Tango versus Imacon 949 Test [Archive] - Large Format Photography Forum

Doug Dolde

2-Dec-2007, 15:53

I had a 4x5 Provia F100 transparency scanned on an Imacon 949 by JaincoTech. It was done at max resoluton (2040 dpi) and 16 bit.

Then I had it scanned by WCI on their Tango at about the same resolution but 8 bit.

Both files have been similarly (but not exactly the same) processed in PS including levels and dodging and burning. The 100% crops are unsharpened. All four are jpg level 10.

The difference is certainly significant.

They can be seen here:

http://www.painted-with-light.com/scan.html

Kirk Gittings

2-Dec-2007, 16:15

Nice image by the way.

Any idea on the sharpening settings on the Imacon? The results don't surprise me much. In the broader scheme of things, while the Imacons are better than the prosumer flatbeds, they don't come close to a first rate drum scan or a first rate pro flatbed like Ted's Screen Cezanne. Even though I have free access to Imacons, when I need a first rate scan I spring for a drum or pro flatbed scan.

I will have a chance to test the newest Hassleblad/Imacons later this winter.

Doug Dolde

2-Dec-2007, 16:30

I don't know about the Imacon sharpening. I told them none but don't know if they set it at negative whatever it takes to get actual zero.

Kirk Gittings

2-Dec-2007, 17:11

FWIW, The question of why 8 bit is bound to arise?-many older professional scanners will not save a file in 16 bit, BUT this is not as much of a problem as with the prosumer flatbeds for many reasons-simply immediately convert the 8 bit file to 16 bit for your PS adjustments. Sandy King and I just a had a discussion about this in PM as we both own Scitex Eversmarts that save in 8 bit.

Ted Harris

2-Dec-2007, 18:15

BTW, Jainco also has several IQsmart 3's but, at the moment, they are only usin gthem for reflective material. Jazz Minander, their CEO, and I are chatting and I will likely be doing an inhouse workshop for them in using the IQsmart 3's for film scanning too.

Frank Petronio

2-Dec-2007, 18:44

It looks to me like the Tango was sharpened and the Imacon wasn't. Do you know whether the Tango or the scan operator imparts a sharpening pass?

Every scan needs sharpening, it's going through an optical system. A fair real world test would be to process and prep each file to the best of your ability, including sharpening, to see what you can end up with. the Imacon could very well sharpen up nicely, it looks like all the information is there, nearly the same as a the Tango.

Henry Ambrose

3-Dec-2007, 06:06

What Frank wrote.

jetcode

3-Dec-2007, 06:25

beautiful image Doug - I have been rescanning images scanned with an imacon 646 and the difference is equally obvious, what further amazes me is Imacon charges $20k for the 949 and my elite (granted used) was $5900 shipped to my doorstep

jetcode

3-Dec-2007, 06:31

Brian K

3-Dec-2007, 06:57

Having owned an Imacon 646 and not being happy with it or Hasselblad I have to say that imacon scan sample is a poor scan. I never got results that soft with my 646, sharpening set to -120, as the sample you show. It's possible the focus was off because that is way too soft.

Also the tango scan appears noisy or oversharpened. I'm not surprised as the few Tango scans I have gotten were poor and when I scanned an image with my 646 that yielded nothing but a noisy mess on a tango, the 646 scan was vastly better. Then again the Tango scan was done by Nancy scans.

One thing about scanning, while the scanner itself is very important, the weakest link in scanning always seems to be the operator. Great gear + lousy operator= poor scan, decent gear + great operator= good scan, Great gear + great operator= great scan.

bob carnie

3-Dec-2007, 07:45

Well

I am a bit skeptical of this test.
in the close up of the image tango we see film grain
in the close up of the image imacon we se no film grain.

Either the operator of the Imacon was incompetent or just didn't focus.

I need to see something better than this, much like me making a enlargment from film 15xmag , one image no glass the other with glass, Which one do you folks think will be sharper and detail the films grain structure???

Redo the Imacon so we can see film grain and it will be a decent test.

I do imagine the tango can provide a better product but this test dosen't come close to real world situations.

jetcode

3-Dec-2007, 09:06

that's not film grain it's scan dot grain due to scan resolution and sharpening - the scan resolution is approximately 2040 dpi according to Doug - film grain is usually finer - that particular Imacon may have a lot of miles on it and require calibration. Jainco is an inexpensive scan house and WCI is not.

How much more real world can this test get? Two independent services using the same image. Now if Doug sent this image to Ted and I, he could get a scan from a Cezanne or IQ3 and a Cezanne Elite with operators of vastly different levels of experience.

Doug are you up for it? I'd scan the image just for comparison though I truly dislike 2040 as a target resolution.

bob carnie

3-Dec-2007, 09:27

Send the file to the same competent scanner operator, and judge the results.At least it would be a more fair test.
The imocan scanner deserves better representation than this test shows.

shit I can send trans to thousand's of houses to scans and they will be all over the roadmap in quality.

What are we judging here the relative merits of the scanners or just the abilitys of two different scanner operators??

I would love to see the results of different scans from different originals done on different scanners by the same competent scanner operator.
That IMO would start being a better test of scanners rather than sending out two two different film houses.

jetcode

3-Dec-2007, 09:30

the same competent scan operator would have to equally competent on all scanners and for what it's worth I get great scans from my elite and I don't have the experience Ted has.

bob carnie

3-Dec-2007, 09:52

Well if you are refering to Ted Harris then this is simple,
He is coming to my shop in late March , I can send him five or ten originals,or you can, he can scan them at his site using the different scanners he is comfortable with, and then he/me can scan them on my Imocan here. We will post the scans here on this thread, Lenny has promised to scan some stuff for me on his Astek and we could include the those as well if he agrees. I have had this task on my plate for about 6months now and have been so busy ,put it aside, but I am willing to do this now since I am in the market for a better than Imocan scanner and both Gents have contacted me to do some tests.
I am not saying this test will be the end all be all of tests but I think I can put my faith/belief in Ted and Lennys skills and see the results live on paper .

I am not doubting the quality of these other scanners , but I do question the way the tests are presented.

what do you think???

the same competent scan operator would have to equally competent on all scanners and for what it's worth I get great scans from my elite and I don't have the experience Ted has.

Baxter Bradford

3-Dec-2007, 10:20

The noise in the Drum scan is not good.

I too think that the Imacon scan is far too soft compared to those I achieve on my Precision II. Sharpening would definitely help and I wonder if they had enabled the Flexsoft facility in Flexcolor which is supposed to remove/minimise dust. I find this is awful and needs permanently disabling. Commercial scanner operators can be lazy and leave this on in order to save having to do much healing/cloning.

Agree and add my congratulations on a very fine picture which is worthy of a large print. The back garden scenes in Britain are rather more modest!

jetcode

3-Dec-2007, 11:13

what do you think???

sounds good bob

ultimately you are the one who needs to be satisfied - as I - I found what works for me and the only other scanner I ever used was a Imacon 646 which I thought was quite good but not like what I am getting now

Doug Dolde

3-Dec-2007, 13:24

Sorry I brought to y'all's attention. This forum is little more than a glorified pissing contest.

jetcode

3-Dec-2007, 13:42

Sorry I brought to y'all's attention. This forum is little more than a glorified pissing contest.

not so Doug, people use the equipment you had your scans done with. They may not get the results you get. While I suspect that everything in your post is accurate the real question becomes one of process and equipment and that you had no real business with outside of your PS processing

Baxter Bradford

3-Dec-2007, 13:44

Sorry I brought to y'all's attention. This forum is little more than a glorified pissing contest.

How tremendously eloquent of you to make this observation. With this level of finesse, it is perhaps excusable that you have failed to notice the noise in the drum scanner shadows and be prepared to be so dismissive of those who have more experience and expertise in obtaining quality scans from Flextight scanners, who rightly question your data sample of a single scan.

Let us not belittle you any longer. Toodle pip.

bob carnie

3-Dec-2007, 15:43

Not so Doug,
just not convinced the data you put forth matches my own experience of images scanned on Imocan and Tango.
Maybe your skin needs to thicken up a bit.

Sorry I brought to y'all's attention. This forum is little more than a glorified pissing contest.

Kirk Gittings

3-Dec-2007, 16:02

Thanks for posting these Doug. In the main it has led to interesting discussions. If nothing else it is informative about the varied skill levels of lab technicians.

I too think that the Imacon scan is far too soft compared to those I achieve on my Precision II. Sharpening would definitely help and I wonder if they had enabled the Flexsoft facility in Flexcolor which is supposed to remove/minimise dust. I find this is awful and needs permanently disabling. Commercial scanner operators can be lazy and leave this on in order to save having to do much healing/cloning. Baxter

Good observation. this is a real possibility. From my experience the 949 and earlier dust removal is worthless. Don't know about the newer system.

Just curious is anyone here arguing that a good Imacon scan rivals a good drum scan?

Ted Harris

3-Dec-2007, 19:15

Doug,

You make it difficult to continue the discussion when you take the images off of your website. I took a very quick look when you posted them but made no comment as I have been very busy and I wasn't sure why you were driving at anyway. As Kirk said, I don't believe anyone has said the Imacon is superior to or the equal of any Drum scanner (or any high-end flatbed for that matter) and the Seybold test that I have referenced in many other threads confirms this.

Labs vary and operator skills vary just as they always have for any service. The variations in scanning are just like they are in having custom prints made. When I am doing a custom scan for a client I always discuss their expected outcome with them after I have looked at the negative or tranny and then do the scan. Sometimes I will have to do it twice to get the expected results.

You may get similar service from WCI but at a price and not likely from Jainco as theirs is a low priced volume business. BTW, to continue on my earlier thread look for Jainco to offer some higher quality/higher priced options in the future at higher but still exceptionally competitive prices.

Finally, IMO and as a results of tests I have done, regardless of its price and advertising as a "virtual drum" I have to consider the Imacon a medium level machine that fits in between the prosumers and high-end scanners in quality of output for LF and probably little or no better than a properly used Nikon 9000 wiht its glass mount for MF and 35mm. The issue is that the Imacon is both resolution limited for LF and has a rather low Dmax across the board. I have just never fou dit good value for money.

Now, going back to your original post, was there a quetion there?

jetcode

3-Dec-2007, 21:03

Doug - it seems silly to expect a thread here amongst photographers to be free from conflict - I enjoyed your post as I always wanted to see a Tango scan from WCI - thank you for sharing that!!!

Ted - I'm ready for your consulting services - I want to know more about the manual fine adjustment panel, much of it is self explanatory but I want to go through each field with you to find out the particulars - I find the Color Genius software to be very powerful and I need to get the OS X software upgrade so I can calibrate my monitor!

bob carnie

4-Dec-2007, 07:32

Hi Kirk

Not arguing that a good Imocan scan is better than a good drum scan.
But I am saying that the skill set of the operator is critical, as well as an understanding of final outputsize/material and viewing conditions is.
.
Yesterday I was printing files from WCI and today I am printing files made by Repro Images *now part of National Geographic* both I believe to be Tango scans.
Both companys have very good reputations and these files are very good.
On very high gloss stock *Cibachrome* at 30x40 print size the output of these files are truly amazing, but I have to say that though I am not arguing one scanner over the other, the scans to 30x40 prints that I am getting off my flextight do not make me sad when I compare the prints side by side to that of other drum scanning devices.
The original poster put forth selections that really do not match what I see on side by side comparisons...
I am in the process of testing a couple of scanners against my flextight, and though happy right now I believe that Ted or Lenny are going to win me over to a purchase of a true drum scanner.
One element that may be an advantage lets say over sending out scans to a service provider, is that I can proof out scans within minutes at large magnifications any image that I work on , therefore allowing me to make adjustments to the scan to the materials that I am working on.
As well there are many options in PS to maximise the strength of any image.

this kind of debate reminds me of the pros and cons of printing negatives from rangefinder cameras and Slr's. one with mirror slap and the other without.
Most fashion photographers preferred the mirror slap of a Pentax6x7 and reportage photographers went for the crispness of the Mamiya 7.
both systems workhorses and both system producing great work.

Thanks for posting these Doug. In the main it has led to interesting discussions. If nothing else it is informative about the varied skill levels of lab technicians.

Baxter

Good observation. this is a real possibility. From my experience the 949 and earlier dust removal is worthless. Don't know about the newer system.

Just curious is anyone here arguing that a good Imacon scan rivals a good drum scan?

gregstidham

4-Dec-2007, 07:49

I saw the scans when they were up.

The 949 scan didn't look like it was done very well. My scans from my old Sprintscan 45 looked better and I don't sharpen anything. I would consider having a new scan done to compare it to the drum scan.

Richard Edic

4-Dec-2007, 08:49

Bob- In your post you mention Repro Images. I have had work done by them in the past and was wondering if you know if they are still doing retail business or if they have been swallowed up by National Geo.

Thanks, Richard

Ted Harris

4-Dec-2007, 09:22

Let me also add taht I have had a couple of clients that showed me work from Repro Images and in one case it was from an Imacon scan so they used both a Tango and an Imacon.

bob carnie

4-Dec-2007, 13:58

Hi Richard

I am not sure, one of my clients had a bunch of scans in the summer done by Repro at the National Geographic offices just as they were joining up, I wish I knew the name of the former owner of Repro because if he does the scans they are really really good. My client did observe as Ted states them using both scanners and he was not happy with some of the technicians work and got to the guy to do all his work. But I imagine this is not possible now.

Bob- In your post you mention Repro Images. I have had work done by them in the past and was wondering if you know if they are still doing retail business or if they have been swallowed up by National Geo.

Thanks, Richard

Richard Edic

4-Dec-2007, 15:42

His name is Jeff Whatley. I only had drum scans done although I know they offered another type of scan, although my memory is that it was something other than Imacon. The drum scan quality was good, and at $55 for a 250mb scan you can see why I'm interested- Richard

Kirk Gittings

4-Dec-2007, 18:19

Bob Carnie,

No, I understand your point. If the question is one of that being a sup par Imacon scan, I can see the point. I am not as down on Imacons as some here are. I just want to be clear that I use Imacons all the time, currently 949's at SAIC. I have hung a number of exhibitions of my work that were done with Imacon scans. Having said that as my experience grows, so does my expectations. After doing some side by side tests myself, including other professionals Imacon scans, I came to the conclusion that they do not compare to a good drum or pro flatbed scan (Ted's anyway) even at 16x20. I rarely print above 16x20 and have never made a print over 20x24. But I look at them with a loupe. Personally I put so much work into a file that I cannot justify putting that effort into anything but a first rate scan. When offered the obsolesced 800 series Imacon from SAIC for next to nothing, I turned it down and purchased a used Creo/Scitex Eversmart, which I am setting up now.

bob carnie

5-Dec-2007, 07:11

Hello Kirk

Is not the Creo Scitex Eversmart a flat bead scanner? I know Ted has mentioned this scanner to me on a few occasions.
How does this scanner match up with the Tango or Astek scanners?

My problem is that my next purchase for our lab is a scanner as we are concerned with the Imocans performance, but I do not want to do this purchase in steps, but rather buy with confidence rather than worry that I should have bought something else.
When we bought our Lambda we were confident that the output quality was high enough that within a couple of years we would not be upsurged with higher quality cheaper devices in our market. Our decision has proven to be correct as most technology advances of output devices are LED exposure and lower resolution output. For example we just took delivery of a CannonIPF9000 for 1/10 the price of our Lambda, whether the results will be better/worse or just pleasingly different , I am happy that we decided to mortgage ourselves to our tits to get in the Lambda and are able to purchase the newer devices at very low/comparison prices than that of our main exposing unit.

I now see the same sets of conditions facing us for a purchase of a upgraded scanner.
Our lab is seeing a huge increase in requests for scans to print from colourneg and transparencies. Forget digital capture for a minute and think of the hundred of millions of film captures in the last 25 years that have not made it to print.This is a very large niche market that we seem to be seeing more and more .
Therefore the need to make the correct decision on scanning device that will give the same quality output on print that could be achieved from printing direct.

Though off topic from the OP , finding a method that is accepted as good for testing a variety of machines is of interest to me as I may be mortaging myself back up again in the near future.

Kirk Gittings

5-Dec-2007, 07:50

Bob, until Ted bought his professional flatbed, and subsequently did some scans for me, I had no idea how good they were, which is very very close to drum scans but easier to operate and wet mount. My only experience was with some magazines that I work for who didn't really know what they were doing and had lower quality Heildleberg pro flatbeds. But Ted blew me away with his. Ted's is much newer and better than mine and delivers 16 bit files, higher resolution and correspondingly more expensive and Ted knows what he is doing. Talk to Ted and/or the people at Genesis. They have a good selection of refurbished (in house) high end flatbeds, do service contracts, instruction etc. Real professionals. They have been in this business, refurbishing prepress equipment, for some 26 years.

Part of the appeal of the pro flatbeds is the ability to scan ULF films, which I think will be a growing niche market too.

jetcode

5-Dec-2007, 08:59

Kirk - congrats on the Eversmart - Bob if you get a high end flatbed make sure that you can use a high end computer with it. I've discovered that using curves or high post processing with Cezanne ColorGenius on a slow machine takes forever, of course it doesn't but this would not work in a service bureau setting. I can get OSX software upgrade for $850 and a fast G5 machine for $2k but I've decided to do most all my post processing in PS on a new gateway quad-core PC ($949). I also bought a 24" gateway ultra-wide color gamut monitor (92%) for $549 and it is a real beauty. Calibrating the monitor changed very little which is a good sign.

Doug Dolde

16-Dec-2007, 12:08

OK you guys were right after all and the Imacon scan probably was out of focus.

Here is another comparison, both raw unprocessed and unsharpened scans. Both were done at 16 bits and 2000 dpi.

http://www.painted-with-light.com/scan2.html

gregstidham

16-Dec-2007, 15:07

Thanks for taking the time and expense to rescan. :)

Kirk Gittings

16-Dec-2007, 17:36

Doug who did the new Imacon scan?
That is the best Imacon scan, I think I have seen. Sharpening settings?

Stephen Best

16-Dec-2007, 22:11

That is the best Imacon scan, I think I have seen. Sharpening settings?

It looks unsharpened to me. If you're seeing softer scans than this at resolution this low (2040ppi) there's something wrong with the scanner or setup.

Doug Dolde

16-Dec-2007, 22:21

Done by Jainco Tech in India. I asked for no sharpening but don't know if they turned it all the way off.

bob carnie

17-Dec-2007, 08:22

That comparison looks more to what I would expect, as Kirk says very good Imocan scan. Thanks for following this through Doug.
If you would like you could post the files it to my ftpserver and I will make some magnifications tests off my Lambda on FujiFle for you and tube the results back to you.
Bob

Doug Dolde

17-Dec-2007, 20:37

Huh? I don't have a clue what you are saying Bob, but think I will pass whatever it is.

JPlomley

18-Dec-2007, 07:34

Doug,

Why are you getting the scans done in India? IMHO, big risk to save a few bucks. I always insist JaincoTech does the scanning in the US. Retouching of image files are done in India, but the chromes stay on this continent.

Just checked the unsharpened chromes I have had done on the 949 by JaincoTech and they look great. No problems at all making crisp 22 x 28 prints (using the Pixel Genius sharpening routines). As an aside, JaincoTech also have an IQ3, so if your not happy with the Imacon Scans, there is an alternative. And of course, it is really tough to beat Ted's Cezanne scans. Best scans of B&W negs I have ever experienced.