Is anyone here using one of these scanners? the iqsmart 2 looks like it would be a wonderful machine for all formats.
Who sells them?
Where to find used?
Also what's the status with Kodak and these scanners?
Is anyone here using one of these scanners? the iqsmart 2 looks like it would be a wonderful machine for all formats.
Who sells them?
Where to find used?
Also what's the status with Kodak and these scanners?
Most of the Creo people responsible for this division were retained after the Kodak take-over, so they are essentially still Creo products, only now with Kodak labels. You can find these through Genesis Equipment, or direct from Kodak GCG. Creo use to offer a trial run service, in which you sent them an image to scan, and they scanned it on an EverSmart or iQSmart that you were considering purchasing; though I am not certain if Kodak still offer that.
I have briefly run an iQSmart 1, and I had a few images scanned on an iQSmart 2. The differences are much closer than they might seem. However, if you are buying new, you get more with the iQSmart 2. Also, if the price is close, I would choose an iQSmart 2 over a 1, such as when considering a refurbished scanner. The wet mounting kit is something else to consider, since it makes a noticeable difference in shadow details and colour tonality in your captures.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
A G Studio
Ask at the Yahoo group ScanHi-End. There are a number of Creo (Kodak) scanner operators there.Originally Posted by Henry Ambrose
Bruce Watson
I think I ahve mentioned here before that I am runnning an IQSmart 3. I have been running this scanner for some two months + and am very impressed. It is at least the equal of my Screen Cezanne and I belive I will declare it somewhat superior when I have run enough scans and become familiar enough with its operation. I am alos reasonably familiar with the differences between the IQSmart 3 and the 2.
I can also give you all the information you need on getting them refurbished by Kodak, from a dealer. As for used, there are virtually none in the pipeline at this moment. Send me a PM and we can arrange a chat so that I can answer all your questions.
Ted, Would you say then that the iQ2 is inferior to the Cezanne?
there are two Cezanne models, the Elite being the later. I am all ears on this topic because I just purchased an Elite and can't wait to see what it is capable of.
Doug,
I can't comment on the IQSmart 2, just the 3. My tests with the 3 for the past two months tell me that it is at least the equal of the Cezanne in output quality. It is easier to set up batch scans too. It may be better but I have not yet had a chance to do any side-by-side comparisons .... coming up in the next month or two. I suspect, that the 3 may outperform the Cezanne slightly but will need to wait and see. The performance of the 2 should be about the same as that of the 3 for LF and maybe a hair less for smaller formats. Most importance, AFAIK, between the machines is that you get a "light" version of the software with the 2 and the full blown version with the 3. I think it costs another 1 to 1.5K to upgrade the software but not sure.
The only difference (supposedly) between the Cezanne and the Cezanne Elite is speed in batch scanning and some more advanced features in doing copydot scanning. I have found the Cezanne to be fast enough for me in batch mode. I do know that in the Seybold test the Cezanne outperformed the Cezanne Elite in their 4x5 transparency tests.
i followed ted's advice and got an iqsmart 2 and am very happy with the results, i've compared the scans using the same negs as those i've had scanned at wci (oilmounted tangos)and in my opinion the drymounted iqsmart 2 scans looks better in all respects.
the software is very good in 8 bit mode for both negs and chromes but you don't get too many software options in 16 bit scan mode, which is what i use, but they are sufficient to allow you to capture the entire curve with reasonably accurate colours. i have the "full" version.
i got an ex-demo model with a 10% knock down, but i'd happily get a new one knowing what you can achieve with the thing.
i'm not too sure of the benefits of oilmounting, the kit is expensive, cumbersome and difficult to use and i'm not convinced that the benefits will trully be visible on paper, i'll be able to confirm in a couple of weeks as a friend is loaning me one.
it still can't compare, IMO, with a PMT scanner, like a linotype-hell chromagraph.
One of the things about these scanners that interests me is speed of operation and throughput. Being able to lay down a bunch of film, look at previews and select what I want from there without handling the film would be great. That part is available with most any flatbed but not quite the scan quality I'd like from smaller film.
I'm not looking for absolute ultimate resolution performance. I'm looking for a workable commercial solution with no need to apologize for the finished work.
The other direction I see right now is to make the jump to 100% full on digital capture. However the truly capable digital architecture gear is outrageously expensive. I use Canon DSLRs quite a bit now and there's some things I can do fine with the Canon and still lots I can't or can't/won't be satisfied with.
Its looking like a scanner that makes great scans in high volume would be a good interim solution. Maybe even a long term solution 'cause I'm not seeing digital gear that will rival 4X5 film camera results. Or maybe there is but at a cost that's just not in reason for low volume shooting.
So, for near the same money, I'm balancing a new scanner against a new Canon 1Ds MkIII body. Pitting fine MF and LF optics on film against not very good Canon lenses on the new 21MP sensor.
Now that I've hijacked my own thread, please lets get back to the iqsmart!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks