Imacon Flextight Precision II worth it?

[Matted]

An Imacon Flextight Precision II (software upgraded to III apparently) has come up for sale locally and I am considering purchasing it, but wondering if I am crazy... I will be scanning mainly 6x6, 6x7, 6x8, and 4x5, and occasional 35mm. I have never been happy with results from flatbeds so I usually rent time by the hour on a Flextight X1 in town, and am really happy with the results I get from it. I’ve been using those scans for prints up to 18x24 or so and usually spring for a drum scan for anything bigger.

If I’m used to the X1, will I be happy with the output from the Precision II, or will the quality leave me lacking? I realize that I’m going to have to use an older Mac G4 to use this scanner (it comes with it) and also an older version of Flexcolor that supports SCSI devices. Can I load newer film presets into he older software, and/or scan to .3f files with this device?

Thanks in advance for any thoughts!

[Mark Darragh]

I use a Precision II with the upgrade and have found it to be excellent. I haven't used an X1 but I have used a 949 extensively and doubt I could pick the difference in the quality of the scans compared to the Precision. The newer units are faster and do claim to have great Dmax but for scanning 4x5 I understand the resolution is the same. I have printed to 40x50 using the Imacon files. A good drum scan is still superior though.

You can scan 3F files and download new film profiles if you register with Hasseblad.

All the best

[Oren Grad]

Keep in mind that Hasselblad Bron in the US no longer services the Precision II. I don't know whether there are any independent shops that will work on it, or how easy it is to DIY.

If the price is low enough you might decide it's worth taking the gamble anyway, if you can be reasonably sure that the particular unit you're looking at is in good working order.

[Matted]

Thanks and thanks! Great to hear how happy you are with the Precision II, Mark. It actually turns out the unit I rent is an 848, not an X1. Looked the same to me! I think they are the same for 120 and 4x5 however. The speed won’t bother me so much as unlike at the rental location, I can multitask a bit more as the scanner would be beside my main photo editing machine and I have a multi-monitor setup.

Regarding the repair, it seems as though a lot of the common repairs can be DIY’d (lamps, belts, etc) and there is a good support community on Yahoo (Imacon Users Group). I saw on a thread here that Bob Carnie mentioned Omer from CAT Labs gives him some support.

The asking price for the unit is certainly nothing to sneeze at but is “low” by Imacon standards I think, and in line with what I can see on the auction site. These units seem to hold their value very well. I will have a chance to try it before I buy it so that is a plus.

Do the Precision units have the same Rodenstock optics and Kodak CCD as the later units?

[Matted]

Another question..... are the film holders for the Precision line the same as the 646/848/X1/X5s? I thought they were but just saw evidence to suggest otherwise.

[coisasdavida]

A while back I was helping a friend an found this FB group for him: https://www.facebook.com/groups/Imacon.Hasselblad.Flextight/
It seems a lot of people experiencing power source problems, not sure exactly which model.

[Mark Darragh]

Yes, as far as I know the holders are exactly the same. Most holders I have came from work after they replaced the 949 with a Creo iQsmart3 Scanner and they no longer had use for them.

As far as problems, I did have the power supply fail not long after I bought the Precision from a studio that was going digital but that was easily replaced.

[Pere Casals]

One interesting thing is that today Hasselblad is owned (majority stake) by chinese drone manufacturer DJI : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DJI_(company)

I would be interesting to know what plans the new owners have about supporting discontinued products.

[Pere Casals]

I will be scanning mainly 6x6, 6x7, 6x8, and 4x5, and occasional 35mm. I have never been happy with results from flatbeds so I usually rent time by the hour on a Flextight X1 in town, and am really happy with the results I get from it. I’ve been using those scans for prints up to 18x24 or so and usually spring for a drum scan for anything bigger.


The Precission II for the 120 format delivers 3200 dpi effective, and 1800 dpi for 4x5. Like an X1...

see page 16 of the manual: http://werkplaatsen.kabk.nl/sites/default/files/FlextightPrecision2-Manual.pdf

An alternative you have is a Plustek 120, new with warranty. But then you have to solve 4x5 in another way.

[Mark Darragh]

The Precission II for the 120 format delivers 1800 dpi for 4x5.

Pere, the unit that Matted is looking at has a claimed resolution of 2040 dpi for 4x5.

[fuegocito]

I uses a Precision II as well, I say if you can get it for under $500 then go for it. Specially if it has all the specific film holders you intend to use. Otherwise they can be expensive.

[Pere Casals]

Pere, the unit that Matted is looking at has a claimed resolution of 2040 dpi for 4x5.

Hello Mark,

Those 2040 dpi are the nominal hardware dpi, but the effective dpi mentioned in the manual ("optical dpi") is 1800 (for 4x5) because effective optical dpi value is always lower than hardware dpi.

The Hassy scanners are ideal for MF (Hassy cameras are MF...) and for 35mm, for LF the 8k pix sensor it's stretched a lot, still performing well at high densities but not being able to extract all resolution that can be there in a technically perfect LF shot. Depending on enlargement size and on the native quiality in film this may not be noticed.

1800 from 2040 is quite effective (10% loss), a V700 takes some 2400 from 4800 for 4x5 (50% loss, linear; 75% loss filesize/area), anyway the hassy is superior in the deep shadows of velvia...


Regards,
Pere

[interneg]

I think there's some confusion going on here - the OP states it's a Precision II upgraded to Precision III software - not hardware. The Precision II has a max specified optical resolution of 5760 ppi, & a small number of actual resolution increments downwards from there, with 1800ppi specified in the manual for 4x5. The Precision III has the 3x8000 sensor, 6300ppi on 135, a much greater array of optical resolutions & 2040ppi specified for 4x5 (like every Imacon/ Hasselblad since). The max resolution in most tests is usually about 97%+ of the claimed headline numbers of 5760 or 6300, & the 120 & 4x5 numbers are normally dead on. The Precision II's 1800ppi should deliver a perfectly competent 24x30" at 300ppi. It's more a question of how much you want to deal with a potentially temperamental 20 year old SCSI scanner.

Most of the Imacon parts can be found with a bit of looking - specifically the drive belts & the bulbs.

More to the point, 3F files are fairly irrelevant, as are the preset film modes if you scan your film as losslessly as possible as a transparency, sample & divide out the mask & invert etc in PS. The quality difference can be quite startling.

[Pere Casals]

Interneg, if a III or x5 delivers 1800 or 2040 optical dpi depends on the test method.

Scanning a 4x5 2040 dpi target with an x5 can deliver a perfectly grey image or any kind of aliasing, as you sure understand.

[Matted]

I think there's some confusion going on here - the OP states it's a Precision II upgraded to Precision III software - not hardware.

Was it possible to upgrade the II hardware to III? The seller just claimed “Precision II upgraded to III” and I read elsewhere that this was a firmware upgrade.