinger , February 15, 2003; 12:35 P.M.

I have had the scanner for some time. I have it hooked up as an SCSI scanner. My previous experience with slide scanners was with a three pass scanner so this one seemed like a speed demon. The dust removal works just as described and I use it frequently. Black and white negatives are a bit different and for me do not really respond to the dust removal as well. They generally take a bit of work to clean up as the scanner appears to enhance defects (or at least shows them for what they are) rather than hiding them the way a diffusion head enlarger might. Also I use the Canon software and Vuescan. For a well exposed negative with a common orange mask (much of Kodak and Fuji consumer films). I like the Canon results and the interface, etc. on the Canon software but many times Vuescan will produce a scan with more detail in highlights (this may be more of a difference in my ability with the programs however). Vue scan offers more choices for removing the mask of negative film and one can change the choice and see the result on the preview to pick one that may give a better color balance than another one. I like having both. Silverfast appear not to support the Canon scanner. I too have added a DSLR to my camera bag and will likely use it for much of my future imaging but the Canon allows me to keep my older images digitally viable and the overall end results are at least as good as the RAW DSLR files.

My personal site has a few negatives scaned with the Canon scanner (the color ones, taked on Fuji Reala 100. The black and white ones are scanned prints).

Robert

Fazal Majid , February 15, 2003; 02:56 P.M.

When deciding which scanner to buy, I used the test scans from Imaging Resource, and it seemed to me the Canoscan 4000 had much more noise in the shadows than the lower-res Nikon Coolpix IVED, which I ended up buying (and of course the Nikon LS-4000, but that is an entirely different price range).

Richard van Hoesel , February 16, 2003; 05:34 P.M.

I've had this scanner for about a year now too, and while I agree it can do a good job on 'easy' well exposed slides, it's shadow noise is pretty poor and the filmget software is a waste of time. I've tried to remedy the shadow noise using long exposures or multiple passes in Ed Hamrick's Vuescan but have not been able to find a scan method that gives consistently good results. The long exposures can give charge-bleed halos and the multipassing softens the image. Note that if you use the bundled software (filmget), you cannot turn of the in-built sharpening and a fair comparison of the results of this scanner with other scanners that have not had their scans sharpened should be done with different software. All up, for me the scanner gets an 'almost but not quite' rating; something Canon may quietly agree on given how they have priced this scanner (there has also been a lot of talk about poor quality control for this machine on the discussion forums).

Paolo Cozzaglio , February 21, 2003; 08:47 A.M.

I bought FS4000US 1 year ago. I like this scanner for the good quality/price comparison. But I think it has two weak points: a) speed (too slow!) b) details in shadows (not so good, with some noise too). Otherwise a quite good performance.

Arthur Yeo , February 21, 2003; 10:22 P.M.

Interesting and well-written review, Bob. I own one of these, too, and I'm pleased with most of the scans it produced. There's a consistent hiccup, however, with shots on Velvia.
I have several Velvia & Kodachrome-25 slides (from different rolls) which were slightly underexposed (may be -0.3ev). On the lightbox, they looked gorgeous but the scanner had lots of difficulty picking up the darker shades in the images. The same problem also occur when Velvia is used to shoot contrasty scenes in broad daylight in snow-capped mountains. The advertised dMax doesn't seem to be live up to its specs when dealing with dense dyes. When I was reading your review, I was hoping you would cover this issue.

Bob Atkins , February 21, 2003; 11:08 P.M.

It's a bit difficult to measure Dmax, and since I only had the PhotoSmart for comparision the FS4000US looked pretty good in comparison! I too have had trouble with dark slides (or high contrast slides with deep shadows) but I just don't know how much better another scanner would do. From all the reports I read it seems to me that all scanners have problems in this area and all Dmax specs are optimistic.

Dmax specs are often just the theoretical numbers for the bit depth of the scanner. They don't seem to be experimentally measured numbers. It's tough to compare scanners without having them side by side and scanning the same slide on each.

Carl has a comparison scan on his review page (see the link below).

Bill Speaks , February 21, 2003; 11:17 P.M.

Bob,

Thanks for the review! It is a real eye-opener for me.

Your performance numbers seem much better than what I have achieved. Using Filmget 1.0.3 (latest version) and with dust removal off, it takes about 2 minutes to preview and 10 minutes to do a 4000dpi 42 bit scan.

The times are about the same on each of my Dell computers. I have a Dimension 4100 desktop (Pentium 4 @ 1.3GHZ, with 512MB RAM), and an Inspirion 1000 laptop (Pentium 3 @ 1GHZ, with 512MB RAM).

I bought my scanner in October 2001. I wonder if you have a scanner that has improved hardware components or revised firmware.

If other netters have info about the relative performance of their device, I would appreciate hearing about it. It sounds like I need to call Canon support and try to figure out the problem.

Bill

Sudhindra M , February 24, 2003; 02:17 A.M.

Bob, the review is well done. I recently bought FS4000US in Australia, got mine for US$ 702(incl.GST refund because I left Australia within 30 days of purchase) from www.scannerplace.com.au at Boxhill Melbourne. Setup was a breeze on my laptop Win 98 and desktop Win 2K. I sorely missed batch scanning in the bundled Canon's Filmget. I have since been using the Freeware Irfanview (www.irfanview.com) which in turn uses the Canon TWAIN and provides a wrapper for batch scanning. However, as has been mentioned in Bob's review, and some reader's comments, batch scanning is limited to 4 slides per batch, for mounted slides and 6 per batch for strips. Dont't know of other filmscanners, but what justified the choice of the 4000 for me was that this scanner can be powered from 100 to 240 V ac, 50/60Hz, which makes it usable anywhere in the world. A must, for people with nomadic lifestyle like myself. Overall, I feel it has been value for money.

Walter Strong , February 24, 2003; 03:39 A.M.

My FS4000 will not correct dust and/or scratches most of the time and it does not give me really sharp images. Maybe its my lack of expertise, but then again, I didn't expect to have to be an expert to use it!

Ilkka Nissila , February 24, 2003; 08:00 A.M.

The Nikon LS-4000 will basically perform the whole scan in the time it takes the Canon to do a preview. So, scanning isn't necessarily all that slow. With a slide, you have the original to help you remember the colours of the scene (well, sort of) and so you aren't tempted as much to manipulate the image as with digital captures.

I agree that scanning is time-consuming but dust removal by hand and printing are much more so. The latter two are there with digital cameras as well. Although with smaller files, they can be processed quicker. As to resolution, I'm sure there will be higher-resolution desktop scanners than 4000 dpi. New films are introduced with RMS 8 or even 7 granularity, which basically means that 4000 dpi is inadequate. And if you scan a shot taken on slide film with a prime lens and tripod to get a high-res file, and print at 2880 dpi, no sharpening is needed for a sharp print. Much more natural looking end result than with artificial edge enhancement.

Bob Atkins , February 25, 2003; 12:51 A.M.

Walter - you should not need to be an expert to get sharp scans or effective dust removal!

Right out of the box with everything set to automatic my scans are sharp and dust removal is effective as I think I demonstrated with the images in my review. In fact there's nothing you can do with dust removal other than to turn it on and off and set it to standard or strong. Ditto with sharpness. Either you let the AF do its stuff or you try manual focus, but I've never bothered trying to use manual focus (it's clumsy and you have to do a scan at each setting to see what comes out sharp), since AF seems just fine.

If you aren't getting such results I'd suggest maybe your scanner is faulty and you should get Canon to look at it if it is still under warranty. It should give excellent results by default. The only "tweaking" you may need to do is color and curve corrections, neither of which affect sharpness or dust removal functions.

Nick G , March 01, 2003; 02:01 A.M.

I owned the Canon 2710. It was great scanner until they desupported the software. I have worked for technology companies for many years now. Canon, Nikon and Minolta are now trying to be technology companies. Of which I give them an F grade. They have done a horrible job producing quality applications for Mac or PCs.

This is the same story for all Canon products I have ever owned. The same goes for Nikon and other traditional cameral makers.

They have a long way to go and some growing up to do.

Andrew Tan , March 04, 2003; 11:46 P.M.

Thanks for the review Bob! I bought this beauty 5 days ago because, in Australia, both the FS4000US and Nikon IV are worth about the same. No regrets whatsoever - this thing works out of the box and has worked consitently well for both negatives and reversals. Only con (albeit a minor one) that I experience is that, when placing film in the filmholder, I have to touch the film quite abit to get it into position - not a problem as long as I wear a glove on my right hand. USB connection can be heaps slow with Win XP, but since connecting it with SCSI scanning speed has improved tons! Check out http://www.n-drew.com/photography/portfolio/ All the images there were scanned with this scanner.

Rhaytana (Tim Adams) , March 12, 2003; 04:50 P.M.

Thank you for the review!

At the risk of being a bit of a broken record -- as I've said this before when the FS4000 is mentioned -- I'll add that I consider this a SCSI scanner. I started with an FS4000 using USB over a year ago, fretted over whether or not to add an Adaptec 2930 SCSI card to interface with the FS4000, finally took the plunge, and ... well, I'd never hook it up to USB again. I didn't do time trials, but it so, so much faster with SCSI. In Win XP, the 2930 Adaptec was easily added, too ... unlike the nightmare of adding new hardware in Windows NT.

Adam Eberbach , March 28, 2003; 07:37 A.M.

SCSI is good but a lot more complicated than Firewire - I'm surprised the FS4000US doesn't have it. For scanning purposes it is as fast and it's extremely useful for mass-storage and DV cameras.

Jos Roost , April 09, 2003; 05:16 A.M.

Just for information, for people intending to buy a filmscanner but who can still wait a few more months: Partly based on this review and the appended comments, I had more or less decided to buy the Canon FS4000US plus a SCSI card. I found the Nikon 4000 ED too expensive and the Minolta Elite II maybe not having enough resolution. However, yesterday I heard that in June 2003 Minolta (Europe) will be releasing a new 35mm filmscanner: DiMage Scan Elite 5400. With 5400 dpi, 16 bit ADC, USB 2.0 and FireWire and a price of appr. 900 US$ this almost sounds like a dream come true. Therefore, I think I will hold on to my money for a few more months and until some reviews of this new scanner have been published. But just from the manufacturer's specs, it is at the top of my list right now.

Benjamin Ogdon , April 30, 2003; 04:41 A.M.

Very nice review. I too own this scanner, and am really pleased with it. Unfortunately, USB's my only option, so I smoke a lot of cigarettes waiting for the scans, which, I gather, is a Bad Thing. A few points that I thought might not be clear:

- FARE (scratch/dust removal) is not supported on B&W, or Kodachrome. I thought Bob was pretty clear on this point, but another comment mentioned it not working too well. It's not that it doesn't work well, it's not supported at all.

- I'm not a big expert, but I really doubt Nikons are any better in the shadows than this thing is. Of course, I use mine mostly with negative film, so my shadows are fine! ;-) I've seen scans that were practically noise free, and I've seen scans that were pretty noisy, so...

- If you're having problems with noise, just remember that the noise is coming from somewhere. These machines are susceptible to line noise, so investing in a good power conditioner might be worthwhile. The folks that make Monster Cable also make conditioners for Home Theater that, while not cheap, aren't too outrageous, and work very well. I'm sure there are many other good solutions. Keeping the scanner away from other sources of RFI/EMI would probably be a good idea as well.

The Canoscan may not be as fast as the Nikon, but, to my eyes, it's better in every other respect. It's cold-cathode light source produces better color accuracy than the Nikon, and that, along with the price, was the clincher for me.

Cheers.

Goetz Adam Gageik , May 06, 2003; 11:49 A.M.

One or two remarks to the above - I also took the jump from the HP S20 to the CanoScan and at the same time I moved to Photoshop. I found that scanning into PS improved not only results from the CanoScan versus old pics in Photoimpact, the scans of the HP looked miles better too, though in PI the same images might show noise which was not detectable in the finished print nor in Photoshop?! Walter, my raw scans are mostly pretty sharp but always need some unsharpening in the end, I believe though that that is normal.

I am also a little surprised about the remarks concerning batch scanning.. Of course you cannot do more than what's in the holder, but that you can even do without a pre-scan. When I load all holders I just select all without an index-scan and scan all images at once, whilst going off to do something else, it is not very fast but fast enough for me. I found out that after 20 images scanned at 2000dpi the computer sends a help message and I have to save them first before moving on. My main aim was to get the chance to scan at a resolution where 30 by 45 cm images from scans become possible - I haven't send one off yet, but images I had processed at 20 by 30 cm show no difference to "wet" prints.

All in all I am very pleased with my scanner, which I bought mainly after seeing reviews by Carl Smith and Norman Koren - thanks again folks. I paid €699 here in Germany and had the scanner for more than six months now - still happy!

Drew Coulthard , May 17, 2003; 07:35 A.M.

I have recently bought the Canon FS4000US and installed it on my P4 2.4GHz PC with PS7 via USB 1 port. I scanned some images at 4000dpi and the calibration takes 3-4 mins and three images took 70 mins to scan (the 3rd image was blank). I contacted Canon UK and they told me to un-install my Epson GT7000U flatbed, disable my CA Anti Virus software and un-install FilmGet then download the latest version from the Canon web site and re-install that. He also said that I might benefit from plugging the Canon scanner into my USB 2 port. I have ordered an Adaptec 2930 SCSI 2 card and cable and I will let you know how this goes. Is it just me or have others any conflicting driver issues?

May 17th - Just installed an ADAPTEC 2930 SCSI II card, no conflicts, no issues regarding installation to XP Pro (recognised card automatically) and WOW lightning fast!!! Forget USB.

Arthur Yeo , June 12, 2003; 08:54 P.M.

Installed SCSI interface and flipped the thing on and it scanned my slides in the most zippy way I've ever seen. Even a full 4000dpi scan progressed continuously with no constant pausing compared to USB.
Some people claimed that the SCSI interface gave them less noise in the shadows. I do see a difference but they are probably in the 10-15% range.

Greg Chappell , February 18, 2004; 05:59 P.M.

After working with this scanner for a couple of days and getting used to the process (never used a scanner of any type before) I scanned 4 images I had taken on Fujichrome Velvia at 4000 DPI. Had to size down in order to work the images in Photoshop Elements 2.0 and forgot to use FARE at all, so I had some fairly minor spotting to do, but the resulting JPEG's, which ranged in size from 18 to 30 megabites are AWESOME! Using the USB connection, from start to finish it took 37 minutes to do the 4 scans (as I said, without FARE), using a Dell Inspiron 1100 notebook, with 2 MHZ Celeron Processor. I can only imagine how, with time and practice, my images will turn out in the future. This means I'm going to be shooting MORE chromes in the future when I am out for ultimate quality and am shooting for myself.

Februaury 12 update- This scanner really has me hooked on scanning chromes. I have a folder entitled "Dallas Architecture". Most of those images are scans I have made since picking this up. The small file sizes on this site don't do the full sized images justice, though. THIS is what I envisioned digital imaging to be like. Shoot slide film, let the processors develope and mount, then I can pick the best images out and only have to mess on the computer with images I like and want to mess with. My Digital Rebel is more convenient as far as capturing digital images, but a slide scanned with this scanner at 4000 DPI creates a file (5888x4000) that can be printed at 300 DPI as big as 13x19 WITHOUT any upsizing!

Tom H , August 24, 2004; 12:46 P.M.

Great review. It did help me on deciding what I should go for. But I am still stuck between either a dedicated filmscanner like the canon or the Canon 9900FF. Still it does help me to discriminate between this one and a number of other filmscanners. Great.

Claude Stephan , November 04, 2006; 05:58 A.M.

i was working on the software with windows 98 ,i installd the windows xp home edition it is not downloading.is there any update for the software?

Image Attachment: Sunset.jpg

Roger Smith , November 20, 2006; 11:35 P.M.

I highly recommend using this scanner with recent versions of Vuescan over Canon Filmget. Why? The Vuescan IR works better with fewer artifacts, is faster, and Vuescan lets you set exposure manually (integers from 1-6) and won't clip highlights or shadows if you set white point/black point to 0% (or scan with color balance set to none). For IR on negatives, lock the exposure and increase to 3 from 1. I'm using Vuescan 8.3.75.

Here I posted techniques to wring shadow detail out of tough slides with the Canon, and a comparison to the Coolscan 5000: http://jingai.com/vuescan2/long%20exposure%20comparison.html


Add a comment



Notify me of comments