Imacon 848 scans - is this OK ??

[Stephen Best]

That's definitely sharper that the hair/dust on my scans (I forgot to mention that I did remove dust before posting the photos and it was not this sharp).

I know nothing about Imacon 848 settings. May I ask you at least about the general settings for the Imacon scanner you use? The guy that makes the scans seems to be quite communicative and next time I may ask him to set some particular settings differently than he does normaly.

Other than leaving autofocus off, upsampling to greater than the native resolution or using aggressive FlexTouch settings, there's not a lot you can do to REDUCE resolution. I don't use FlexTouch. I have a Wacom to clean up scans manually. (This incidentally is one benefit of the more diffuse lamp in the 949/X5 over the 848, though whether it sacrifices resolution I don't know.)

The reason why I showed the hair rather than the scanned result is because the latter depends a lot on the original. If you're stopping down to f/32 or f/45 (as I'll often do) a significant contributer to softness in the scanned result is diffraction. Getting good scans done (namely using anything better than a consumer flatbed) or doing it yourself can tell you a lot about your camera technique, film etc. I wouldn't worry about diffraction though as it's easily counteracted with sharpening. It's what the print looks like at the final size that's important.

You may want to get your scanner operator to do some tests to check whether the scanner is out of alignment, or focus is uneven across the holder. If he's amenable and offers scans at this price it would be worth your time to figure out what the problem is before moving on. Don't get suckered into paying for drum scans if you don't need them.

[Ted Harris]

Matus, the bottom line is that you WILL see differences in prints from an Imacon scan v. a scan from a high end flatbed or drum scanner when you are printing at 16x20 and larger (maybe smaller too). I have done side-by-side comparisons from a 6x7 original and the differences are clear. That said, the Imacon will still give you somewhat better results than any of the 'prosumer scanners.' The biggest drawback to the Imacon is its limited DMax.

[gr82bart]

- gr82bart -

Hmmm, what is the Single image HDR technique ?

HDR = high dynamic rage.

This is an overly simplified explanation when you only have a single image ... try this when you get a chance:

• Open the file in PS
• Copy the file and call it [filename].jpg
• Adjust the curve to make the image brighter - enough to bring details in the shadows (assuming they are there)
• Save that image as [filename]-bright.jpg
• Now adjust the curve to make the image darker - enough to bring out details in the highlights (assuming they are there)
• Save that image as [filename]-dark.jpg
• Open all three of them in PS or another program like PhotoMatrix and merge the three images to HDR

Once you get the idea what you're trying to do here, there's a whole bunch other settings and stuff to really punch the image.

Since I still take a lot transparencies, I have experimented with taking three images at +1, 0, -1 or thereabouts depending on the light. Scan the three in and use PS or PhotoMatrix to create the final HDR image. The problem I have is registration of the images, but that's a whole other thread.

A digital camera of course helps as you can take several images at various exposures and merge to HDR with few issues of registration - assuming you shot the images on a sturdy tripod that is.

Anyway give the above a try and see if it produces anything decent. Post the result. I'd love to see it as I can see by the image you posted it's a good candidate. Well, for me it is.

Regards, Art.

[jetcode]

The biggest drawback to the Imacon is its limited DMax.

followed by resolution limits for LF formats

2040 - 4x5
1800 - 5x7

[Stephen Best]

followed by resolution limits for LF formats

2040 - 4x5
1800 - 5x7

The 848 (and later) all use an 8000 pixel trilinear sensor which limits 4x5 to 2040spi, 120/220 to about 3500spi etc. This equates to 22" at 360ppi on the short side. If all you're ever going to print to is a 24" inkjet (which is what I do) the delivered resolution is ideal. IF you need larger files THEN you'll need a different scanner.

I've been using Imacon scanners since the original Precision. The current model scanners are more capable than many give them credit for. Isolated data points, web comparisons are pretty well useless. The same for scanner specifications. I urge everybody to shop around to see what you can get. The relationship with the person doing the scan is probably more important than the hardware used, at least at this level.

[Muzyka]

Have you considered using the imacon's 3F functions? You can tell your scanner operator to scan in 3F, which would allow you a great amount of flexibility in what you want out of the scan. Basically 3F is the imacon's version of a raw file, with the file extension .fff, hence the name, and by scanning in imacon's 3F mode you can scan 4x5 up to 3200 ppi. Also, Hasselblad offers the Flexcolor software for free, so you can download it, take the raw scans from your imacon operator, and effectively change curves, USM, levels, etc. to your desires.

[Kirk Gittings]

3f is not a raw file. It was supposed to be but H never developed it. 3f is just a tiff. Try it-just change the .fff to .tiff and they open right up as tiffs in PS or any image editor. 3f is a myth.

[mcfactor]

You can also scan a 4x5 in two sections using a 120 holder then stitch them together in photoshop, this will give you a max resolution of 3000 dpi, rather than 2040

[sgreenberg]

Is there a hardware limitation for the 2040 dpi on the 4x5 scans? I'm wondering if there's a way to edit the software to that Flexcolor can be fooled into scanning at higher resolution.

[mcfactor]

I believe the resolution is limited because the ccd sensor is only so large. The only way to get a higher resolution is scan using a smaller holder then to manually stitch.