Affordable Imacon scanner?

[Rob_5419]

This isn't my field. Is there a new one coming out (that is affordable)?

I'd had half been persuaded that I needed an Epson V750, but word of mouth from other photographers tell me that I should check out the Imacon.

I don't know what an Imacon is, but it sounds like a kind of bowel preparation.

Help?

[Baxter Bradford]

Imacons (now branded under Hasselblad) are very good, but only scan up to 5x4, so probably not what you are after.

[joolsb]

It would be useful to know what your budget is and what size of original you would be scanning. An Imacon is a great solution for 5x4 but the cheapest you are likely to find them is around £1,000 - and that's for an early model. New, they retail for well over £10,000.

There is a world of difference in quality between a high-end scanner, like an Imacon, and a good consumer scanner, like the V750 but the question is whether you really need this extra quality and/or are prepared to pay for it.

Other options would be a used high-end flatbed or a used drum scanner - although the latter would require investing time and effort into getting the best out of it.

[Ted Harris]

Imacon's now come in two models the X1 and X5 and the new prices in the US are ~ 12K and 20K respectively. They are basically an interesting variation on the flatbed scanner and are, as pointed out, an improvement over the consumer scanners. IMO at either their new or used prices for current or recent models they are not a good value. You can buy used high-end flatbeds and drums that outperform the Imacons for the same money. For example, a new Kodak/Creo IQ Smart 3 is about the same price as the Imacon X5 .... has better resolution and better DMax and IMO delivers better scans and is easier to use and handles film up to 12x20.

[Gordon Moat]

Just to add to what Ted stated, several of the high end flatbeds on the market also allow more scans per hour than an Imacon. That can make a huge difference when you have many scans to perform.

Epson does not make any high end scanners. While the Expression 10000XL is fairly good, this is actually a mid range scanner. A v750 would be considered a low end scanner, though it might meet the needs of some end users.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[Ted Harris]

And ... the Expression 10000XL or its Microtek counterpart the 1000XL give the same performance as the low end scanners, they just have larger scnning beds.

[Rob_5419]

I really don't know. I thought I heard that there was a new Imacon coming out around £1,500 (UK).

Just thinking that I'd like to scan whole plate film sometimes, since I only have a 5x4" enlarger, although I'm not sure I like the idea of scanning a whole plate film, I was just wondering about the option.

If it's £10,000 I'd rather buy another Sony Ericsson 3.2megapixel mobile phone and save the rest for some more film....hmm...it's really hard getting priorities right!

[Larry Menzin]

If you can find a used Imacon Precision II for $2-3k that's not a bad option for 4x5. The 646 is more like $5-6k used. Not all of us have the space for a 200-300lb flatbed scanner. The Imacons are a tower design to save space.



Imacon's now come in two models the X1 and X5 and the new prices in the US are ~ 12K and 20K respectively. They are basically an interesting variation on the flatbed scanner and are, as pointed out, an improvement over the consumer scanners. IMO at either their new or used prices for current or recent models they are not a good value. You can buy used high-end flatbeds and drums that outperform the Imacons for the same money. For example, a new Kodak/Creo IQ Smart 3 is about the same price as the Imacon X5 .... has better resolution and better DMax and IMO delivers better scans and is easier to use and handles film up to 12x20.

[Ted Harris]

well, the IQ Smart 3 weighs more like 100 pounds and occupies a dedicated 36x30 tabe in my workroom. The Cezanne is somewhat larger, weighing in at more likr 150 pounds and occupying the better part of a 5 foot by 30" tabe that it shares with a monitor and keyboard. BTW, the Cezanne's tail extends another 3-4 feet beyond the end of the table. So, Larry is right that these are not beasts for a small space.

[Charles]

If you can find a used Imacon Precision II for $2-3k that's not a bad option for 4x5. The 646 is more like $5-6k used. Not all of us have the space for a 200-300lb flatbed scanner. The Imacons are a tower design to save space.


Or look for a used, older Imacon Flex Photo which doesn't normally do 4x5. I use a modified 6x17 film holder and scan one half of the frame, then the other half, and stitch. Works extremely well, gives me 3200 dpi resolution instead of the lower 1800 dpi, as I recall in the dedicated 4x5 mode with the Precision II.

Imacon use to make custom film holders but since merger with Hasselblad I have no idea if they are still available. Mine cost about $225.00.

[Larry Menzin]

I also scan 4x5 on a Flextight Photo in two passes with the 6x12 holder. It's a workable solution for low-volume scanning.

[marbrink]

I really don't know. I thought I heard that there was a new Imacon coming out around £1,500 (UK).


Where have you heard that? It sure would be interesting. Imacon merged with Hasselblad so if it's true it'll be a Hasselblad scanner. But I can't see a Hasselblad (or Imacon) scanner at a price point that low. Maybe it would be possible if it's a small 35mm desktop scanner, but apart from that it doesn't sound realistic at all.

[jimwitkowski]

Imacon Precision IIs and IIIs are virtually the same scanner, the difference being the firmware. You can get the update by registering your scanner at the Hassablad site.

The latest software for those machines is the same as the one that comes with the 828 or 929. It includes the FFF file algorithm and I use it like a RAW file. On a 4x5 I get a 300meg file that’s about 10 foot wide at 72 dpi. It also includes a spot removal feature that works . . . ok.

The older scanners have a SCSI interface which isn’t supported by new Macs but Adaptec has drivers for Vista. The 626 model was the first to feature a Firewire interface.

I would avoid 4800s because they aren’t supported anymore. I know because I have one of those as well. If anyone else has one and needs a spare for parts, let me know.

jw

[Darryl Baird]

Rob, I visited your website and if you are indeed making glass plates the Imacon will *not* work for you. Contrary to any comparison with a flatbed scanner, the Imacon scanners are hybrid drum scanners. They "flex" the film around a drum as the film travels in and out of the machine.

[Rob_5419]

Thanks Darryl -

I figured out I was barking up the wrong tree with an Imacon scanner. Marbrink - I checked the Hasselblad site and there seems to be an extra '0' on the price tags for the models I was thinking of. I use some glass plates, but generally shoot mostly 80% film (even with the bookform plate holders) - it's just cheaper that way until I stop making schoolchildren type errors with the plates.

It looks like a plain flatbed scanner would be what I need. I still haven't got an elementary one so I can't upload any of work up.

Can flat-beds get the detail from a glass plate/negative? Which flat-bed should I be looking at then?

And please don't say "only I can tell myself that". I really can't. I have absolutely no opinion when it comes to scanners.

[jetcode]

It would be useful to know what your budget is and what size of original you would be scanning. An Imacon is a great solution for 5x4 but the cheapest you are likely to find them is around £1,000 - and that's for an early model. New, they retail for well over £10,000.

There is a world of difference in quality between a high-end scanner, like an Imacon, and a good consumer scanner, like the V750 but the question is whether you really need this extra quality and/or are prepared to pay for it.

Other options would be a used high-end flatbed or a used drum scanner - although the latter would require investing time and effort into getting the best out of it.


I have a 5x7 film holder for Imacon, the problem is that for 4x5 and up the best you will get is 2040 dpi, which is not bad, but no more.

[jetcode]

Imacons (now branded under Hasselblad) are very good, but only scan up to 5x4, so probably not what you are after.

I have a Imacon 13cm x 18cm (5x7) holder for sale in the classifieds and you can still order a custom holder through B&H.

[jetcode]

Imacon's now come in two models the X1 and X5 and the new prices in the US are ~ 12K and 20K respectively. They are basically an interesting variation on the flatbed scanner and are, as pointed out, an improvement over the consumer scanners. IMO at either their new or used prices for current or recent models they are not a good value. You can buy used high-end flatbeds and drums that outperform the Imacons for the same money. For example, a new Kodak/Creo IQ Smart 3 is about the same price as the Imacon X5 .... has better resolution and better DMax and IMO delivers better scans and is easier to use and handles film up to 12x20.

I am in the process of purchasing a Cezanne Elite because A, it is more affordable then the Imacon an B, far more versatile. I didn't like the hard 2040dpi limit in sheet film on the Imacon.

[jetcode]

If you can find a used Imacon Precision II for $2-3k that's not a bad option for 4x5. The 646 is more like $5-6k used. Not all of us have the space for a 200-300lb flatbed scanner. The Imacons are a tower design to save space.

I've used the 646 and it's a good scanner but I didn't like being limited to 2040 dpi for 4x5 and up. The Cezanne Elite weighs 160lbs.

[rupal]

Hi all. After my long search finding the right scanner, i finally ended up buying a Flextight Photo in perfect condition right here in Australia, for a very good price. Could you give me some more details on scanning 4x5's in two passes. Is there anything i should watch out for that might damage my scanner or film. Do i have to modify the magnetic holder in any way ? Thanks very much in advance. Rupa

[William Gregory]

What is considered the best scanner for 4x5 and 8x10 sheet film? Is the 2040 dpi limit I'm reading about on the low side?

Sorry, I really need to learn about scanners. I shoot 6x6cm, 4x5 & 8x10

I'd like to be able to make very large prints.

Thanks!
WG

[Ted Harris]

WG, best all depends on what you are prepared to spend. If you can spend 12-20K rhen the best buy on the market is the Kodak/Creo IQSmart 2 or 3. If you can go up another 4-6K then the Screen Cezanne Elite is also in the running. The ICG 380 is probably the "best" but will set you back ~ 70K and it is not necessarily better than the others mentioned. These are all new prices. Factory refurbs can be had for 10=15% less and you will find excellent machines in the used market (from equipment brokers usually) in the 3.5 5o 6K range.

Dpi, more correctly spi, is only one measure of a scanner's performance and not necessarily the most important. The quality of the optics, the mechanics and the Dmax are all equally important. You can see a series of my articles in View Camera addressing all the factors and reviews of most of the consumer scanners (stay tuned for a review of some of these high-end scanners in a few months.

Finally, unfortunately, for sheet fim, there are no mid points; you go right from the under 1K consumer products to the high end 10K+ machines.

A little blatant plug. A run workshops and do one-on-one one day and longer tutoring sessions at my studio where you can work with the high-end machines and the consumer ones a well. Send me a PM or email for more info.

[jetcode]

Ted,

Would you care to elaborate on SPI vs DPI? I've never heard of SPI in this context.

Thanks,
Joe

[Ted Harris]

To aviod confusing the masses the manufacturers and many writers use the term DPI to refer to all manner of digital resolution. To be correct:

Scanning resolution is measured in SPI = samples per inch

Screen resolution is measured in PPI = pixels per inch

Print resolution is measured in DPI = dots per inch

[jetcode]

To aviod confusing the masses the manufacturers and many writers use the term DPI to refer to all manner of digital resolution. To be correct:

Scanning resolution is measured in SPI = samples per inch

Screen resolution is measured in PPI = pixels per inch

Print resolution is measured in DPI = dots per inch

excellant, thanks Ted - the basic unit of information in imaging technologies

[rknewcomb]

So, did anyone answer the question about a good flatbed scanner for 4x5 and 8x10 sheet film? I did hear it said there is no mid point between the consumer level ones and the high price spread - but what is good in the consumer level for sheet film? i just won't be able to afford the expensive ones for now.
thank you!!
Robert

[Michael Mutmansky]

To aviod confusing the masses the manufacturers and many writers use the term DPI to refer to all manner of digital resolution. To be correct:

Scanning resolution is measured in SPI = samples per inch

Screen resolution is measured in PPI = pixels per inch

Print resolution is measured in DPI = dots per inch

One further modification of this, just in case people aren't confused enough...

Printers are specified in DPI (dots per inch) output, with the Epsons, for example, operating at 1440 or 2880 DPI. However, you send a file to the printer in PPI, not DPI. This is a common confusing point for many people, when they confuse the file pixel density (PPI) with the printer's dot density (DPI). The Epsons seem to operate in a native mode at either 360 or 720 PPI, but regardless of the PPI values sent to the printer, they will output ink drops at either 1440 por 2880 DPI.

[Gordon Moat]

The Epson specifications, and those of other inkjet printers, has to do with accuracy of dot placement. Unfortunately this is not true resolution, due to dot gain and other issues. As a comparison, imagesetters often output at 2450 or 2400 dpi, though screening, screenless printing, or variable dot printing can alter that further apparent or measuring resolution on paper. Choices in paper further affect this.

SPI is sort of an unfortunate usage on web forums, and some PhotoShop groups. The older usage of that means Spots Per Inch, another way commercial printers refer to Dots Per Inch, and if you think of ink going onto paper it seems a little more accurate. Also, remember that not all dots are the same, due to many factors.

In commercial printing, you might send an image file of 300 ppi for use in a layout. That can then be run through a RIP, which converts all PostScript and bitmap (raster) data into something the imagesetter, or CTP, or plateless printer, can use. Technically there is much more to consider, but if someone goofs a bit and interchanges terms slightly, it would be rare for someone else to not understand.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio

[jetcode]

The Epson specifications, and those of other inkjet printers, has to do with accuracy of dot placement. Unfortunately this is not true resolution, due to dot gain and other issues. As a comparison, imagesetters often output at 2450 or 2400 dpi, though screening, screenless printing, or variable dot printing can alter that further apparent or measuring resolution on paper. Choices in paper further affect this.

SPI is sort of an unfortunate usage on web forums, and some PhotoShop groups. The older usage of that means Spots Per Inch, another way commercial printers refer to Dots Per Inch, and if you think of ink going onto paper it seems a little more accurate. Also, remember that not all dots are the same, due to many factors.

In commercial printing, you might send an image file of 300 ppi for use in a layout. That can then be run through a RIP, which converts all PostScript and bitmap (raster) data into something the imagesetter, or CTP, or plateless printer, can use. Technically there is much more to consider, but if someone goofs a bit and interchanges terms slightly, it would be rare for someone else to not understand.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio

another item to note is that samples per inch refers to the number of samples taken in a linear fashion, it does not specify the number of samples taken at the same location which is useful for decreasing noise by increasing the filtered response of each sample point, I have no real idea if this logic is employed in scanners but it is employed in many measurement systems.