Heidelberg Linoscan 1450 / Epson 4990

[Mark_Se]

Hello,

Does anybody has experience with a heidelberg 1450? Can you recommend it? I mean is it worth buying this scanner in 2007 or is a scanner like the epson 4990 a better decision?
I would use it for 6x6 slides.
Maybe somebody can show me a scan....
thanx
Mark from europe

[Gordon Moat]

A few issues with the older Heidelberg and Linotype scanners are software and SCSI connection. While there are ways to get a SCSI scanner connection to work through a Ratoc FR1SX, this is not easy to set-up. The older software will work under Mac OS 9, though newer SilverFast can get you going in Mac OS X. So price a converter, or older Macintosh into the purchase, and possibly plan on buying software.

Some of the Linotype scanners were made by UMAX, though software, firmware, and quality control were often different, sometimes better. If you buy through a reseller/refurbisher like MPG Systems (http://www.mpgsystems.com/scanners_heidelberg.htm), you might find a UMAX PowerLook III to be very similar to a Heidelberg/Linotype 1400. The 1450 changed to a FireWire connector, which would negate the need for a Ratoc adapter. Unfortunately, the older Linocolor software will not run in Classic mode in Mac OS X, even with a direct FireWire connection to the computer.

You can look at the front page for this Forum and Large Format website to find a collaborative scanner comparison. In that you will find a UMAX PowerLook III example. Take a look at the shadow details and colour range on the examples, then compare to the Epson scanners on the list. The true resolution capability (not file sizes) is similar, though it does seem the older scanner does slightly better with colour . . . honestly it is very tough to tell with JPEG comparison images.

Unless you buy from a reseller with a warranty, you could be stuck with an older Linotype. Very few places work on these, and parts are somewhat limited. They do seem to be much better made than Epson scanners, and have much better lenses, but when buying used you could end up with a scanner that does not work that great.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio

[Brian Ellis]

I assume you mean the Linoscan 1450. I own a 4990 and used to own a Linoscan, I think it was the 1450. It's now an old scanner that Heidelberg discontinued at least five or six years ago, maybe longer. Heidelberg provides no technical or parts support for the Linoscans and I believe the 1450 is SCSI only. Heidelberg ignored my requests for help when mine went on the blink for the second or third time. The software that came with it was pretty nice but created a lot of problems that weren't solved until I switched to Vuescan. There's no way I'd buy one today in preference to the 4990.

[Brian Ellis]

Sorry, when I said "I assume you mean the Linoscan 1450" I was looking at the body of your message in which you called it a Heidelberg 1450, I didn't notice the reference to Linoscan in the subject line. Also didn't notice that you're in Europe. Maybe tech support for the Linoscans is better there than in the U.S. but I still wouldn't buy one in preference to the 4990.

[Mark_Se]

thanks,

i forgot to say that it is a brand new one (a backup scanner from a company).
I`m pretty sure that it also has firewire connection.
(sometimes its called linoscan 1450 sometimes heidelberg 1450-but its the same scanner)
www.hamrick.com says that vuescan supports the 1450...

[Gordon Moat]

Since it is a brand new, or little used, scanner, I think you are at least starting off at a good point. Vuescan is not bad software at all, and definitely a low cost approach. There is a low cost version of SilverFast too, though for Heidelberg/Linotype/Linoscan scanners their full version software is fairly expensive.

I would say go for it, and you should be quite happy with that 1450. The dynamic range on that model is quite good, and should allow capturing most information on most large format film. You might also look into the Prazio (http://www.prazio.com) starter kit for doing wet mount scanning, which makes a subtle but noticeable difference in scans.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio

[Ron Marshall]

If you only want to scan 6x6 you might be better off with a Nikon 9000.

[Ted Harris]

Ron is right about being better off with the Nikon for 6x6. As for the 1450, it all depends on the price. Five years ago they were selling in the used market for ~ $600 so they really shouldn't be more than 100 or so today. It was a decent scanner in its day but not really as good as any of today's consumer scanners. I'd go with a 4990 which can be had in the US for 269 refurbished from Epson.

[Mark_Se]

I can get the new 1450 for 250€ and a new 4990 for 350€.
Maybe i should go with the 4990....

[JW Dewdney]

It's an awesome scanner! It's an order of magnitude in quality above the others you mention IMO - either the lino software or silverfast will work great. it was also far more expensive. Linotronic/Heidelberg bought the basic chassis and engine from UMAX and replaced all the important stuff (like the cables and shielding, power supply and motors) with much higher grade stuff. Everything on my website was scanned from negs and chromes with this scanner.

[Mark_Se]

thanks, nice photos!, maybe i should go for the 1450...i`m a little confused now...

[Ted Harris]

I'm gonna have to disagree with JW. It may be better than the 4990 but no way an order of magnitude better. I say may be because even though it is being sold as "new" it has a few years on it and the very things that JW is extolling ... cables and motors especially ... may not be in perfect working order. If you can, take a negative and scan it on both scanners and make your own decision. BTW, 250 sounds high for that scanner but then so does 350 for the 4990. The lino software, btw, is way better than the software offered with today's consumer scanners but it has a steep learning curve. Whichever you choose you should be able to get good scans from 4x5. Remember though, that either one is basically an entry level scanner.

[Brian Ellis]

It's an awesome scanner! It's an order of magnitude in quality above the others you mention IMO - either the lino software or silverfast will work great. it was also far more expensive. Linotronic/Heidelberg bought the basic chassis and engine from UMAX and replaced all the important stuff (like the cables and shielding, power supply and motors) with much higher grade stuff. Everything on my website was scanned from negs and chromes with this scanner.

The only thing awesome about my 1450 was the amount of time and effort it took to get it to work properly. Out of the box it would stop in the middle of a scan for no apparent reason and all my settings would disappear. So then I'd redo my settings and start over again. This sometimes went on for three, four, or even five tries before it would finally complete a scan. I spent literally hours and hours on the phone with Heidelberg tech support in the U.S. without ever solving this problem. This was back in the days when Heidelberg provided excellent internal tech support in the U.S., which they've since discontinued at least for the Linoscans.

At some point it also started banding so off it went for repairs. It came back with the banding fixed but still with the scans in fits and starts. Then one day on a lark I decided to try Vuescan instead of the software that comes with the scanner and all of a sudden it started scanning correctly every time. So it went on like that for a while until something else went wrong (this is all over a period of about a year or a little more, around 2000-2001 I think). At that point I learned that Heidelberg had closed its U.S. support center in the U.S. I was referred to some independent repair outfit in New Jersey I think but when I called them I learned they were no longer in business. When I sent emails to Heidelberg in Germany informing them that their U.S. repair place was no longer in business and asking for the name of another they never responded. So I ended up taking the Linoscan to the dump and literally throwing it away.

If the scans from the 1450 were noticeably better than the Epson scanners of the time I might have made a bigger effort to have it repaired the second time but they weren't, IMHO. A friend had the Epson scanner that's the predecessor (several generations back) of the 4990 and his scans were at least as good as mine. I of course no longer can make a direct comparison of the Linoscan with my 4990 but I'm very happy with the 4990 from 4x5 and 8x10 negatives as long as the print size isn't larger than about 12x17 or so and I haven't had the first problem of any kind with it.

The Linoscan is a much bigger, heavier, more impressive looking and feeling machine than the comparable Epson scanners, which I guess is why it cost about twice as much as the comparable Epson of the time. But I would never recommend it to anyone after my experiences with it and with Heidelberg.

[JW Dewdney]

Sorry - it looks like you got a bad unit Brian. It happens you know...! Ted - I based my suggestion on the assumption that he'd be able to find one in perfect operating condition. Actually - all that extra prep and attention to cable dressing and shielding actually pays big dividends in terms of freedom from noise, etc... it didn't cost $4K or whatver it was for nothing, you know. If it were ME buying the scanner - I'd probably either do that again (if I didn't want to spend much - I'm SURE you can pick one up for $100 on ebay if you're patient) or else I'd go to a pro flatbed like a creo or a topaz or something.

Oh yeah - and yes - you're right. The lino software's a bitch! It took me probably 3 years to really get the hang of it.. (not to scare you off...!)

[Brian Ellis]

"Sorry - it looks like you got a bad unit Brian. It happens you know...! "

That's certainly true. But I think the problems I outlined are exceptional over a relatively short period of time, especially for a product that cost twice as much as its competitors. But it wasn't just the problems with the unit that bothered me, it was Heidelberg's termination of tech support and then the reference for repairs to what was supposed to be an authorized repair center that wasn't even in business and the failure to even respond to my email messages when I asked for an alternative. There's no way I'd suggest that anyone take a chance on a five or six year old Linoscan at this point in time, new in box or not. Mine was new in box at a time when it was currently being manufactured, I don't think sitting in a box for five or six years is likely to improve anything.

[JW Dewdney]

Brian - NOT that I represent the interests of Heidelberg or anything... but I strongly suspect that you'd be saying the same thing about a different brand if it were to happen to you with that brand. Don't you think that's fair to say? Scanners (at least not the REALLY REALLY high end ones) are kind of funny niche market products in the sense that if there's no problem with it - there's really no reason to need customer service... but if one's buying a used scanner anyway -it seems that one is also precluded from using that company's customer service.

As an aside - the OP could ALSO try purchasing the equivalent UMAX product together with silverfast - might be cheaper, too. I still wholeheartedly recommend the Heidelberg mentioned - or a Linotype-Hell Saphir 2 or ultra.

[Brian Ellis]

"Brian - NOT that I represent the interests of Heidelberg or anything... but I strongly suspect that you'd be saying the same thing about a different brand if it were to happen to you with that brand. Don't you think that's fair to say?"

I don't understand your point. Of course it's fair to say that if the same things happened with another brand I'd be saying the same things about that brand. But they didn't happen with another brand, they happened with the Linoscan and that's the product the OP was asking about.

"Scanners (at least not the REALLY REALLY high end ones) are kind of funny niche market products in the sense that if there's no problem with it - there's really no reason to need customer service... but if one's buying a used scanner anyway -it seems that one is also precluded from using that company's customer service."

Sorry but I don't your point here either. It's certainly true that if there's no problem there's no reason to need customer service. But I had three different problems with a new scanner and I needed customer service.

However, I'll just drop it after this post, I think the OP has heard more than he ever needed or expected to hear from both of us and I don't want to get on one of those "let's see who can get the last word in" kicks. I'm glad your experiences with the Linoscan have been good. I wish mine had been.

[seepaert]

I own both an Epson 4990 plus a Heideleberg Linoscan. Not the 1450 but the A3 model the 2400. I have mixeds feelings about both.

The scan quality is incomparable. Put against the Heidelberg the Epson is a very poor low budget model. It's definitely soft. Detail at 2400 dpi is far less than 600 dpi on the Heidelberg.

I use the Heidelberg with Linocolor Elite, which is as far as I know the only available software for this model and the Epson with Silverfast SE. The Epson also has its own Epson software, but that's not worth mentioning. I very much prefer Linocolor over Silverfast, but I have been using it for nine years now. I can remember that the start in the early years was not very easy. (proved to be a calibrationproblem on the phototypesetter in the end).

Opposed to all this is the fact that the Epson is far easier to operate, the firewire connection is much more reliable, scanning very very much faster and the quality judged by itself (and not against a midrange scanner) is acceptable for printing up to 30x40 or publishing on internet. Scanning with the Heidelberg can be a time-consuming activity, even if everything is going allright. Furthermore the scans of the Heidelberg are stored on my old G4, but my printer, my photoshop and lichtroom and my (main) internetconnection are on my MacMini. Those two computers, on OS 9 and OS X do not communicate very well, thanks to the formidable backwardscompaabilty of any modern Mac. Normally I would not take this in consideration, but there is no choice on which computer to connect which scanner.

The Heidelberg is not very new any more and sometimes gives problems vith dark lines in the scan. The Heidelberg firm does not give any support, there are no webpages where you can download technical scemes and software. I found a small German firm, I believe not far from the Netherlands border, which gives some support on some Heidelberg models. I have no experience with this firm.

Heidelberg bought Linotype-Hell about 2000, but unfortunately did not purchase the level of service. A few years afterwards Heidelberg abandoned the scanning business, destroying one of the worlds oldest graphic firms in the process. The linoscan models were from the Heidelberg period. I'm not certain the linoscans were basically Umax, as were the Saphir and cheaper models. I also don't know the differences between my 2400 and the 1450.

If you buy the 1450 you will need Linocolor to run it. If it's not there, you can PM me for the software, my version supports the 1450 too.

[erie patsellis]

Having both a Umax Powerlook III and a Lino Opal Ultra, I can say that you would be amazed at the quality of scans these can produce. Wet scanning is ideal for 6x6 and smaller, and with some care, can produce extremely good results. Is it the equivilent of a drum scan, no, but far better than you're likely to get from an epson, unless you go the wet scan route.


erie