perfect... he'll get a busy summer
tell us a little - did you choose 2000dpi or 4000dpi? did you have the same image scanned at both resolutions...? only slide or also negative film?
perfect... he'll get a busy summer
tell us a little - did you choose 2000dpi or 4000dpi? did you have the same image scanned at both resolutions...? only slide or also negative film?
Hasselblad doesn't make a drum scanner.Originally Posted by Professional
And what about the Flextight, which company is it belong?
Imacon/Hasselblad Flextights are 'virtual' (whatever that's supposed to mean) drumscanners, ie. not drum scanners. They use CCD's. They do deliver really good results, though - just not as good as drum scanners.
The Hasselblads and Imacons, as Mortensen said, are not drum scanners. They are ccd scanners that flex your film to keep it flat without mounting it on a drum.
They are very good for CCD scanners, but there is a difference. Don't believe the marketing hype.
I had some Imacon scans done at a local lab and they were most definitely NOT consistently sharp across the entire frame.
And the flextight scanners only reach their maximum resolution with small format film. With 4x5 they're limited to 2040dpi if I remember correctly.
A real drum scanner uses PMTs instead of CCDs and the film is fluid mounted on a drum which does result in perfectly focused grain across the whole piece of film.
OK, i thought when i have read virtual drum it means it is a drum scanner, but now i stand corrected.
Well, in this case i should look for a real drum scanner and not a virtual one, and why it is so pricey of that Imacon or say Flextight? If it is so expensive and don't give same quality as a true drum scanner then i better spend on a drum scanner, so that means i have to check which drum scanner i have to get, Howtek, Aztek, something else?
So if i use a fluid mount on my Epson V750, will i get better results than just dry scan? So if i use a fluid mount on any scanner that does film scan, will that give significantly better scan quality?
Well, I can't really answer these questions, but there are LOTS and LOTS of threads here on the forum addressing all your questions. Spend some time searching in here.
As for the Imacons and their pricetags, I would mention two aspects:
- I have had consistently good (well, why not say excellent) results from them for one and a half years and 2040 ppi is the same resolution Tim Parkins suggests for drum scanning. If your negative is sharp, you get a file that can take a 10 times enlargement and still produce sharp 200dpi at 40x50" in print.
- Imacons are FAST. Really fast. One 2040ppi 4x5 scan takes around 4mins and no need for flluid mounting etc etc.
I'm certainly no expert in these fields, but if you look at a time/quality ratio, Imacons do a very good job imo.
I sure care about the quality, but the time is not an issue for me, i mean how long that a drum scanner will take over Imacons, 1 hour or 2?
I just want to be sure if i will see a big difference between virtual drum scanner and a true drum scanner if i want to print up to 40x60" [17-24" wide are minimum, even A3 i consider as a standard small].
My Howtek 8000 takes about 20 minutes to do a 4000dpi 16-bit scan on a 4x5 negative. I've never done imacon/hasselblad scans myself so I don't know how long they take. Time isn't a concern for me. The nice thing is that I can set up four negs then walk away for a while while the scanner does its work. The batch workflow is great.
Of course it takes a bit longer to mount the negs on the drum. I'd say about five minutes to fill a drum with 4-4x5 negs.
The resulting file is 1.6gb and prints very well, even at huge sizes up to 60x75in.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks