Scanner opinion

[rugenius]

We can argue all day about what is better.
Fact is,... the eye can only allow a particular ceiling of information in terms of resolution for a given distance viewed.
Go back to any graphic arts hard core class discipline.
You will quickly realize the issue has to do with input and output device.
Not simply the "input" reproduction device.
For example, not all 1200 dpi printing is equal...
Anyway, it's pointless to argue.
Each person has a certain goal in mind regardless of how realistic it is.
In the world of communication, the eye typically sees not much different beyond 300 dpi output at 12" or greater distance away from a photo repro.
But that doesn't mean the critical softness, or sharpness, of a photo is reproduced at that benchmark for every individual.
What I'm trying to say is you can find infinitesimal differences and they might be critical in the premise of work presented.
But the converse is ALWAYS true so the owner has to consider the benefit and weigh it carefully.
Contact printing is an excellent example for art form.
Equally true for higher magnification that exaggerates film grain.
Ask yourself what you want and don't allow opinion to detract you from what you ultimately want to obtain.
My 2 cents.
Bill

[dh003i]

Having tried stitching with my Oly E-3, I can say that I agree with Van Camper. It is a big PITA. I've done one two-frame stitch, and honestly, I can't same I'm enthusiastic to do more. I've taken many multi-frame shots, even 4 x 3 stitches. Quite frankly, it just isn't any fun taking them, nor is the idea of stitching them together. I'll have to go through at some point and find the best ones that are worth bothering with it; but it really is a chore.

Having had my first 4x5 transparencies developed recently, there is something really satisfying about looking at a 4x5 on a light-box (or up to any light) and especially with a loupe. It makes me want to get an 8x10, actually (although then, my aspirations to make a projector for the transparencies make it become even more expensive).

[percepts]

To van camper and anyone else who is still interested...

4x5 film does not give a 4x5 inch image area on neg. That is important. If you are like me you frame a little bit loose so that the image you get on film allows a little margin around it. So in real world usage you get a useable negative image that is around 11 x 8.5 cm. At least on my camera I do. It's max right to the edges is 12x9.5cm. (Ilford HP5).

How good are our eyes? some say 5lppm some say upto 8lppm. That means from a 4x5 neg using my 11cm width of useable image, an imacon would give me 8834 pixels width. If you aim for 5 lppm on print that would give you 34 inch print. If you aim for 8 lppm which the print sniffers will insist on, then that would give you a 21 inch print width.

I stand by my arguments that an imacon will always be at its limit when scanning 4x5 film. As soon as you want to take a 9x6 cm crop from the neg to print at 30x20 you are stuffed. The IQSmart wins hands down for versatility.
Some say you should print at 360ppi on epson printers. Some say 720ppi and some say 300ppi is enough. Well the imacon limits those choices. At 360ppi you would get 24.5 inch print width. You can try and max the numbers but that is not good advice for someone investing £15000 in a scanner who would find very quickly that those max numbers are rarely achievable.
Me? I still print traditionally on FB paper. I get all the data from the neg and don't have to worry about this crap.

[dh003i]

To van camper and anyone else who is still interested...

4x5 film does not give a 4x5 inch image area on neg. That is important. If you are like me you frame a little bit loose so that the image you get on film allows a little margin around it. So in real world usage you get a useable negative image that is around 11 x 8.5 cm. At least on my camera I do. It's max right to the edges is 12x9.5cm. (Ilford HP5).

How good are our eyes? some say 5lppm some say upto 8lppm. That means from a 4x5 neg using my 11cm width of useable image, an imacon would give me 8834 pixels width. If you aim for 5 lppm on print that would give you 34 inch print. If you aim for 8 lppm which the print sniffers will insist on, then that would give you a 21 inch print width.

I stand by my arguments that an imacon will always be at its limit when scanning 4x5 film. As soon as you want to take a 9x6 cm crop from the neg to print at 30x20 you are stuffed. The IQSmart wins hands down for versatility.
Some say you should print at 360ppi on epson printers. Some say 720ppi and some say 300ppi is enough. Well the imacon limits those choices. At 360ppi you would get 24.5 inch print width. You can try and max the numbers but that is not good advice for someone investing £15000 in a scanner who would find very quickly that those max numbers are rarely achievable.
Me? I still print traditionally on FB paper. I get all the data from the neg and don't have to worry about this crap.

From my measurements, 4x5 film gives a 3.75 x 4.75 inch size. This is from measuring the narrowest part of the slide holder (from holder rail to holder rail going across the 4" side, and from top to bottom going across the 5" side). You can thus mark of 2/16" from all sides of the GG to give yourself a better understanding of the framing.

Re the scanners, from looking at the Large Format Scanner Collaboration page, it seems you are right. The Creo iQsmart3 clearly outperforms the Imacon3. And the Creo iQsmart3 is the 2nd best scanner, just edged out by the Heidelberg Tango (this is really impressive, given that the tango is a drum scanner). However, images were "only" scanned at 2400 dpi.

In any event, from what I've seen, if you look at West Coast Imaging, it seems like their scans from Creo iQsmart3 and Imacon3 are priced the same on a _per megapixel basis_. I.e., a 400 MB scan on the iQsmart3 will cost twice as much as a 400 MB scan on the Tango. However, the iQsmart3 scans are in 8-bit depth, thus the resolution will be twice as much. Hence, on a per-resolution-basis, they're priced the same (assuming approximate equal performance from the iQ3 and Tango). Thus, it would seem like, if outsourcing, one should go with he Tango unless you're worried about wet-mounting.

[Lenny Eiger]

Re the scanners, from looking at the Large Format Scanner Collaboration page, it seems you are right. The Creo iQsmart3 clearly outperforms the Imacon3. And the Creo iQsmart3 is the 2nd best scanner, just edged out by the Heidelberg Tango (this is really impressive, given that the tango is a drum scanner). However, images were "only" scanned at 2400 dpi.

In any event, from what I've seen, if you look at West Coast Imaging, it seems like their scans from Creo iQsmart3 and Imacon3 are priced the same on a _per megapixel basis_. I.e., a 400 MB scan on the iQsmart3 will cost twice as much as a 400 MB scan on the Tango. However, the iQsmart3 scans are in 8-bit depth, thus the resolution will be twice as much. Hence, on a per-resolution-basis, they're priced the same (assuming approximate equal performance from the iQ3 and Tango). Thus, it would seem like, if outsourcing, one should go with he Tango unless you're worried about wet-mounting.

i would say that the comparison on the scan comparison is not that tight. I am scanning this negative at the moment on the Premier and as much as I appreciate Leigh Perry's efforts, it's very difficult to separate the top level of scanners. How many people look at the images blurred, for instance, as a comparison? It's an indication of how much sharpening has to be done, post scan.

This will echo everything that's been said by every top scanner operator; that the operator is the most important aspect of the scanning process. The Tango is a 6 micron engine. There are two others that have a higher capability, namely the ICG 380 and the Premier. Will the difference show up on the site. I think probably not, despite the fact I've run a scan on the Premier with a test target and beaten the Tango handily.

I think you are making assumptions that may not hold in real life, based on suppositions that come off of info on web sites. I would not assume that WCI intends to make drum scans cheaper on their Tango for some reason...

Basing anything on price, when it comes to high end scans, is a mistake. This is why I suggest a relationship with a scanner operator, who will make sure you get what you need. Go with a smaller company, with someone who has a good drum scanner, and lots of experience using it, and who you get along with.

Lenny

[8x10 user]

This may not belong in this thread but I've got an Eversmart Supreme that I am in the market for selling as I am upgrading to the Supreme II. It's a very good scanner, especially when it comes to the D-max and low noise in the shadows. I actually felt that it beat my Aztek 8000 in that regard. PM if interested.

[Bruce Watson]

The Tango is a 6 micron engine. There are two others that have a higher capability, namely the ICG 380 and the Premier.
.
.
.

Basing anything on price, when it comes to high end scans, is a mistake. This is why I suggest a relationship with a scanner operator, who will make sure you get what you need. Go with a smaller company, with someone who has a good drum scanner, and lots of experience using it, and who you get along with.

Lenny

That's the first suggestion I've seen anywhere that a tango could go as small as 6 microns. It's more likely either 10 or 11 microns.

I've tried to nail down the actual minimum aperture for a tango a couple of times on the Yahoo ScanHi-End group over the years. What I found was that the Tango is either a multi-aperture machine with a minimum aperture of 10 microns, or a fixed 11 micron aperture machine. I never got a definitive answer, although several tango people answered giving conflicting results. Weird. My conclusion was that maybe Heidelberg used the tango name for more than one scanner design.

There are at least three drum scanners out there with sub-6 micron capability. The latest Screen scanner (860?) has a continuously variable aperture down to something like 3 microns. And of course the Aztek and ICG that Lenny sites. Any of these machines should be considerably sharper than a tango, as should be all the 6 micron machines like the ScanMates, Optronics ColorGetters, Howtek 4000/4500, etc.

As Lenny says, low price and high value are not at all the same thing. I feel completely ripped off by a sub-$5 meal at McDonalds, but feel like I got a steal for $20 from my favorite restaurant. Don't look just at the price. The level of quality you get for the price is what determines value. And as Lenny says, the high value in drum scanning is most likely going to come from a small business that concentrates primarily on scanning where the owner does the scans. Find one of those people, develop a long term customer relationship with him/her, and you'll likely maximize your value you get for your scanning cost.

[8x10 user]

A 3 or 6 micron aperture would be too small for most color films.

[Lenny Eiger]

A 3 or 6 micron aperture would be too small for most color films.

Yes, but the quality of the mechanism would have to be higher, the optics able to handle it. So the resulting scan is better. It's similar to a car that has to be able to go 160 mph - it has to be built better, and going 60 mph is safer, tighter to road, etc.

For example, a prosumer flatbed has an idea of where it is within about 25-30 microns. A Premier knows where it is within 1-1.5 microns. That's quite a difference when sampling.

Lenny

[more photography]

Well you have answered the question. Whilst it is 5x4 inch film, in actuality the image area on film is maybe 12x9 cm and you may well want to take a slightly smaller crop from that image. A 12x9 will give you 9637x7228 pixels from an imacon. At 300 ppi output that is 32x24 inch output. But at 360ppi output (epson printer) that gives 26x20 inch output. And those are for full frame. As soon as you want to take even a moderate crop from the image area, the imacon won't give you enough pixels for a 30x20 print.
The IQSmart wins hands down because it has the ability to scan at higher resolution.
And it will be easier to use and more versatile and I suspect requires much less maintenance. Like I said, if it were me I would go for the IQSmart. With the imacon you would always be right at its limit of being able to produce a big enough file for a 30x20 print.

I am with you this - two more points

1) ifyou scan on both machines at 2040DPI - are the same quality?
2) if you scan on both machines at their maximym resolution, with high resolution suffer as it will be showing artifacts on the film or grain

I agree cropping should be taken into accounts, and very good point about epson 360PPI.

I suppose my dilema is I am in the market for either new, they are expensive, but been offered an IQsmart 1 or 2, at £3500 and £4500, and wanted to consider the Imacon as well, as they do come up on the market.

My challenge is if by scanning at higher DPI all I gain bigger ouput for printing only, then that is no use, as I said will not printing beyong 30x24