Imacon X5 -Only 2040 Dpi?

[Mark_Se]

I just realised that even the top Imacon scanner (x5) scans 4x5" only at 2040dpi !?
Would`nt it make more sense to shoot (cheaper) rollfilm with a rollfilm back and scan with an (cheaper) Coolscan 9000?

[sgelb]

you really want to scan 4x5 at more than 2000 dpi? do you know how big the file will be ? 80 million pixels. thats like a 200-300MB raw file. trust me you can print at like 6 feet by 7 feet easy with that kind of a file.

[Adam Kavalunas]

No. Why not still shoot 4x5 and get your film scanned on something that does greater than 2040 dpi? I usually have mine scanned at 2400dpi minimum. This allows a 30"x40" print at native res. (300dpi). Anything larger (6x7 feet???) requires interpolation and a loss of fine detail. And to the above poster, yes I DO want my film scanned at above 2000dpi. The main reason I shoot LF is to make huge prints and be able to stick my nose up to it and see fine detail. At 6x7 ft. you must not be a stickler for detail. Or you don't allow people to get closer than about 6ft when viewing prints.

[Joanna Carter]

Well, an Epson V700 scanner will give you excellent results, from 4x5 film, at around that resolution, for a fraction of the price; especially if you fit it with the Better Scanning film holder.

[Marko]

If it were only about stated resolution, why would anybody bother making drum scanners or even CCD scanners such as the Imacon? They are hugely expensive, finicky to operate and require lots of room... There must be some other qualitative difference to make people buy those rather than $500 plastic-fantastic deals that most of us use here.

From what I've seen so far, there are two major differences - dynamic range and scanning precision. That's disregarding the fact that most of those cheap scanners' spec sheets are mostly written by marketing people, not engineers.

If Lenny is around, I'm sure he could explain this in a few words.

[Marko]

The answer to the second question - it looks like Nikon has abandoned their scanner production, which will make it increasingly hard to keep up with new operating systems as they come out. Hasselblad/Imacon are still actively producing their models, which will make them maintainable for the foreseeable future.

[David Luttmann]

you really want to scan 4x5 at more than 2000 dpi? do you know how big the file will be ? 80 million pixels. thats like a 200-300MB raw file. trust me you can print at like 6 feet by 7 feet easy with that kind of a file.

For a print that size, I'd get a better scan than one that only allows for a 113ppi output. Even a 3200ppi scan, which is as high as I normally do, will give about 180ppi on print.

I always figure on a rez of 240ppi on a 40x50 as my max....and for that you'd need a 2400ppi scan....in other words, no....the X5 isn't enough.

[Daniel Stone]

the Imacon's are great for MOST things. Not all. After having some drum scans done of negatives and chromes(all 4x5) that I had scanned on an Imacon 848 at my local photo center, I was blown away by the fine details rendered on the drum scan file. And I've logged 100+ hours working on this scanner personally, so I know it pretty well, the software allows a great amount on control, as any good scanning software should!

if I were making large gallery prints(like 40x50, or 30x40) selling for lots of $$$, then I'd have drum scans done for everything. Most of my work I never print(at least right now, $$$ being the problem here), but the Imacon does a fantastic job for "general" film scanning.

I've been able to make 20x24's from my 4x5 film I scanned on the Imacon, and to my eyes, they look great! But then again, the viewing distance for an 8x10 print vs a 20x24 is much smaller, so a better print at a higher ppi, dpi, whatever. But printing large really allows super fine details(blades of grass, tree branches, moss on rocks, etc...) to stand out and really be seen. This is when I have a drum scan done.

-Dan

[Marko]

Yeah, just like Fuji never discontinued the Quickloads either, not officially anyway. They just slowly strangled the production, that's all.

The latest software requirements Nikon USA has posted on their website are still Windows XP and OSX 10.1.

If you feel like betting $2000 that your new scanner is still going to work a year or so down the road (plus 3 months for delivery) on your next OS update, go ahead, knock yourself out. Personally, I have much better uses for that kind of money.

[sgelb]

i will chime in again and say that the imacon low res files like a 50MB scan look better than an epson scan which is 300MB. sharper, less noise, better colors..