Imacon and 4x5

[gmed]

Can a 4x5 be scanned twice on an imacon in the 120 film setting and stitched to get 3200 ppi rather than 2040?

[onnect17]

Which model?

[gmed]

949 or hassy x5 or x1

[Daniel Stone]

you can load whatever you want into the holders, sheet film or roll film

I've done it, but frankly I'd rather work with a drum scan(hence why I bought one) in the end when working with high(er) dpi settings. The Imacon/Flextights just didn't cut it vs a well done, wet-mounted drum scan(especially on transparencies, with their deep shadow details that got really muddy on the Imacons, in my experience)

-Dan

[gmed]

What drum scanner did you end up buying?

[StoneNYC]

Yes what drum scanner did you end up with? I would also like to know. Thanks.

[Michael Rosenberg]

You can scan a 4x5 with the Imacon scanner 120 holder, and then stitch them together in PS. I scan in 4 segments, keeping the exposure the same, and then stitch. My 4x5 holder does not show the whole negative and for some negatives that is critical. I have the Imacon 646 scaner.

Mike

[gmed]

Thanks for the info. That's what I wanted to hear.

[Lenny Eiger]

Yes what drum scanner did you end up with? I would also like to know. Thanks.


He's got a DPL 8000


Lenny

[cikaziva]

this is interesting discussion. i used to have P3 then 343 and then 949 for almost a decade and i have to say that i got to know them a lot. 646 is different scanner and not in any way representative of imacon's in a way we can say same for 343... back to big boys 949 and X5 this scanners can deliver in any aspect. are they ideal? no! is drum better? i dont know, i really dont. but this is what i know: my 949 gave me way better scans then any "professional" scanns that i could get form any remaining drums in my proximity. it gave me way better scans of my old negatives that i scanned in 90's on drums, now am blaming that on my self. its fast to mount film, way faster than any wet mounting and way better then any Nikon (on MF). 949 was fast as lightning and with a Batch adapter i could mount and scan 40 sheets of 4x5 in a background without even noticing it. at the moment i used that scanner on my modern MacPro via FireWire using new Flex color and making 3F archive along with my digital back images (at the time that sounded as a good plan) and i didnt need to run parallel G4 on 9.1.1 transferring tiffs on usb keys. speed, batch capability, modern software and modern platform, superior color negative result (i was shooting most of my paid work on colornegs at that time), small foot print, virtually no maintaining (in 11 years i changed two lamps and one belt); all that made huge advantage over any drum and i could totally over look grain problem or muddy blue cast in shadows on under exposed provia. today non of above has no value. now in a year i shoot amount of 4x5 that i was shooting for one catalog, i shoot maximum 60 rolls of 120 velvia a year and i dont use film for any paid work any more (my clients are cheep, they dont care and they want to see results immediately ). i sold my 949 in order to pay the rent and now i have no scanner at all. would i buy 949 now? no! i cant justify that amount of money in 2014 for CCD scanner! would i buy drum? no! way to much hustle for me and old platforms and vintage softer are not my cup of tea. i would get IQsmart3 that would be my pick. however i am broke bastard so i will probably get some amateur flat bed scanner like 750 and call it a day. thats one of main advantages of LF you can get away with a lot of stuff...
Imacons are expensive but they should not be looked down at. they are good and rapid way to get really good scan with minimal effort in shortest time and as such they are in class for them self. also comparing models form same generation like 646 and 949 dont do the justice to what imacons are all about. take everything i say with pitch of salt because this is subjective view of a photographer who had scanners and not form professional scan-man.


just my 2c

[Daniel Stone]

The REAL problem that (I) see happening now is that the manufacturers/support companies that REALLY KNOW the machines in question are getting scarce(r) by the year. As reported above(I'll still be giving Evan @ Aztek a call myself to substantiate the claim) that no newly-made machines are being produced, we're looking at a finite timeline here w/ being able to get parts, service and support for these wonderful machines.

Stone/gmed:
Yes, as Lenny let onto, I have a DPL8000. It's the precursory model to the "current" Premier model. There were some changes made to the Premier(especially the most recent ones) from the DPL8000, but they're almost the same machine. Same optics/PMT's IIRC. Same software set(DPL). Anyhow, I love it. I haven't used it since Sept of last year, as I moved out of my apt, and right now it's sitting, waiting to go to my friends house while I move away for (at least) a few years. I might sell it, I don't want to see it just sit unused. It's a machine that needs to be used. IDK, I'm even with what I've got into it by a long shot, but I really have no hardcore affiliation/brand loyalty to one company vs. another. Karl Hudson(Hudson Grafik Services) was really helpful when I was researching the Heidelberg lineup of scanners, and he (almost) sold me an 8400 system(I guess Tim Parkin actually just bought, snake ;)!). Such is life. So I "ended up" with a DPL8000. A much smaller machine size-wise than the Heidelberg, but since Karl still services these machines regularly, I know the Heidelbergs(heck, even an "ancient" Tango!) still deliver great scans. It all comes down to the operator. I'm no where near the operator skill-level of someone like Lenny, but he does it as a business. He HAS to deliver kick-a$$ results to his customers(many here on LFF!). I did the math, and it was more cost effective for me to buy a used scanner and do it myself than send out. My projected usage ended up being 3x what it turned out to actually be used for, oh well.
Since I still like to shoot "small" formats(now it's mostly a GX680 system, hardly small :P), a drum scan can really pull out EVERYTHING from the film. After I shot some of my first test rolls with the GX when I got it, I mounted the chromes(Provia) up on the drum, and scanned them. Holy s***, I almost decided to give up LF at that point and time. I was scanning 6x8 transparencies at 8000dpi and my files were(IIRC) approx 2gb. Nutso. Way bigger than anything I'd ever need. Long story short, I'm still shooting LF(5x7 mostly, some 4x5 when my 450 Fuji isn't long enough to "fill the frame")... And I no longer scan 6x8's @ 8000dpi, just 2666dpi or 4000dpi if it's a real "winner" of a shot. Hard drives are cheap these days, and it's easier to save files away in the archives than re-scan later if I need a larger starting file because I want to print bigger than the original scan will allow. I'm a fanatic for maximum quality. "Do it right the first time, or don't do it at all" is my philosophy. In everything actually. Saves time, energy and capital in the long run.

I'd highly recommend taking steps slowly when it comes to these machines. Heck, I've even seen you talking about "moving up" to 8x10, Stone. 8X10 is wonderful, but I found quite cumbersome, even when working close to the car. I didn't want to move all the way down to 4x5, as I felt I still wanted more film real estate to work with than 4x5 would allow. I settled on 5x7, and thus far, I've loved the format a great deal. Just as portable as a 4x5 camera, and the holders don't seem excessively large like an 8x10 does. I've assisted a photographer a few years back who shoots 8x20(Michael Smith), and he makes contact prints. He needs those large negatives for that purpose. Horses for courses, of course. I'm not deterring you from going up to 8x10, just really contemplate that move. "Make no small plans" a wise man once told me. I wish I'd have heeded that sage advice more closely in the past few years. I'm now learning after-the-fact.

An Epson V750 w/ the wetmount tray can do a good bit, probably enough for most people's needs on a day-to-day basis. Wet mounting is NEEDED(IMO) for maximizing quality. It also helps in reducing post time to a minimum(especially with dust spotting!). An IQSmart/Eversmart Supreme(I/II) is even better, and many say it would rival a drum scan. I can't compare them myself, as I've never used one. But I know that many really like them(no 'high speed spinning drum').
Drum scanners are still used regularly. Not as regularly as 'back in the day', but still on a regular basis in major markets. even if amateurs who demand the highest quality, and are willing to pay for it, are there as the primary basis. But operating one takes skill, technical know-how, and a good deal of knowledge on the craft to really make things shine. But when you're "in the groove" and have a system that works well consistently, there's nothing like the feeling of being TOTALLY IN CONTROL of the entire process. It just makes things much more enjoyable, repeatable, and in the end, more productive. Scanning is no longer a "chore", but even if challenging to get 'just right', it's much easier than dicking around with sliders and attempting to band-aid the original scan to get something usable. Opening that well-done scan in PS, and spending under 5mins dust-busting @ 100%, seeing the amazing level of detail captured, and knowing that you can make a killer hi-res print of that shot. But then you see what it'll cost to make all these "hi-res prints", and you'll just file the scan away for a rainy day, as I've done most of the time ;)

But just an FYI: these machines can be MONEY PITS. Nothing is guaranteed to work for life, and as we all know, electronics can be fickle, fickle, fickle. Even if parts are "still available" and the manufacturer can be called up on the phone M-F,9-5, you can cook your wallet to a crisp in a single blow. Last time I asked Evan @ Aztek about the replacement cost on a main board for the Premier, it was ~$7k or so. Yeah.......

I'm off to bed, I've got to hit Wally-world @6am, hopefully some .22 ammo will be left for me this time :D! Shooting this weekend(guns; and cameras! Gotta feed both addictions!)

-Dan

[StoneNYC]

Don't worry Dan,

I won't be changing from the 750 anytime soon, it's good enough for what I need, I'll just go up in format size ;) hah!

[koh303]

you can load whatever you want into the holders, sheet film or roll film

I've done it, but frankly I'd rather work with a drum scan(hence why I bought one) in the end when working with high(er) dpi settings. The Imacon/Flextights just didn't cut it vs a well done, wet-mounted drum scan(especially on transparencies, with their deep shadow details that got really muddy on the Imacons, in my experience)

-Dan

You can load anything, but the amount of work to stitch, IMO, does not equal the amount of extra "real estate" earned, as in most cases printers, especially when printing large use a lower DPI count, and today's modern RIPs offer such amazing and seamless interpolating and spooling that you can go from relatively small files to huge prints and not see the difference (we have been testing this in the real world with various applications, form epson scanners, to imacon, from light jet to HP and Epson printers).

I dont know about drum scanners, but as for Imacons not having parts - the entire machine (save the housing and cosmetic trims) is made of fully generic and readily available parts: the electronics, the boards, the relays, the bulbs, the motors and pullies as well as the belts and drive units. There is a guy who is now making low cost carriers (we have a few and they are actually a bit better then the original under heavy use), so i would not put an expiration date on this technology quite yet.

[onnect17]

As many expressed it here in the forum, each scanner has pros and cons but allow me to get my two cents in.

Instead of comparing them in resolving power I prefer to look in both components, luminance and chroma, because that's how you see the biggest difference.

I spent some time using an Imacon 343. Great, reliable scanner. Still a CCD scanner. It does not scan pixel by pixel so, and like any digital camera a significant amount of lot of light ends up in the nearby cells (that's why you image from the digital camera looks better with a simple touch in the gamma). The luminance, great. Color, not as pure as the drum scanner. Also because the lamp is not "loop regulated" the temperature changes the output of the lamp over time, enough to notice it with a 3200 dpi scan of the two sections of the 4x5. Also, the lens (magnagon) as expected, introduces a little bit of distortion near the edges, also to be considered during stitching operations.

The other side of the coin, let's say a basic drum scanner as the D4000. Luminance wise, I think I would get more from the Imacon from BW negatives. However I would keep the rich chroma output of color film out of the drum scanner every time.

At the end is, like mentioned in previous posts, more about what can we afford, at what time, maintenance costs, productivity, etc. Technology and capabilities becomes secondary.

[Lenny Eiger]

I have only owned a 4500 and a Premier. I've also compared a lot of other scanners' files. I've never had any issue getting down into the really dense areas, or getting every last bit out of the really light areas of a b&w negative. I have looked at Imacon scans and they aren't bad. However, taking one sample at at time, as you say, is the best method, for a lot of reasons.

Imacon has always overstated its range. They chose to use a theoretical value vs a real one and got everyone in the scanner world pissed off. Then came the rest claiming they had x amount of resolution, with Epson even claiming 6400 optical rez, which is ridiculous. In the absence of real independent testing, we are all on our own. That said, I wouldn't imagine that Imacon's luminance would be better than even a 4000. Of course, I don't own a 4000 so this is my guess... and not to be taken as established fact.

Once one gets in the drum scanner range, or lets say optical resolution above consumer level, say, perhaps 4000, then one looks to the ability of the scanner to make a "good" scan. What the heck is that!? I define a good scan in two ways. 1) It has to have smooth transitions from one tone to the next, and 2) each level of tonality has to separate out from the one next to it, so that the person printing the image can grab these tones and manipulate them to an expressive print, in the style that is desired. Of course, this is where the operator comes in, experience using the scanner and seeing results, etc. It's not any different from tuning one's development times for best results, its an iterative process.

There is a lot of talk about sharpness. We all have cameras with swings and tilts, and do our best to choose our lenses with care. However, only small percentage of us have an aesthetic that speaks to absolute sharpness. (Maybe the tabletop folks.) Certainly not the landscape crowd where leaves move in the breeze, or portraits where people have the audacity to breathe... I was looking just yesterday at my comparisons between f22 and f45 and I couldn't see one drop of difference. However, I also noticed that the images were a little too sharp, not particularly pleasant to look at. For most of us (not all) the difference between 100% sharp and 98 or 99% wouldn't make any difference. It's the composition, the sense of atmosphere, or the tonalities in the mid tones, that make the image for us, among a lot of other things, or using a lot of different words for these concerns.

Scanning is certainly an art vs a science. There are a lot of decisions that get made. It's my opinion that one will be more successful is one is clear about the goal.

Lenny

[Deepak Kumar]

I am using X5 and right now I am trying to see if this is possible. If you try to scan 4X5 end to end using 120 holder, some part of 4X5 negative is over lapping on the edge of holder that is meant to
go under roller to insert and drive the holder. This may also get the 4x5 film tangled in scanner and damage it as far as I understand. I would not put my precious films in such situation.

Secondly Since X5 is built like a tank, its holder drive mechanism is pretty strong and if films get stuck, it would be really difficult to retrieve it.

[Bernice Loui]

IMO, there is an over obsession with Sharpness among too many photographers with the belief that shaper, higher contrast is what makes a better image. On the other end, there is extreme pictorialism where image of formless mush rule.

I'm not convinced either extremes alone are going to result in truly great expressive images. Great expressive images requires much more with sharpness, contrast range, and many other factors contributing to the finished result.

Every step, item, tool in the image making process from film or image sensor, lens, camera, scanning, chemistry, print paper, print mounting and more are all mere tools in the process to the creation of that finished print. No one single factor alone is going to make the finished print great. With this in mind, much of what the finished print becomes depends much on the individual making the print, their skills at using these tools, their creativity, their vision and who they are all become embossed into the end result


Bernice





There is a lot of talk about sharpness. We all have cameras with swings and tilts, and do our best to choose our lenses with care. However, only small percentage of us have an aesthetic that speaks to absolute sharpness. (Maybe the tabletop folks.) Certainly not the landscape crowd where leaves move in the breeze, or portraits where people have the audacity to breathe... I was looking just yesterday at my comparisons between f22 and f45 and I couldn't see one drop of difference. However, I also noticed that the images were a little too sharp, not particularly pleasant to look at. For most of us (not all) the difference between 100% sharp and 98 or 99% wouldn't make any difference. It's the composition, the sense of atmosphere, or the tonalities in the mid tones, that make the image for us, among a lot of other things, or using a lot of different words for these concerns.

Scanning is certainly an art vs a science. There are a lot of decisions that get made. It's my opinion that one will be more successful is one is clear about the goal.

Lenny

[ScottPhotoCo]

IMO, there is an over obsession with Sharpness among too many photographers with the belief that shaper, higher contrast is what makes a better image. On the other end, there is extreme pictorialism where image of formless mush rule.

I'm not convinced either extremes alone are going to result in truly great expressive images. Great expressive images requires much more with sharpness, contrast range, and many other factors contributing to the finished result.

Every step, item, tool in the image making process from film or image sensor, lens, camera, scanning, chemistry, print paper, print mounting and more are all mere tools in the process to the creation of that finished print. No one single factor alone is going to make the finished print great. With this in mind, much of what the finished print becomes depends much on the individual making the print, their skills at using these tools, their creativity, their vision and who they are all become embossed into the end result


Bernice

Amen. :)

[StoneNYC]

I think, to me, and maybe subconsciously to others, really the whole sharpish issue really has to just do with the fact that...

If you have an image that is supposed to start sharp and then move increasingly into an unsharp image, giving you some depth etc., that with that particular kind of image you would want something to be sharp at the sharp part and unsharp at the unsharp part, if you have an image that is supposed to be completely sharp all the way through, for example a large landscape where you want everything to be in focus and sharp, then you would want the whole image to be sharp, this isn't as important when you're talking about smaller images, but when you're talking about blowing something up to a very large size, and you're not using a traditional and larger and instead you're using a scanner, the scanners quality comes into play, perhaps you May currently only need to blow things up to 11 x 14 which is easily done with a very sharp results with any normal scanner, but in the future you may want to sell 20 x 24 prints or larger, and in preparation for that would put for two do scanning once rather than have to do it again and additional time later on.

So having a sharp image to begin with is important, also, if image sharpness weren't important then, film makers would not have ever worked on find her grained images and we would all be shooting on superfast 3200 speed film most of the time and be able to handled everything, because it wouldn't matter how sharp the image was, so obviously sharpness is important to the majority. Is only one aspect of photography, there are many others that are also important, but this one is certainly a concern when it comes to non-traditional methods of printing, I also think it's a valid one that should be discussed from time to time as new or machines come out, or older machines of higher-quality become more financially accessible to those of us who could not afford them at the original price.

That's all I've got

[Lenny Eiger]

I don't ever want to go from sharp to unsharp, I'm a depth of field guy. There is sharp, and there is super sharp. When you see a tabletop image, the super contrasty condensation drops on the coke can, that is super sharp. The image is about sharpness, and appropriate techniques should be used to accomplish the desired effect.

However, this is the difference that we are talking about. We all want sharp to be sharp. It just doesn't need to look like a image shot with a flash - if one isn't using one.

Lenny

[bob carnie]

I have tested recently and in the past , Drum Scanners , Imocan and Creo Eversmart.

I own Epson1000xl , Fuji 2500 , Imocan and now Creo Eversmart. Also I have access to a ICG drum scanner.

After years of searching scanning and printing thousands of images I would have to say they are pretty much equal . The big issue is as Dan points out the service and parts, I was seriously looking at the Aztek Premier he had and tested it against the Imocan, and the Creo Eversmart Supreme.

Twice now with different operators on Aztek ,Imocan and ICG scan we scanned common negatives by good operators on their machine, I then made 30 x40 inch prints on high gloss material , I tried to balance each scan as close as possible.

Each time I would have over 10 clients, staff, myself blind test the images and rate the quality of final print, I did not tell the viewers which one was which.

Each time I got a pretty even draw on which print was best and this last time the Creo and the Aztek were top with Imocan close behind. ( each scanner got votes so it was not a slam dunk)

So I decided to buy the Creo, sorry Dan, but as he points out the parts and service are a huge concern to anyone , as well as support. Genesis Equipment ( Mike Streeter) is in Michigan and I purchased the Creo with regular mounts and oil mount capability. We could drive to pick up the machine and he is close to visit for service.

I am completely satisfied with this decision as the Eversmart delivers huge, high quality scans, It has a large platform so I can scan both negative, positive and flat art up to 12 x18 and at 16 bit
so I have a lot of headroom when editing.

As Dan mentioned the relationship with the vendor is critical and Michael has been nothing short of phenomenal in his patience with me as I learn the machine.
He can drive the machine from his home in Michigan and I can watch him work and this has been fantastic and is part of his service and I think critical. As I would be
lost trying to figure out the machine by myself in a very busy shop.

Critical for any scanner is a clean work area, good humidity, and a good understanding of how the end points work and when you will be above the different paper fall off points.


I also like how Bernice explains things and I would give a big plus 1 on that post.