Scanner comparison: Creo high end flatbeds added

[JW Dewdney]

I hate to rain on your parade - or question your methods - but isn't there something slightly NOT kosher (pun not intended really) about having the scans done by the manufacturer? (conflict of interest?) Esp. when the other scans were done by non-professionals in various settings? What do you think of this issue?

[Doug Dolde]

I hate to rain on your parade - or question your methods - but isn't there something slightly NOT kosher (pun not intended really) about having the scans done by the manufacturer? (conflict of interest?) Esp. when the other scans were done by non-professionals in various settings? What do you think of this issue?

What are you talking about ?

[Leigh Perry]

JW, there is no parade.

It's simply a collection of scans for comparison. Certainly they are the results of varying levels of scanner expertise, so the viewer's conclusions are subjective. But I'll accept scans from anyone willing to donate them. And the more a scan approaches its apotheosis, the better it is, as far as I'm concerned. For instance, I am soon to accept another Tango scan, this time by some well known names. If it shows better results than the existing Tango scan, I'll replace it.

[Keith S. Walklet]

I have to agree with Leigh. I was pleased to hear they were interested in making an effort. It has been acknowledged that the operator makes a big difference with these tests, so why not have the best possible? While some might feel otherwise, I, for one, am also appreciative that the chrome is not simply a target, but something with a variety of textures, tones and colors that one encounters in real life.

[yelmarb]

Very interesting results.

Just wonder what the quality difference would be between the iQsmart2 and the iQsmart3?

The iQsmart2 has a 3.9 dMax vs 4.1 for the iQsmart3.

Has anyone tested both of these?

[JW Dewdney]

What are you talking about ?

The point I'm trying to make is this;

While I GREATLY applaud your efforts on this front - I think there is a problem with the method. I believe that people are going to see the results and make purchasing decisions based on them. My concern is that there is no 'normalizing' in the study. So - of COURSE the Creo scans are going to look superior - they're putting super-skilled operators on what might even be souped-up equipment. Granted, this is what we SHOULD see - and WANT to see for ALL the scanners. No doubt - many of the scanners here have old bulbs or are being used on non-color corrected systems. It's something of the same issue I have with the integrity of Chris Perez' lens studies. While the breadth of samples (different models) is good, the number of samples per 'data point' (i.e. we're only using one particular scanner in a particular environment with a particular but different operator. I think it would be really fascinating to see the same chrome scanned by, let's say 12 different operators/setups using the same scanner.

Again - I'd like to reiterate that I really appreciate the work everyone is going to - but I would urge people to take the results with a grain of salt for precisely these reasons. Does that make sense?

[JW Dewdney]

I have to agree with Leigh. I was pleased to hear they were interested in making an effort. It has been acknowledged that the operator makes a big difference with these tests, so why not have the best possible? While some might feel otherwise, I, for one, am also appreciative that the chrome is not simply a target, but something with a variety of textures, tones and colors that one encounters in real life.

Thanks for that. It'd be even better just to ADD it than replace it, don't you think? I'd actually love to have a go with my 12 year old scanner - I don't suppose I could get in on this as a challenge, could I?

[Doug Dolde]

I bought the FLAAR reports on the IQ1, IQ2, and IQ3. The 2 and 3 are not the same performance. The 3 is better.

According to their report the 3 is almost as good as the Supreme. However Leigh's
comparison page would indicate otherwise. There the 3 seems better than the Supreme.

[JDHaggin]

Yeah I would have to agree. The IQsmart 3 does look better than the supreme. I am curious about skill level of the 2 comparisons.

However if these 2 scans both the IQsmart 3 and the Supreme were taken by similarly skilled level operators then that would have to make a guy wonder about Flaar and some of their statements.

I have found much of What Flaar offers is true and Generally very accurate however some items are always going to come down to opinion.

Flaar has little to say about Microtek in terms of positives however I am finding that several of you are very satisfied with these scanners. Y/N?

I am also with the understanding that Microtek used to make Creo scanners?
What do you guys know about the similarities/ differences?
Or is the largest difference between the Creo and Microtek scanners come down to the software ?

Justin

[jackcarter]

Leigh,

I use the iqsmart3, but not with an oil-mount. Is there significant degradation of scan quality when dry-scanned?

Howard

Hi Howard or anyone else with the iQsmart3,
I have just recently purchased the iQsmart3 and though a great scanner i do have trouble with dust as i dry mount. Kodak (along with silverfast) don't do any dust/scratch software for this scanner. Have used the CS2 D&S software which helps to a degree but is still time consuming as i have to use the eraser to bring back details it's 'accidently' corrected. I use an array of anti static cloths/cleaners but again it's a small help. Ideally don't want to wet mount but it's starting to look that way.
Do you have any suggestions for 'smart' dust & scratch' software?
Many thanks,
Jack
PS As for reducing noise i go into the blue channel on CS2 'Reduce Noise' filter & apply that. Does pretty well!