Scanner opinion

[more photography]

Let put cost aside, I am only interested in scanning 5x4 and smaller.

If you have the option to buy either an IQSmart2 or (Imacon) Flextight X5, what you go for and why?

Thanks

[Bruce Watson]

Let put cost aside, I am only interested in scanning 5x4 and smaller.

If you have the option to buy either an IQSmart2 or (Imacon) Flextight X5, what you go for and why?

Thanks

A used drum scanner is a far better value -- more image quality for less money.

But since that's not the choice you are offering, I'd go with the IQSmart scanner. It should do a better job on 5x4 at least, and you can fluid mount with it. But really, the only way to find out if which scanner is right for you personally is to get some scans made -- same film, different scanners. Compare, apply your own personal requirements, and choose.

[percepts]

Let put cost aside, I am only interested in scanning 5x4 and smaller.

If you have the option to buy either an IQSmart2 or (Imacon) Flextight X5, what you go for and why?

Thanks

I think the answer maybe dependant on what you scan the most. If 35mm transparencies, the the slide feeder on the Imacon may make life easier. But is it as quick as the IQSmart2. The imacon spec says 50 35mm in one hour. But that is producing 50MB files which is much lower resolution than the imacon is capable of. If you want the full 8000 spi at 16bit then file size will be around 500MB which 10X as big. Don't know if that equates to 10 times slower but it will be a lot slower.
Finding figures for IQSmart2 speed at high res scan is fruitless.

Then if you want 4x5 batch scan, you also need batch feeder for imacon nad that is more expense and it looks from images that it needs looking after carefully.
The imacon max res for 4x5 is only 2040 which may or may not be enough for your needs. That limits you to around 24 inch image width if you are wanting to print at 360ppi. All depends on your requirements for output really.

The IQSmart has full res available regardless of film format so you can get 6000spi for 4x5 if you need it and scan several 4x5s at once.

If it were me I would opt for IQSmart for ease of use and robustness. These things are built to be hammered in prepress offices. But I would want to do some research on timings for say 36 35mm transparencies at full resolution on both machines first.
Also IQSmart will scan A3 over the full area at full resolution so if you want or need to go bigger you can.

As for image quality, I think both will give excellent quality. One may be slightly better than the other but for that money I want fast throughput otherwise I'd get a nikon 9000 and use an epson flatbed for 4x5.

All opinion on what little I know about these machines but I have been drooling over an IQSmart for a long time...

[John Brady]

I have the IQ2 and I am very pleased. For me it came down to ease of use.

www.timeandlight.com

[more photography]

I think the answer maybe dependant on what you scan the most.

5x4 90% of the time and spme 6x12 - and will not be scanning 10x8. That precludes the Nikon. Auto feeds is not required, but quality is? Also I am not sure that I want more 2000 dpi reslution, I have no need for 4000 or even 6000 SPI

[percepts]

5x4 90% of the time and spme 6x12 - and will not be scanning 10x8. That precludes the Nikon. Auto feeds is not required, but quality is? Also I am not sure that I want more 2000 dpi reslution, I have no need for 4000 or even 6000 SPI

Well if its one off scans and you don't need the high res for large format then you can narrow your selection criteria down to output quality, ease of use, reliability(servicing), and bang for buck which is not relevant to your question.
Also software. Which is easiest but since you seem to be doing one off's, then that is a moot point as its not going to mess with your work flow much if at all. But there does seem to be question over whether the imacon software allows you to be working on an image while another neg is being scanned. Check that carefully. Don't know about the IQSmart software.

[percepts]

Dare I say it, but if you are looking at an imacon which only scans 4x5 at 2040spi then you will only get around 9600 pixel width out of the image.

Just to put that into context, a new X5 in the UK retails for around £15000 including VAT.

For that amount of money you could buy a Canon EOS 5D MKII which gives you 5616x3744 pixels. A panoramic tripod mount, a slew of their best lenses and just stitch images together. The quality in most cases would be better than 4x5 film because you have increased capture resolution and removed loss of resolution through scanning.

i.e. if the name of the game is not about traditional printing but only the means of capture, then largeformat photography seems pointless if ultimate quality is what counts.

So unless you want more than 2040 res scans I see no point in LF as better can be achieved simply by other means. There are a lot of people doing this.

[Paul Kierstead]

So unless you want more than 2040 res scans I see no point in LF as better can be achieved simply by other means. There are a lot of people doing this.

This is only true if "better" is defined as number (even at the same quality) of pixels. This seems like a rather narrow definition of better.

[Lenny Eiger]

A used drum scanner is a far better value -- more image quality for less money.

I'm with Bruce. If you are going to spend that kind of money, get a drum. The only reason would be if you had to scan something that couldn't bend, like a glass neg.

I mean, for crying out loud, why not.... it's a lot of dough, and you could have something that was really sharp. No dissing of ccd type scanners needed here, but why not work with a PMT? They are extremely sensitive and very sharp. You would know you have the top of the line.

Lenny

[percepts]

This is only true if "better" is defined as number (even at the same quality) of pixels. This seems like a rather narrow definition of better.

Scanning a 4x5 neg at 2040 spi is throwing away a lot of information in the neg. It seems pointless to spend £15000 on a scanner to do that when you can maximise the potential of a complete other system and get superior results for a lot less money.

[Paul Kierstead]

It seems pointless to spend £15000 on a scanner to do that when you can maximise the potential of a complete other system and get superior results for a lot less money.

I'll agree that £15000 is too much to spend for 2000spi. However, I fail to realize how that relates to superior results from a complete other system which is entirely different in all ways. Again, you seem to be judging the value of the system entirely on pixel counts.

[percepts]

I'll agree that £15000 is too much to spend for 2000spi. However, I fail to realize how that relates to superior results from a complete other system which is entirely different in all ways. Again, you seem to be judging the value of the system entirely on pixel counts.

No I'm not. The typical resolution obtainable on 4x5 is oft quoted at 40 lppm. maybe 60lppm. The digi camera will not suffer the same degradation due to scanning. It will have the sensor in the exact correct plane. No sloppy film in holder. Wider aperture. Higher resolution. It just seems pointless to me to go to the the trouble of using 4x5 only to throw away the detail. The answer is always, if you want big prints you have to use big negatives. But 20x16 isn't a big print for modern film or for high end digi slrs.
I enjoy the traditional printing of black and white which is why I still use film. But if I wanted to print colour or digitally then I would use digital cameras. I wouldn't use 4x5 then scan at low resolution and throw away detail. It seems that the argument has been built up that you don't need to scan at higher than 2000 spi. Well that argument means that there is too much detail in 4x5 for a lot of people because they don't print big. So why use 4x5 when a smaller, more portable, easier to use alternative exists which can produce equal or better quality at the print size you require?

And doesn't require a £15000 scanner to do it.

[Paul Kierstead]

My mistake, you are valuing solely on resolution, not pixels. Not sure that is really much different.

Still seems to be a really narrow view of the process.

[Bruce Watson]

For that amount of money you could buy a Canon EOS 5D MKII which gives you 5616x3744 pixels. A panoramic tripod mount, a slew of their best lenses and just stitch images together. The quality in most cases would be better than 4x5 film because you have increased capture resolution and removed loss of resolution through scanning.

First, with a drum scanner there is very little lost through scanning. A professional flatbed like the OP's IQSmart2 will experience slightly more losses, but really very little. But I'll concede that "very little" is more than "none".

The big problem I have with multiple exposures and stitching is motion. If you are making a photograph of a river cascade this can be a problem. Or a city scape with vehicles and people moving around. Or clouds moving (and their shadows).

Of course there are ways around many of these problems. But there is something inherently more satisfying to me about getting a "parallel capture" with a single exposure. Serial captures, be they multiple exposures of the same scene but at different f/stops (for HDR work), or tile-'n-stitch work, just aren't the same for me.

So for me the image quality from single parallel capture 5x4 wins. Enough so that I continue to shoot 5x4 film and scan it, rather than move to digital capture.

I'm not saying that HDR or stitching is wrong. I'm just saying that for some of us it's not the answer. Clearly, YMMV.

[sanking]

The big problem I have with multiple exposures and stitching is motion. If you are making a photograph of a river cascade this can be a problem. Or a city scape with vehicles and people moving around. Or clouds moving (and their shadows).

Of course there are ways around many of these problems. But there is something inherently more satisfying to me about getting a "parallel capture" with a single exposure. Serial captures, be they multiple exposures of the same scene but at different f/stops (for HDR work), or tile-'n-stitch work, just aren't the same for me.



Good points. Bottom line is that whether one enjoys multiple shots and stitching (or merging with color separations on B&W film) there are many inherent problems in making multiple shots of a scene as Bruce has pointed out.

I have made color separations on B&W film since the early 1980s. If the subject is static, or if you can live with the artifacts of subject movement, the color and sharpness you can get from this primitive methodology is potentially superior to the results possible from the best modern color film. In fact, I am absolutely certain that I could shoot color separations with 6X7 cm or 6X9 cm format on a modern fine grain film like Acros and match or the best 4X5 color film, and/or P60 phase back on a view camera.

Unfortunately, many subjects don't stand still for a minute or so while we change filters for the RGB separations, and this places limits on what we can photograph, same as with stitching multiple DSLR files.

Sandy King

[percepts]

Unfortunately, many subjects don't stand still for a minute or so while we change filters for the RGB separations, and this places limits on what we can photograph, same as with stitching multiple DSLR files.
Sandy King

And many subjects don't stand still for long enough to pull out your trusty 4x5 and shoot from the hip. As always its a question of the right tool for the job...

[PenGun]

And many subjects don't stand still for long enough to pull out your trusty 4x5 and shoot from the hip. As always its a question of the right tool for the job...

I'm becoming less broke and one of the things I really want to do is get a Speed Graphic and go out looking for trouble. I could have nailed a small female bear at about 25' yesterday. A Speed Graphic and a fast 210 with say T-Max 400 would have been just right. The fur is wonderful and a 4x5 negative would kill.

My Chamonix is less useful for that kind of thing. ;)

[percepts]

The fur is wonderful and a 4x5 negative would kill.

Not if the bear gets you first...:D

[PenGun]

Not if the bear gets you first...:D

She's sweet. I've run into her maybe 3 - 4 times.

[sanking]

I'm becoming less broke and one of the things I really want to do is get a Speed Graphic and go out looking for trouble. I could have nailed a small female bear at about 25' yesterday. A Speed Graphic and a fast 210 with say T-Max 400 would have been just right. The fur is wonderful and a 4x5 negative would kill.

My Chamonix is less useful for that kind of thing. ;)

I have one of those 175mm f/2.8 Ektars somewhere around here. You should buy it and mount it on a Speed Grapic. Great for bears in the woods and indoor portraits as well.

Sandy King

[PenGun]

I have one of those 175mm f/2.8 Ektars somewhere around here. You should buy it and mount it on a Speed Grapic. Great for bears in the woods and indoor portraits as well.

Sandy King
Be about a month. Then I may take you up on that.

[dh003i]

Dare I say it, but if you are looking at an imacon which only scans 4x5 at 2040spi then you will only get around 9600 pixel width out of the image.

Just to put that into context, a new X5 in the UK retails for around £15000 including VAT.

For that amount of money you could buy a Canon EOS 5D MKII which gives you 5616x3744 pixels. A panoramic tripod mount, a slew of their best lenses and just stitch images together. The quality in most cases would be better than 4x5 film because you have increased capture resolution and removed loss of resolution through scanning.

i.e. if the name of the game is not about traditional printing but only the means of capture, then largeformat photography seems pointless if ultimate quality is what counts.

So unless you want more than 2040 res scans I see no point in LF as better can be achieved simply by other means. There are a lot of people doing this.

Unless you have an auto-pano-stitcher device (like the GigaPan), taking and stitching multiple shots is a pain. For the same resolution& framing as a 4x5 shot, taken with a typical DSLR, you're going to need a lot more time. Lighting can change; scenery can change. And stitching things like water on the horizon can be a pain.

Then, you have the realize that if you're shooting a pano with a DSLR with enough stitches to get 4x5 quality, you're also going to get the same DOF as with 4x5 for the same framing of the stitched shot. So you have the same problems with getting enough DOF.

I've done some pano shots. They're a real pain. Personally, I'd rather drop off a 4x5 to be developed.

[adonis_abril]

It's very easy with at Tilt-Shifting lens to Combine to Pano via photoshop :D I have quite a few panos done this way...the software is extremely capable, I used to do this manually but that's not the case anymore. The software does it for me and far better than I could manually...but beyond that..one should really take into account "TONALITY" which is often ignored when everyone starts getting into "megapixels"....nothing in the digital world can match what I see in Velvia and Astia...I still shoot digital...Canon 5D MKII, but it's nowhere near as attractive as what I see in chrome :D


Unless you have an auto-pano-stitcher device (like the GigaPan), taking and stitching multiple shots is a pain. For the same resolution& framing as a 4x5 shot, taken with a typical DSLR, you're going to need a lot more time. Lighting can change; scenery can change. And stitching things like water on the horizon can be a pain.

Then, you have the realize that if you're shooting a pano with a DSLR with enough stitches to get 4x5 quality, you're also going to get the same DOF as with 4x5 for the same framing of the stitched shot. So you have the same problems with getting enough DOF.

I've done some pano shots. They're a real pain. Personally, I'd rather drop off a 4x5 to be developed.

[more photography]

I do feel that we have digressed from my initial enquiery, yes I do appreciate that today's digital cameras such Eos 5DII create fanastic large prints, but I do prefer the controls that a view camera gives which a 35mm does not, and it is avery different way of taking and enjoying photography. Also by stitching you are creating a pano, which is not what I am after.
I think it is unfair to comapre film to digital, I did say at the outset, cost a side, therefore, I do appreacit that a 5x4 holds more than 2000SPI, but I don't want to print a wall size print, 30*20 is good enough for me.

[more photography]

It's very easy with at Tilt-Shifting lens to Combine to Pano via photoshop :D I have quite a few panos done this way...the software is extremely capable, I used to do this manually but that's not the case anymore. The software does it for me and far better than I could manually...but beyond that..one should really take into account "TONALITY" which is often ignored when everyone starts getting into "megapixels"....nothing in the digital world can match what I see in Velvia and Astia...I still shoot digital...Canon 5D MKII, but it's nowhere near as attractive as what I see in chrome :D

That is my point, I prefer the tonality of chrome to digital, yes you can do this with photoshop, but don't want to spend hours in fron on the PC, also DOF, a view camera beats 35mm in that rea every time

[Frank Petronio]

Screw resolution and pixels. 4x5 film looks different than a smaller format, even the "best" digital, even in a small print or screen-res image. If you can't see the presence and depth in the film image (which is preferable to most of us here) then just go shoot digital and count pixels.

[Mark Sampson]

well said Frank!

[Paul Kierstead]

I do feel that we have digressed from my initial enquiery, ...


Heh, that does tend to happen.

Back to the point; scanners, like many things, tends to be a game of diminishing returns, very rapidly diminishing in some cases. As you go "up" the scale, they do get better, but on a per dollar basis, they get less and less better. A $20,000 scanner definitely does better then an Epson v750 in most cases, but they can be surprisingly close (considering the cost difference).

Where you can break the diminishing returns rule is the used market, particularly in "dead" products like drum scanners (I know it isn't entirely dead, but it sure is limping). This is why you will get so many recommendations for a drum scanner.

It is my opinion, though, that the drum scanners proponents aren't entirely forthcoming; I gave it a hard look, and although it has good economics, the curve for operation is very steep and they are most certainly not a maintenance free, just buy it and use it kind of operation. However, they certainly afford the opportunity for great quality for far less then a new Imacon or the like.

[percepts]

I do feel that we have digressed from my initial enquiery, yes I do appreciate that today's digital cameras such Eos 5DII create fanastic large prints, but I do prefer the controls that a view camera gives which a 35mm does not, and it is avery different way of taking and enjoying photography. Also by stitching you are creating a pano, which is not what I am after.
I think it is unfair to comapre film to digital, I did say at the outset, cost a side, therefore, I do appreacit that a 5x4 holds more than 2000SPI, but I don't want to print a wall size print, 30*20 is good enough for me.

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.

[Bruce Watson]

It is my opinion, though, that the drum scanners proponents aren't entirely forthcoming; I gave it a hard look, and although it has good economics, the curve for operation is very steep

Interesting that I only hear this from people who have no hands-on experience. People who actually have worked with a drum scanner and learned how to use one tend to agree that learning drum scanning is about as difficult as learning to use a view camera, or learning to use Photoshop. Learning the basics isn't hard, and competence comes with experience. In all three.

Is it for everyone? No. Same for view cameras, and Photoshop. And platinum/palladium printing, wet plate collodion, cyanotypes, and yes, even silver gelatin printing.

And it's not like learning to use a professional flatbed is any easier. They (and the software that drives them) have their own set quirks and associated learning curves. Good quality scanning isn't easy or obvious and requires effort, a desire to understand and learn, and experience. That won't change no matter what equipment one uses.


and they are most certainly not a maintenance free, just buy it and use it kind of operation. However, they certainly afford the opportunity for great quality for far less then a new Imacon or the like.

Some are more maintenance free than others. My ColorGetters for example, require no periodic maintenance. The only line in the maintenance manual about periodic maintenance is that you should wipe the dust off the case every once in a while, and clean the optics if you get scanner fluid on them because you got sloppy.

Other scanners require more maintenance, especially those that have parts designed to wear, like the Howteks' wear pads and drive belts. But even then we're talking about considerably less maintenance than, say, an electric hedge clipper.

[percepts]

I did say with a pano head. i.e. one that has the rotate point correctly set for your lens point. I forget what the correct term is but it makes stitching really accurate.
Try doing that with large format and it gets much more difficult.

The area of the film is irrelavant in this case because it is overidden by the scanners inability to get the detail out of that area.

A stitch in time saves nine... So you would rather spend time scanning than stitching. There are big savings in time with a digi dslr. No film buying time, no film loading time, no darkslide loading time, no darkslide cleaning time, no darkslide unloading time, no film processing time, no scanner loading time, greatly reduced image spotting time.
Time to stitch two images about a minute to set it running and let it get on with it.
What is your argument there.

My arguments were about why imacon was not worth the money and simply not upto the job for what is required. Not really about whether digi or film is better. i.e. Yes film is better IMO but not if you are going to throw that away by scanning at low resolution because you can achieve the same or better with a digi dslr. The whole point of large format IS THAT EXTRA DETAIL it gives when handled correctly. Introduce a low res scan and you throw that extra detail away. That seems pretty futile to me. I'd rather spend the money on a complete highend digi dslr than buy an imacon for 4x5 scanning.


Ah, stitching again. Well, if your going to be fair...then you must consider stitching for large format film also (and it will require far less stitching). If you stitch 2 shots of 4x5 to give you 4x10....you blow everything else away that is digital. Also you get tilt/swing and perspective control. A dslr is nice, but can't do everything a landscape photographer needs. Also, there are times stitching is not practical.....and I would rather be spending my time bracketing rather then stitching to build up the image quality. It is always better to start with the right camera, rather then a poor mans approach.

Remember, 4x5 film is about 15x bigger then 35mm film, and a Canon 5DII (21mp) is about equivalent to 2 frames of 35mm film after being scanned (I've seen good evidence 35mm does about 17-19mp). Your going to have to do a lot of stitching to match 1 sheet of 4x5 film. I could stitch my dslr images, but prefer shooting a single image with 617 and scan with a Nikon 9000 (2 scans required). Try matching that with a Canon 5DII. I do like stitching within reason.....I sometimes will shoot two 617 images with overlapping in mind giving me roughly a 4x7 film format (only 4 scans with the 9000 required). However, I believe in stitching scans at home when you have the time, not stitching exposures outdoors when you have limited time during a sunset. I prefer getting different atmospheric conditions with my exposures at sunset, or towards bracketing, rather then wasting too excessiber time trying to make a camera behave like something it is not.

Remember, 4x5 scanned at 3000ppi would give you 15000 pixels horizontally....good for a 50inch print at 300ppi output resolution (no pixels wasted unless your making teeny prints). Try that with a Canon. At 5616pixels horizontally....you would need to stitch at least 3 across, and another row of 3 below it to maintain the L to W ratio (time consuming). That is wasting time that could be used toward bracketing. By the time you finish the stitch the light will have changed (happened to me several times).

[Paul Kierstead]

Interesting that I only hear this from people who have no hands-on experience. People who actually have worked with a drum scanner and learned how to use one tend to agree that learning drum scanning is about as difficult as learning to use a view camera, or learning to use Photoshop. Learning the basics isn't hard, and competence comes with experience. In all three.


I've gone over the procedures and have to agree it isn't harder then photoshop or view camera, but that is far more difficult then using a conventional flatbed. Granted, getting the most out of your gear always requires experience and care, but starting is quite different between a conventional (dry-mounted) flatbed and a drum. You can't seriously be saying they are equivalent. Not to mention hardware compatability issues (SCSI, anyone?) and software compatability issues with many of them.

Then, when you buy a used one, there are issues of scratched drums, etc.

If you can tell me that I can go to eBay or my local seller, buy a used drum scanner, take it home, plug into the back of my Mac, and be scanning 1/2 hour later, I'd be very happy to hear it. But I'm willing to bet that in the vast majority of cases, there will a lot of conditions to that; "if you buy" and "if you have X interface" and "if ..".

I'm not saying that a drum scanner is a bad idea, I'm just saying the level of involvement in the process is very understated.

[Paul Kierstead]

The whole point of large format IS THAT EXTRA DETAIL it gives when handled correctly.

See, there you go again. Reducing it all to resolution. You do realize that a great deal of people shoot LF for reasons other then resolution? I'll grant that, for you, other systems make more sense if the resolution isn't required, but the very general statement of "the whole point" is way off base.

[dh003i]

Just a quick question: what about professional scanning services? I mean, they're around for a reason, right? Presumably, they know what they're doing for high-end scans. If you only scan a few developments, then you'll definitely save money; if you scan a ton, you'll probably get quantity discounts on orders.

I'm having two photos scanned at Praus here in Rochester, with enough detail for a 60x40" print at 300dpi.

PS: It seems that even if you don't scan a 4x5 at some crazy dpi, you'll still get a higher quality image than a MF-scan or full-frame DSLR. The scanner would then be effectively down-sampling detail that is there. The Rfinal = 1/(1/R-to-film + 1/Rscanner).

[percepts]

See, there you go again. Reducing it all to resolution. You do realize that a great deal of people shoot LF for reasons other then resolution? I'll grant that, for you, other systems make more sense if the resolution isn't required, but the very general statement of "the whole point" is way off base.

Look the original poster asked for information about two scanners. I have tried to make comparisons about one over the other. It seems to me that all you have done is put up negative responses to other peoples responses and contributed absolutely zero to the original question. The technicalities of what one scanner can do relevant to the other seem very pertinent to the question. So your inference that talking about the relative resolution of the scanners is pure bovine excrement.

[Bruce Watson]

I've gone over the procedures and have to agree it isn't harder then photoshop or view camera, but that is far more difficult then using a conventional flatbed. Granted, getting the most out of your gear always requires experience and care, but starting is quite different between a conventional (dry-mounted) flatbed and a drum. You can't seriously be saying they are equivalent.

I didn't say they were equivalent. I said "They (and the software that drives them) have their own set quirks and associated learning curves. Good quality scanning isn't easy or obvious and requires effort, a desire to understand and learn, and experience. That won't change no matter what equipment one uses."

You can also dry mount on a drum. With the drum you'd have to use a couple of strips of tape. I don't really think that's a lot more complicated than putting film in a film holder on a flatbed.


Not to mention hardware compatability issues (SCSI, anyone?) and software compatability issues with many of them.

Then, when you buy a used one, there are issues of scratched drums, etc.

Same issues you'd get with anything you are attaching to a computer. Used equipment is used equipment. I would hope that used flatbeds aren't as susceptable to scratches on the scanner glass, but I don't know.


If you can tell me that I can go to eBay or my local seller, buy a used drum scanner, take it home, plug into the back of my Mac, and be scanning 1/2 hour later, I'd be very happy to hear it.

What I said was it takes about the same amount of effort as using a view camera. I don't know about you, but it took me a lot longer than 1/2 an hour to make my first photograph with a view camera. And a lot of photographs after that to make my first good photograph with a view camera. In contrast my first good scan from a drum scanner was much quicker.


But I'm willing to bet that in the vast majority of cases, there will a lot of conditions to that; "if you buy" and "if you have X interface" and "if ..".

I'm not saying that a drum scanner is a bad idea, I'm just saying the level of involvement in the process is very understated.

I think you'll have about the same level of involvement buying any scanner. You'll have the same issues of connecting from the scanner to the Mac/PC with drum, pro flatbed, Imacon, etc. You'll have the same issues of installing compatible software, getting it to see and work with the scanner, learning the commands and menus, etc.

It's no more automatic plug-'n-play (did that ever really work?) with a professional flatbed or an Imacon than it is with a drum.

This argument has gone on far enough -- the OP is probably getting about zero out of this now. I'm done. Last word is yours if you want it.

[Michael Chmilar]

I am using a Screen 1030ai drum scanner that I purchased four years ago. I agree with everything Bruce has said, so far.

[bob carnie]

I use a Imocan and now starting up with a drum scanner*ICG360*
The Imocan is much more easy to use and gives great results. The drum scans are harder to set up but do give great results as well.
Last few years I have directed clients to Drum Operators when I feel this question of quality comes up, I have seen scans from all over North America and Europe and quite frankly the differences between various operators is not so great.
I have decided on the ICG for those clients that feel there is a difference and by doing so will be able to do extensive testing of drum vs Imocan.


I have done a few side by sides, over the last couple of years and see better detail in shadow detail with the drums, but not enough improvement to say WOW that scanner really smokes compared to another.
I really have not seen a sharper rendition as I believe both scanner types do get to the grain of the film and prints made by both systems are really sharp.
To the Original Poster, you cannot go wrong with a used Imocan. They are available and I would consider a decent price anywhere between $2000 - $5000.

I am not saying they are better than a drum but from simply looking at a large number of scans from various source pass our desks, I believe the Imocan is a really great device for $$ spent and ease of operation.

[Paul Kierstead]

Look the original poster asked for information about two scanners. I have tried to make comparisons about one over the other.

What was that part about DSLRs, then?

[Paul Kierstead]

This argument has gone on far enough -- the OP is probably getting about zero out of this now.

Oh, come on now, a thread can only narrowly address the OP's question?


I'm done. Last word is yours if you want it.

Basically, you set me up to look like a jerk if I respond. That isn't really necessary, I have not been rude or impolite here, just disagreed.

[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

[percepts]

I have no experience of direct comparisons between imacon and IQSmart. They are both very good but look at:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/

and see what the comparative tests show (done at 2400 dpi).

All the talk about just getting bigger files with no additional information is related to consumer grade scanners such as the epsons. The IQSmart is in another league. Its output quality will be significantly higher than an epson, especially above 2400spi.

The IQSmart only goes to 5500spi optical so you won't be seeing artifacts but you will need a very high quality neg/tranny to get the best from it at that resolution. Often fuzzy scans are due to poor quality neg/tranny and not the scanner.

Put it this way. 5500 spi equals 108 lppm. Some films are capable of 200lppm but you will probably never achieve that on film. Practical tests suggest you may only achieve 60lppm on 4x5 film but scanning past that level doesn't mean you don't improve the image output quality.

Check carefully which software comes with a second hand machine. If you are running a PC or MAC you want to be sure the software is for that operating system. Buying new you get to chose.

[Bruce M. Herman]

One point that I have not seen in the comparison of these two scanners (IQSmart and Imacon vs drum) is that neither of these two require fluid mounting to work at useful scanning resolutions. Depending on where you live, that can be a consideration. In Anchorage, for instance, no one wants to ship hazardous materials except at very high prices.

One other consideration for the maximum scanning resolution of the IQSmart is that Kodak does not recommend scanning above 800% without using a fluid mount. For a 4x5 that's 2880 dpi. I believe that you wrote that this is well above any resolution that you anticipate using using for 4x5 film, but the 800% may impact your considerations if you plan to scan smaller format films.

I have an Eversmart Supreme and have scanned at 3000 dpi without fluids and achieved some good scans. I have tried doing these with oil and so can't comment on how much of a difference that would make.

[Bruce M. Herman]

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.
8x10 user: I think that the main difference between the Supreme and Supreme II is the firewire connectivity. You might want to contact Kodak to confirm this. I have a Supreme to which a Creo/Scitex firewire adapter has been added. Kodak told me there are no other differences.

[percepts]

One thing that does occur to me is that its possible the Imacon would zoom in on any scan crop thereby giving you higher resolution than that quoted for 4x5. e.g. If you wanted to crop a 7.5cm x 5cm area of a 4x5 neg at scan time, then the unit may adjust itself closer so that the full width of sensor is used. You would have to check this with someone more knowledgeable about how the scanner actually functions. i.e. It may be that as you crop for scan, you get higher availble resolution automatically.
Depends on whether max resolution is set by the film holder being used or whether max available res is determined by scan area.

But personally I'd still be inclined to go for the IQSmart for its versatility.

[more photography]

.

One more thing, many of us shoot 4x5, but if you're like me and the end result gets cropped to about 6x12 or close, you may want to also consider a Nikon 9000 and start using a 612 roll back. It will be cheaper, new, with warranty, amazing results, and roll film is so much less hassle and cheaper (and takes less space in the bag). When the need for a more square format arises, I just take a 2nd shot.....then stitch it all....piece of cake with CS3/4. Each scan only takes 185 secs. Not a solution for everyone, but works for me. I consider it an affordable alternative to those not interested in drum scanning, or who worry about expensive repairs that cost more then the original used price.
Interesting I thought the Nikon only scans up to 6x9 - do you haveto stitch and scan the film twice from each side.

[Constans Tad]

Hi,
The main purpose of it is to scan old pictures I recently acquired and to print good quality copies of these pictures. I know HP, Canon, Kodak, and several others are at the top of the line, but I hear mixed reviews on all of them. So what all in one do you recommended that's at or under 300 dollars?

[Lenny Eiger]

Hi,
The main purpose of it is to scan old pictures I recently acquired and to print good quality copies of these pictures. I know HP, Canon, Kodak, and several others are at the top of the line, but I hear mixed reviews on all of them. So what all in one do you recommended that's at or under 300 dollars?

<nonsensical rant>
It doesn't matter. All the $330 and under products are similar. I honestly don't mean to be rude (and my comment is not directed at you), but asking that is like asking which plastic camera is best. One of the things a forum like this tries to do is to attract people with lots of knowledge to assist others. They are rewarded with 1) the ability to talk to others who know things and 2) on occasion they can provide services for which they get paid 3) they feel part of a community that shares their concerns, and a bunch of other things. Why are there so many "what's the cheapest way to do something" posts?

It goes against the idea of lugging a large format camera around, which is, among other reasons, to get better quality when taking photos, by virtue of larger film and some swings and tilts. Why do we want to talk about things that are "less", when the large format ideal is one that is about "more"?

I can appreciate a duct-taped solution as well as the next guy, but it ought not be the rule.
</nonsensical rant>

Lenny

[dh003i]

Well, if all $330 and under products were similar, there wouldn't be varying reviews of them. At any price-range, there are products that are under- and over-priced for what the user wants.

Of course, by and large, you get what you pay for. Although there are certainly some steals to be had on eBay and KEH. From the information I've seen people post here, even $750 dollar Epson V750's don't compare at all to drum-scanners when you're looking at making the largest print you can from your transparency.

My strategy is going to be to eventually buy a small good-quality consumer-grade scanner for scanning most things in. I'm going to get high-powered loupes to look at all of my trannies at 20x; ones that have enough detail to benefit and where I think the composition in itself is great, I'll send to a good scanning company.

Although I think most of them are going to meet the resolution test. I have gotten a really detailed 4x5 from an f/45 exposure.

[Don Dudenbostel]

I would buy the Imacon. The IQ is a good scanner but you have to deal with Kodak and face expensive service contracts to get repairs and parts. Kodak is a pain IMO to deal with. I owned an Imacon and had absolutely no problems and the scans were more than most people would ever need. The simplicity of using the Imacon vs a drum is a big factor to me. Imacon still makes the scanner and the software is excellent and very easy to use plus very complete in function as a professional tool. I believe updates are free as well. Also keep in mind that most drums are no longer made and parts may not be available and if they are may require a service tech to install and at very high cost. The leaning curve for doing quality drum scans is steep and the process of oil mounting is messy and slow. Consider how many scans you want to do vs time and just how much quality do you need before it becomes overkill. I started to go the drum route ad went with the Imacon and never regretted it. I wound up selling the Imagon and wish I had it back. I needed to scan large film to 11x14 for some of my high res x-ray work and bought a Fuji Finescan 5000 (Crossfileld) which produces superb scans but for simplicity I wish I had the Imacon back for smaller film.

[Peter De Smidt]

With a mounting station, wet-mounting is easy and fast.

[Lenny Eiger]

There is no reason to fear a drum. It just isn't that hard. Wet mounting is easy, and has many benefits.

Lenny

[Bruce Watson]

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.

But now I think I've got a definitive answer. A Tango (aka Heidelberg Primescan D7100) or a Tango XL (aka Heidelberg Primescan D8200) has an aperture wheel with 25 apertures, the smallest of which is 10 microns.

My source for this information is Karl Hudson of Hudson Grafik Services, Inc. (http://www.hudsongrafik.com) If anyone would know, it would be the guy who works on and maintains these scanners. So there you have it.