Imacon 949 vs. Epson 4990

[neil poulsen]

I'd like to see one or more of the Imacon scanners included in the scanner comparison on this site.

[Frank Petronio]

I can't imagine needing more than what an Imacon can deliver. I suppose somebody wants 1gb files but I live in reality.

[QT Luong]

Ken Caddell/Hasselblad USA:
The FT848 scanner will scan the 5x7 transparencies at a maximum
resolution of 1600 dpi. The FT 949 will only scan up to 4x5, not the 5x7
transparencies.

[Spencer Cliss]

Just today we began our evaluation of the 949. If they only could add infrared for dust removal! We tried their own FlexTouch algorithm but it either left dust in the scan or it created artefacts.

What is the best way to remove dust from trannies before scanning?

AFAIK, there is no scanner for 5x7 and larger with digital ICE other than the low end flatbeds such as the Epson 4990. And most uf us agree these make fuzzy scans.

Kodak's list on machines with DICE shows a Durst machine doing up to 4x5.

I think the major differentiation between the 949 and a used drum scan is not primarily price and quality but speed and ease of handling. The 949 we tried today indeed scanned at about 200 MB/s as advertised but that was the pure scan process. Before scanning it wastes about 20 seconds to detect the film carrier and the FlexTouch algorithm and writing the file to disk took about twice as long as scanning! This was on a Mac mini though and the dealer promised to hook up a Mac G5 the next time we try which will be faster.

The Imacon software had a bug or two. It ignored our desire to scan at 16 bit depth in one instance. In anothe instance, it refused 8000 ppi and went no higher than 6300. On a 4x5 it maxed out at a 408 MB scan whereas we expected 500+.

My analysis woud be as follows. The 949 is faster than any other scanner able to produce 200+ MB files that produces quality close to a drum scan. The lack of infrared dust and scratch removal will be missed sorely by a lot of users. The format size is limited to 13x18 cm.

[QT Luong]

What I found most disappointing with the Epson on 5x7 is not so much that it produces
fuzzy scans, but rather that ICE would not work above a certain resolution that is much
lower than the scanner's real resolution.

[Kirk Gittings]

QT,
Is this true if you run it through Silverfast AI 6 from the desktop? That usually defeats all the size limitations.

[QT Luong]

Yes, that's what I think I've been doing on Mac OS X (I use the "SF launcher" app). I've read about the problems when using scanning software through PS, so I never do so.

[Raymond Nielsen]

Nice Discussion! I have a few questions for those of you with more experience and knowledge of Imacon 949 and possibly other high-end scanners.

I work for a company that processes thousands of images every month. We have been using the Nikon 9000ED’s for over a year, and is satisfied with both the overall quality and dust removal. However, some editing in Photoshop is required. Mainly some dust, colour correction and levels. The overall speed on the scanner is another issue, and together with the work required in photoshop, this gets time consuming and therefore, expensive.

I’m considering a purchase of one or two Imacon 949 scanners with mounted slide feeders. I’ve been invited to a dealer for a demonstration, but before I go, hopefully I’ll get some objective answers from anyone on this forum.

1. Will the scans from the 949 require less time than the 9000ED in photoshop for professional results, regarding to dust, colour correction and levels? Our ideal solution would be no (or close to) editing in photoshop, and still be able to deliver great images to customers that usually do some editing before print. The preview of the images still needs too look good with no dust or scratches, and a satisfying colour balance. On this issue, I have also read that magnum photos uses three 848’s and output the images directly to their stock archive with no editing!

2. The whitepaper suggests that the scanner will use approx. 65 minutes on 50 slides, 50MB pr. File. Can anyone verify this? We are looking at scanning 60 000 – 70 000+ images at each Imacon a year, so any experience with the speed and durability would be appreciated.

3. Is the frame detection bullet-proof? No need to set the crop if you want to scan as much of the picture as possible without getting any black borders? Croping the frames with the 9000ED are quick, but 30 seconds on 10 000 images is quite a few minutes…

4. Does the scanner accept different frames for the slides? We get the typical plastic frames at different sizes and sometimes paper frames.

5. Is there other alternatives we should consider instead of the Imacon 949?

6. Have anybody heard any news of new and better models? I don’t want to blow 45 000$+ and learn that a new model is soon out….

Any answers on this are highly appreciated, and I apologise if my questions is a little out of the topic.

Frank, have you tried cleaning the trannies with compressed air? We use that at our business, and it works great. Remember to limit the pressure!

[Michael S. Briggs]

Raymond, for your question #5, totally out of my amateur experience, perhaps a Durst Sigma scanner might meet your high volume needs.

[Doug Dolde]

After more use I am finding the Epson 4990 to be pretty much a P.O.S. I hate it so much now that I can hardly even stand using it for proofs. I'm sending almost everything out for an Imacon 949 scan from JaincoTech or a Tango scan from WCI.

The Tango scans ARE significantly better than the Imacon 949 scans but it that really any surprise? That said the 949 scans are pretty good for $14 each including dust spotting. I go for the Tango scans when I have a difficult transparency (ie strong highlight and or shadow) or I need them back fast. I get less than a week turn around from WCI and more like 2-3 week turn around from JaincoTech.