Scanner comparison: Creo high end flatbeds added

[Leigh Perry]

Two more scanners have been added to the comparison page (http://largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/scanner-comparison.html). They are:

Creo Eversmart Supreme
Creo iQsmart3

The scans were produced by Creo in Israel, and were oil-mounted with software sharpening turned off. These scans have impressive resolution, right up there with the very best of the drum scanners. They are all the more remarkable given that they come with the convenience of flatbed operation.

I am particularly interested in the iQsmart3 scan, since it is also representative of an iQsmart2 scan. The cheaper iQsmart2 shares the iQsmart3's optics and scanning performance, but is still just tantalisingly out of the price range of most large format photographers (including me). Creo has a major presence in the prepress sector, but has not captured the mindshare of mainstream film-based photographers. Imacon, on the other hand, has been very successful in this sector, but for 4x5 scans, the Imacons are inferior because they lose scanning resolution with the 'zoom' required to project the greater film width onto the scan sensor, a problem Creo solves using XY stitching. I can't help feeling that if Creo (Kodak) was to price the iQsmart2 competitively, they could reverse this situation.

Next in the scan-around, if all goes well, are the Sprintscan 45i and Imacon 848 followed by a Cezanne and perhaps the new Epsons, and Lino-Hell Topaz and Lino-Hell Saphir Ultra II, and then...

[steve_782]

You need to test the Imacon 949. The performance is far better than the 848. It has a different light source and a better cooler on the CCD.

[Leigh Perry]

Steve, there is an Imacon 949 on the itinerary, when the film makes it back here to Australia. The 949 is still limited to 2050 ppi for 4x5 though, a slight improvement over the 848's 2040 ppi.

[Gordon Moat]

LaserSoft Imaging recently released up to date versions of SilverFast for some Heidelberg scanners. This will allow operation on Mac OSX and Windows XP systems. Might be something to consider, or perhaps you can contact them about this for your tests.

Genesis Equipment has the iQSmart 3 for under $11000. While not low cost, compare that to a Canon 1Ds Mark II or any medium format digital back. However, it really does depend upon what size prints you want to produce. Getting such a scanner might be a better idea if one wants to offer a scanning service, though as a hobby I think is something tough to consider.

http://genesis-equipment.com/productDetails.cfm?prodID=423&prodTypeID=6&manID=53

Ciao!

Gordon Moat

[Howard Berg]

Leigh,

I use the iqsmart3, but not with an oil-mount. Is there significant degradation of scan quality when dry-scanned?

Howard

[Keith S. Walklet]

Leigh, thanks for the post and your ongoing efforts.

The Creo scans do seem pretty crisp, but is it my imagination that they are also very noisy?

[George Stewart]

I use the IQSmart2 and the oil mounting station. One can see the difference between dry scans and wet mounts, and it is worth the extra cost of going wet! The station comes with an extra platten, which improve efficiency and provides redundancy incase the other platten is damaged.

They say that the oil mount (on the Creo) reduces grain. I don't think this is the case. I believe that the scanner is actually resolving the texture of the coating on the platten itself. If one looks at the Creo's platten, it isn't totally transparent like optical glass. While sharp, a dry scan has a grainy appearance, that doesn't look like film grain. By using oil the grain disappears, and the scans look great! With the Creo I only oil mount.

That said, my scans on an Imacon 343 are much better than dry IQSmart2 scans.

[Leigh Perry]

The Creo scans do seem pretty crisp, but is it my imagination that they are also very noisy?

Keith, taking a closer look, I think your comments do apply to the iQsmart scan. This is probably a function of my sharpening, as it doesn't seem to be true of the unsharpened crops (hold your mouse over the image to see).

Every scanner has required different USM parameters, and my selection of these has been very subjective, with the aim of revealing scanned detail rather than of targetting any particular form of output. I applied the Eversmart Supreme settings to the iQsmart3, but on closer inspection I should have reduced the USM.

I'll redo the iQsmart3 crops and upload.

[Doug Dolde]

That said, my scans on an Imacon 343 are much better than dry IQSmart2 scans.

George - How do your WET IQsmart2 scans compare to the dry Imacon 343 scans?

[George Stewart]

I haven't done a comparison between the wet IQ and Imacon yet. I think that they would be close, but I'd still bet on the Imacon. The 343 is a great scanner, and the limited 4x5 (stitched scans) work I've done with it, was great. Remember that the 343 is a MF fix-focused scanner and, optically, probably out resolves most other CCD type scanners. It has no problems resolving the grain of Kodak Technical Pan. The Creo will show the grain of Tmax 100 - I haven't tried it with TechPan.

[JW Dewdney]

I hate to rain on your parade - or question your methods - but isn't there something slightly NOT kosher (pun not intended really) about having the scans done by the manufacturer? (conflict of interest?) Esp. when the other scans were done by non-professionals in various settings? What do you think of this issue?

[Doug Dolde]

I hate to rain on your parade - or question your methods - but isn't there something slightly NOT kosher (pun not intended really) about having the scans done by the manufacturer? (conflict of interest?) Esp. when the other scans were done by non-professionals in various settings? What do you think of this issue?

What are you talking about ?

[Leigh Perry]

JW, there is no parade.

It's simply a collection of scans for comparison. Certainly they are the results of varying levels of scanner expertise, so the viewer's conclusions are subjective. But I'll accept scans from anyone willing to donate them. And the more a scan approaches its apotheosis, the better it is, as far as I'm concerned. For instance, I am soon to accept another Tango scan, this time by some well known names. If it shows better results than the existing Tango scan, I'll replace it.

[Keith S. Walklet]

I have to agree with Leigh. I was pleased to hear they were interested in making an effort. It has been acknowledged that the operator makes a big difference with these tests, so why not have the best possible? While some might feel otherwise, I, for one, am also appreciative that the chrome is not simply a target, but something with a variety of textures, tones and colors that one encounters in real life.

[yelmarb]

Very interesting results.

Just wonder what the quality difference would be between the iQsmart2 and the iQsmart3?

The iQsmart2 has a 3.9 dMax vs 4.1 for the iQsmart3.

Has anyone tested both of these?

[JW Dewdney]

What are you talking about ?
The point I'm trying to make is this;

While I GREATLY applaud your efforts on this front - I think there is a problem with the method. I believe that people are going to see the results and make purchasing decisions based on them. My concern is that there is no 'normalizing' in the study. So - of COURSE the Creo scans are going to look superior - they're putting super-skilled operators on what might even be souped-up equipment. Granted, this is what we SHOULD see - and WANT to see for ALL the scanners. No doubt - many of the scanners here have old bulbs or are being used on non-color corrected systems. It's something of the same issue I have with the integrity of Chris Perez' lens studies. While the breadth of samples (different models) is good, the number of samples per 'data point' (i.e. we're only using one particular scanner in a particular environment with a particular but different operator. I think it would be really fascinating to see the same chrome scanned by, let's say 12 different operators/setups using the same scanner.

Again - I'd like to reiterate that I really appreciate the work everyone is going to - but I would urge people to take the results with a grain of salt for precisely these reasons. Does that make sense?

[JW Dewdney]

I have to agree with Leigh. I was pleased to hear they were interested in making an effort. It has been acknowledged that the operator makes a big difference with these tests, so why not have the best possible? While some might feel otherwise, I, for one, am also appreciative that the chrome is not simply a target, but something with a variety of textures, tones and colors that one encounters in real life.


Thanks for that. It'd be even better just to ADD it than replace it, don't you think? I'd actually love to have a go with my 12 year old scanner - I don't suppose I could get in on this as a challenge, could I?

[Doug Dolde]

I bought the FLAAR reports on the IQ1, IQ2, and IQ3. The 2 and 3 are not the same performance. The 3 is better.

According to their report the 3 is almost as good as the Supreme. However Leigh's
comparison page would indicate otherwise. There the 3 seems better than the Supreme.

[JDHaggin]

Yeah I would have to agree. The IQsmart 3 does look better than the supreme. I am curious about skill level of the 2 comparisons.

However if these 2 scans both the IQsmart 3 and the Supreme were taken by similarly skilled level operators then that would have to make a guy wonder about Flaar and some of their statements.

I have found much of What Flaar offers is true and Generally very accurate however some items are always going to come down to opinion.

Flaar has little to say about Microtek in terms of positives however I am finding that several of you are very satisfied with these scanners. Y/N?

I am also with the understanding that Microtek used to make Creo scanners?
What do you guys know about the similarities/ differences?
Or is the largest difference between the Creo and Microtek scanners come down to the software ?

Justin

[jackcarter]

Leigh,

I use the iqsmart3, but not with an oil-mount. Is there significant degradation of scan quality when dry-scanned?

Howard
Hi Howard or anyone else with the iQsmart3,
I have just recently purchased the iQsmart3 and though a great scanner i do have trouble with dust as i dry mount. Kodak (along with silverfast) don't do any dust/scratch software for this scanner. Have used the CS2 D&S software which helps to a degree but is still time consuming as i have to use the eraser to bring back details it's 'accidently' corrected. I use an array of anti static cloths/cleaners but again it's a small help. Ideally don't want to wet mount but it's starting to look that way.
Do you have any suggestions for 'smart' dust & scratch' software?
Many thanks,
Jack
PS As for reducing noise i go into the blue channel on CS2 'Reduce Noise' filter & apply that. Does pretty well!

[Gordon Moat]

Hello Jack Carter,

Polaroid of all companies use to have a great software dust and scratch removal. It was a free download, though I am not sure where to find it on their current website. The one I have runs under Classic mode (OS 9) on a Macintosh computer. It also functions as a Plug-In for PhotoShop, which can be better than running it as a stand-alone application. While it did not remove all dust, it definitely lightens the workload.

You might want to do a search for "Polaroid Dust & Scratch Removal". Perhaps it is buried on the Polaroid website, or some other site might have it archived.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[Keith S. Walklet]

Jack,

I realize you asked for software solution, but I thought I'd throw this out to you.

Start off by cleaning the film with PEC pads and PEC-12 solution. I believe I may have described the process in a past thread, but essentially you place enough pads on the desk to make a surface large enough to place the film on.

Take another pad and fold it twice lengthwise so that it is 1/4 its normal width. Fold that long strip in half (end-to-end) and while pinching the ends together between the thumb and forefinger, use the index finger of your other hand to separate the middle like a Lipton flow-through tea bag. The goal is to get a triangular profile with the pad, your thumb and finger holding the top of the triangle, the flat bottom of the triangle is the cleaning surface your drag gently across your film. Squirt the cleaning fluid onto this flat surface and gently move it across the film to dislodge the fibers and grit.

Having done this sufficiently, flip the film over and repeat.

What makes a HUGE difference at this point is a very bright light.

I use one of those small desk lamps with a halogen bulb in it. Mount your film in the holder and position it between you and the lamp so that the light rakes across the film like a setting sun. You'll see every little bit of dust and crud on the surface highlighted like a bare tree against a dark background in the middle of the winter.

Then use your brushes, compressed air, etc. to remove those last bits from the mounted film and scan that.

I used to use ICE a lot more, but found that even the little bit of image degradation that happens was more than I wanted, plus the scan times were so much longer. I find the extra time cleaning the film saves me time in the end.

The small light REALLY helps see the dust before it becomes a problem.

[Ted Harris]

Justin,

Sorry it took so long to respond but I have been sort of busy moving.

1) Yes, a number of us are satisfied with the Microtek 1800f nd 2500f scanners but, especially in the case of the 1800f, we are satisfied with them in comparison to other scanners in the under $1000 price range which, as I have noted before, is not what we are talking about here (the scanners being discussed here are all over $10,000.

2) Microtek used to make the Creo Jazz (now discontinued) scanner. The scanner was discontinued, in part, because Creo crippled some of the features of the scanner as supplied by Microtek and the Jazz thus didn't perform as well as the Microtek 6000xy platform on which it was built. Microtek still manufactures and markets the 6000xy but no tin the US due to some still remaining licensing agreements with Creo. The current 6000xy should perform about the same as the IQSmart 3.

3) Software packages make a huge diference with scanners in this class. You can run a few of the scanners we are discussing on Silverfast but, for the most part, each scanner runs on proprietary software specifically designed for it. BTW, the software, if purchased separately fromthe scanner, can cost several thousand dollars.

On a more general note I am eagerly awaiting the return of the transparency to the US so that I can add the scan from the Cezanne to the collection. I am still debating whether to do a dry or wet scan. In the Seybold test a few years ago where the Cezanne outperformed all the other high end scanners with a 4x5 negative I belive they didn't wet mout but I will check. I will likely do both and send them both off to Leigh.