Flextight X5 (Shadow Detail)

[davidspry]

Hello all.

I recently acquired a Flextight X5 and have been making my initial tests this week. It renders in a rather distinctive way, and I think the scans look great. It's also very well made and extremely quick. Incidentally, prior to the X5, I extensively used Nikon 9000, Epson V750, and Flextight 646.

Anyway, while I was rescanning some of my partner's pictures last night, I was surprised to notice that my X5 sees significantly less shadow detail than the Nikon 9000.

I am away from home currently, but I have a serviceable example with me, and I will attach it below. The X5 is on the left, and the Nikon 9000 is on the right. Please note that I can see that my colour correction for the Flextight image leaves something to be desired. I also compared two other images with equivalent results.

I bought my X5 used, and although it's in very good condition, it hasn't been serviced in 4 years. Could it be the case that some of the components (the light tube, for instance) need replacing or cleaning, or is it simply the case that the Nikon outperforms the Flextight in terms of dynamic range?

I should add that the X5 exceeds the Nikon in all other respects. It's certainly significantly sharper.

[richardman]

What film size? Since you are comparing against a LS-9000, is this medium format? Anyway, scanning software may also play a factor?

[davidspry]

It is medium format. I'm aware of the LF only policy; however, this question pertains not to film but rather to the Flextight. I have noticed that there are several people on this forum who are experienced with Flextight scanners.

Software is probably not the cause of the difference. Opening the levels on a raw Flextight scan (no curves or density corrections applied) reveals comparatively less shadow detail in Flextight scans than in the Nikon's.

[DennisD]

The flextight software allows you to select film type as well as make various adjustments, curves, levels, etc.
Have you fully explored and experimented with those options when making scans ?

You may not be taking full advantage of the adjustment possibilities.

[davidspry]

I have explored this, Dennis. I have used curves and the shadow recovery control to check for detail in the shadows, but all to no avail.

For the test above, I actually used Photoshop to further lift the shadows in the Flextight scan. There is simply less shadow information on offer.

What I'm particularly asking is, in other users' opinions, might this be caused by faulty or dirty components, or does this scanner simply offers less dynamic range? For instance, has anybody noticed more shadow detail in Flextight (or any other scanner) scans after having the light-tube cleaned or replaced?

I expected that the X5 would offer greater dynamic range, hence my confusion.

[richardman]

It's possible that for medium format, the LS-9000 is "as good as it gets," hence my question (I don't play fora police).

OTOH, if it has not been serviced for a while, getting it done will ensure that it's in top shape. If you are going to scan your negs, may as well push the limits of your system.

But to answer your question - no experience with Flextight myself, so hopefully some experienced people will speak up.

[pinup tragic]

In the edit preferences or set up tab there is the option to run adaptive light - note: this is not there when you scan .FFF This will pass the film holder at a slower speed past the sensors allowing more light through the film - watch you do not blow out the highlights - also you will get that image to where you want it as a tiff prior to the final scan and you will need to rescan to see what effect the adaptive light setting is doing as it does not show on the preview image for obvious reasons - i have an Imacon 949 - the best film scanner and software i have used so far and i do have a super coolscan 9000 - make no mistake that is a very very good scanner - but the X5 would be 6 times faster ??

[DennisD]

Y

What I'm particularly asking is, in other users' opinions, might this be caused by faulty or dirty components, or does this scanner simply offers less dynamic range? For instance, has anybody noticed more shadow detail in Flextight (or any other scanner) scans after having the light-tube cleaned or replaced?

I expected that the X5 would offer greater dynamic range, hence my confusion.

David,
I can't give you an answer to your question, but strongly suggest you contact Hasselblad tech support.

The head scanner repair person is Jim, but I cannot find his email address. However, Shar Taylor (staylor@hasselbladbron.com) is a good tech support contact. She could put you in touch with Jim or would advise on the questions you're asking.

You could also try (servicedept@hasselbladbron.com) if Shar has changed position.

[onnect17]

In the edit preferences or set up tab there is the option to run adaptive light - note: this is not there when you scan .FFF This will pass the film holder at a slower speed past the sensors allowing more light through the film - watch you do not blow out the highlights - also you will get that image to where you want it as a tiff prior to the final scan and you will need to rescan to see what effect the adaptive light setting is doing as it does not show on the preview image for obvious reasons - i have an Imacon 949 - the best film scanner and software i have used so far and i do have a super coolscan 9000 - make no mistake that is a very very good scanner - but the X5 would be 6 times faster ??

+1

Disable auto correction and increase Adaptive Lighting as much as possible without burning the highlights. Slower but better quality.
Also the calibration window in each holder can be filled with a piece of emulsion to set the white point.

[andy]

The place to start is with a .fff scan--these scanners tend to have much more difficulty with dense film than with pulling shadow info. It could be that the bulb is going, but you'd expect to also see difficulties with highlight detail.