Heidleberg Nexscan F4100 opinions sought

[mcherry]

Hello all!

I'm sorry if this has been covered in the past. I did a forum search and couldn't really find anything on this scanner. Currently I own a Epson v750 flatbed scanner for quick personal use, and, if a serious scan is needed, I pay for a drum scan.

I recently purchased a used printer from a retiring prepress professional and the unit is as clean as new. He really took great care of his equipment and his working environment. He also has a Heidelberg Nexscan F4100 that he will let me have at a very good price.

My question is how does this scanner compare to the Epson? Is it worth moving to a "better flatbed?" The advertised resolution on the Nexscan is lower than the v750, however I know that the v750 doesn't really resolve as high as it claims, does the Nexscan?

Any other information that anyone might be willing to share would be greatly appreciated. I scan 4x5 and 8x10 and will be getting an 11x14 soon.

Thank you!

[fishbulb]

The manual says it has a max optical resolution of 5080 dpi and a DMAX of 3.7-4.0. It has a scanning area of 12.5 x 18 inches. Looks pretty good to me, and a lot better specs than the Epson. It looks like you'd need Silverfast if you want to use it on a modern computer, so factor the cost of the software into your purchase. If you want to scan 11x14, you'll need something bigger than the Epson anyway, and it looks like this 4100 would work for that.

A realistic expectation for maximum resolution of the Epson is around 2000-2500 dpi. While Heidelberg may inflate their resolution figures like Epson, it is probably less likely - it's comparing consumer products vs. a professional product. It is definitely a risk, but I would say there is a very high liklihood that the Heidelberg is going to deliver more real resolution and better DMAX than the Epson, probably by a significant amount. Unfortunately, I can't find anything online about this scanner in terms of a review or resolution test.

[philipus]

I believe (but will happily be corrected) that the DMAX numbers of the professional flatbed are not inflated like those of the Epson. These are two entirely different machines as I believe many members here will attest to.

I've also searched for example scans of Nexscan scanners and have found this one so far of 135 film. Looks pretty ok to me. For larger formats the difference may be less but I would still imagine the Nexscan to provide better files.

[georgl]

The Nexscan is a scanner actually manufactured by Linotype-Hell/Heidelberg in Kiel and the successor to the more popular Topaz. It's a professional scanner and has little to do with their prosumer models (re-branded) or an Epson, let alona the lens alone was more expensive than an Epson...

I think optical reolution is close to it's theretical limit (compares to the best drum scanners) and dynamic range much superior to prosumer models, although straylight might limit it's performance here compared to a good drum scan.

When you can assure professional transport (with all safety locks in place) and have a place for it, I would seriously consider it. It could be best compared to the professional Eversmarts.

For best quality you will need to wet scan, though. And it offers full resolution over the whole area, but you might have to stitch really big scans from multiple scans in post (ICE?) due to software limitations. But I am not sure about that. Wasn't carum also a user here? Maybe he can offer first-hand insight.

[mcherry]

Thank you so much, guys! I'm very excited to be getting this scanner. I'll be picking it up in two weeks! I've only ever scanned on an Epson using silverfish, which, my research indicates will work on the Nexscan. Apparently, I can also use a scsi to firewire adapter to hook it up to a G5 although the owner is giving me an old G3 with the scanner.