WCI Tango versus iQsmart3 Test

[Doug Dolde]

Both are raw scans, totally unprocessed and unsharpened. Just converted to sRGB then saved as jpg level 12.

Tango scan was done at 16 bit then converted to 8 bit for jpg. iQsmart3 scan done at 8 bit. Both at 2000 dpi. This is the $15 iQsmart scan and not wet mounted.

I did this for my own info (but thought I'd share it) and think in most cases the $15 iQsmart is going to be my choice.

I'll no longer be using Jainco Tech and their 949 scans. Actually the Jainco scans cost $16 and change plus shipping to India and back. A little dust removal on the iQsmart scans is no big deal; WCI appears to clean the film pretty well.

http://www.painted-with-light.com/scan4.html

[Ted Harris]

Doug, while it is hard to make any final judgements on the internet, it appears to me that the IQsmart scan is superior i every way. Am I missing something?

Also, why did the do the IQsmart scan in 8 bit?

[Doug Dolde]

It is indeed very good. I had them do it at 8 bit, 200mb (2000 dpi) because I wanted to see how their $15 scan compared. Yes they offer 16 bit wet mounted scans on the Creo but they are the same price as their Tango drum scans. I already had the Tango scan at 16 bits and didn't want to rescan at 8 bits.

No I don't think you are missing anything ! To me they both looks pretty much equal or close enough not to matter.

[Ted Harris]

FYI, in the Seybold Report that led me first to get the Screen Cezanne and later the IQ3, the Tango was outperformed by several high end flatbeds.

Nice image btw.

[Doug Dolde]

I am just glad to find out that $15 scans are going to work for me...and that I don't have to buy a high end scanner.

Thanks. This is the finished image...from the Tango scan.

http://www.painted-with-light.com/im...NYONS/AC9M.jpg

[QT Luong]

One thing I am curious about: apparently those high-end flatbeds have been around for a while. Yet it seems that it's only recently that we hear a lot about them on this forum and that companies like WCi offer scans on them. Why ?

[coops]

My one and only local lab has a finescan flatbed and I asked for high rez. scans of 4x5's one day just to see how they compared to the Aztek they use. The Finescan scans are only $5. I was told it was against company policy because of "dust issues". Well, it was really because they don't want me spending $4 a scan when I could be spending $60 on drumscan. I have spent thousands of dollars there over the years and they will not see a dime from me in the future.
Anyway, I appreciate the info, and I will try WCI out in the future.

[Gordon Moat]

One thing I am curious about: apparently those high-end flatbeds have been around for a while. Yet it seems that it's only recently that we hear a lot about them on this forum and that companies like WCi offer scans on them. Why ?

Technology trickle down. This is similar to PhotoShop being around for years prior to hobbiest and the average person on the street knowing what it was, or how it works.

Previously, only a service bureau or pro lab might have a high end flatbed scanner. One thing that happened was several printing places moving to offer scanning, and more professional photographers getting scanning set-ups to cut out the time lag, or gain some extra income, or in some cases more controllable results. The companies hurt in all that were dedicated service bureaux, who have largely disappeared in many areas; that also has left more high end gear on the used market.

So more used gear, and a growing awareness of what professionals did in the past, are trickling down to enthusiasts and amateurs. Many enthusiasts might want to emulate professionals, so now they can with better scanners, some available at substantially less than their cost when new.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography

[QT Luong]

Same could be said of drum scanners, yet their use has been (relatively) widespread.

[Gordon Moat]

There were many choices in drum scanners up until 1999. Then slowly they started to disappear as newly manufactured items. Since then, the development of flatbed scanners has proceeded, while only ICG and Aztek (I think only those two) still do drum scanner technology development.

It might be interesting to dig through the large format archives, and see how often Creo, Fuji, or Screen flatbed scanners have been mentioned in the past. There is also Purop Eskfot (also called Ekso Graphics), though I doubt they have been mentioned much at all. I think the large scanner test database helps raise this awareness, and this website should be complimented for hosting such an important and informative resource.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography