Hassy Flextight X1 scanner???

[LabRat]

Hi, I have been offered a Flexlight (I think) X1 scanner for a very areasonable price, but have some questions... Mostly if I would be insane to own one, due to lack of support, if there were issues that would be hard to fix, would parts, supplies, software be available, are there major issues that could come up, etc???

The lady who owns it could not get the software to open, and I did work at a student lab that had one, but the unit spent more time going transcontinental for service, than in use, but it was being used/abused by students, so I'm not sure if it was the unit or abuse...

Should I consider this offer, or should I run off into the night screaming???

Mostly it would be used to scan 4X5 B/W negs, and probably not much roll films at all...

?????

Steve K

[Tim V]

I love mine. Service costs have been very reasonable when I've needed it, and I live in NZ! Great, reliable scanner. And software is current, by the way. Free download from Hasselblad website.

[tomjohnson]

Assuming reasonable is under $10,000 (which is the more or less "usual price"), then yes, go for it. Many people swear by the V8xx, but to my eyes, there is no comparison.

Drum scan is better, but the Flextight is much easier to operate and Hasselblad does service it.

[Pere Casals]

Labrat, by far I don't own an X, but I've been extensively using X scanner services.

The X1 excels in 35mm film where it sports atonishing 6150 effective dpi, and with velvia deepest shadows, all that is obtained without having to wet mount the film like drums require !

In regular BW in 4x5" is where I find less worth the X investment, because you don't need the high density capability and in that format the X only sports 2k dpi hardware.

Let me suggest a way, make scan a 4x5" BW sharp sheet is a proficient X1 (or X5) scanning service, also scan it with a flatbed, edit both to it's best in Ps ...and compare. It's quite straight, for the cost of a 4x5" scan service you will get a first hand evaluation, that's what counts the most.

Hasselblad company has been purchased by chinesse DJI drone (excellent) manufacturer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEj22QATEGQ&t=139s

[bridget]

Hi Tim,
Who does your servicing in NZ?
Thanks!
-Bridget

[Tim V]

Via C.R. Kennedy in NZ. Sometimes in Auckland, but mostly gets sent to Melbourne. Most simple things can be done here though, I think.

[Sandro]

With a flatbed scanner you usually wet mount in order to maintain the negative flat, and the time to scan a single or maybe 2 negs increases a lot.
With X 1 or X5 you simply open the holder, place the negative and push a button. It’s tremendously faster.
I moved from an Epson with wet mount station to an X5, and my (scanning) life changed completely.
Consider also that resolution is actually higher than 2000 dpi, you just need to increase the zoom to obation some 10% more.

[Pere Casals]

With a flatbed scanner you usually wet mount in order to maintain the negative flat, and the time to scan a single or maybe 2 negs increases a lot.

Sandro, this is only necessary if sheets are curled or scratched, last model V800 holders have height adjustment.

Consider also that resolution is actually higher than 2000 dpi, you just need to increase the zoom to obation some 10% more.

The X1/X5 sensor is 8k, divided 4" this is 2k dpi, if you zoom in you crop. Yes, if croping the shadows of the holder's guides we can zoom in a bit, but to get a 10% enhacement we have to crop out 1cm and scaning 9cm...

Actually effective X5 resolution is lower than 2040 dpi, because 2040 is hardware dpi, actual effective resolving power is around effective 1800dpi for 4x5. All devices have a loss from hardware dpi to effective dpi, in the X the loss is only 10%.

The X1 has effective dpi 6150 for 35mm film (the X5 is said to obtain 6900), in that case the 8000 pix are zoomed to cover the 24mm only of the frame width, but as the format is larger it obviously decreases the performance. This ends in a atonishing performance for 35mm, but in a way less impressive performance for LF sheets.

[Sandro]

The X1/X5 sensor is 8k, divided 4" this is 2k dpi, if you zoom in you crop. Yes, if croping the shadows of the holder's guides we can zoom in a bit, but to get a 10% enhacement we have to crop out 1cm and scaning 9cm...

In fact I crop the border of my camera film holder, while the standard configuration of X5 film holder scans also part of the frame, which is useless.
Regarding the difference between hardware resolution, yes in applies to alla scanners and with different resolution losses.
Where did you get the real 1800 dpi data for the X5?

[Pere Casals]

Regarding the difference between hardware resolution, yes in applies to alla scanners and with different resolution losses.
Where did you get the real 1800 dpi data for the X5?

It has been tested by a (proficient) good friend/vendor that has one, I scan there 35mm velvia slides with amazing results.

___

With such a good (Linos, a machine vision Rodagon?) optics the rating will depend a bit on how we calculate the number, because with the resolution target approaching to the sampling limit what we get the most is severe aliasing rather than optical blur, this was my perception when I saw the scans, if it is 1850 or 1750 is a personal choice, but 2000 it isn't.

Well, what's clear is that (beyond ratings) if scanning a 2k lines per mm in a 4x5" sheet it would be a surprise if we don't get psichodelic aliasings of all flavours, or severe noise with texture features of that size.

___

That also matches what the Imacon manual says for the the Flextight II, see page 16 "True Optical Resolutions"

http://werkplaatsen.kabk.nl/sites/de...on2-Manual.pdf

The II has a lower performance than the X5 for 35mm, but for 35mm the 6900 effective dpi out of 8160 rating is 85%, so a 15% loss. Perhaps the Linos glass inside may work better when covering 4", but a 90% effectiveness it's near a miracle.

Sadly the X5 manual uses a misleading wording
In the manual, page 10 http://static.hasselblad.com/2014/12...l-v1.5_eng.pdf

Has a table of the "True Resolutions", but it speaks about hardware dpi. They say "True" 8000dpi for 35mm when it's 6900 "optical". When it was Imacon the "True" word was followed by "Optical".