Imacon vs Epson Flatbead @ 2000dpi

[Ted Harris]

Daniel, there is no replacement nor will there be. The 1800f occupies a niche in the scanner world that will not be filled AFAIK. It uses a CCD array that differs from those in the Epson's and other under $1000 US Microtek scanners. The array is both larger than those used in all the other scanners under 1000 and is a different design that has equal sharpness edge to edge.

As for a review see mine in View Camera Magazine's current May-June issue. If you can't get it in Oz send me a PM and I will get you the details.

[P.J.]

Thanks, I'll look into the Microtek, and good reviews to look at?

PS. Just checked, it seems to be a very old scanner. Shouldn't I just wait for the replacement?

Daniel.

Daniel, I disagree with Ted. Microtec 1800f ist a old technology.

Epson v750 review:
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/int...750/page_1.htm

comparison Epson 4990 vs. Nikon LS-8000:
http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/

comparison Microtek ArtixScan 1800f vs. other scanners:
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/
Compare Microtek ArtixScan 1800f vs. Epson Perfection 4990 Photo.

And now make your own opinion.
Paul

[Ted Harris]

P.J. my comments on the "V" series in this and a few other threads compliment the photo-i review. See the full review in the July-August "View Camera" which will be on the street in two or three weeks.

As for new v.old technology I am not sure there is anything much new in scanner technology. All of the Epson scanners now on the market and dating back to the 4870 (perhaps even the 3200) and the Microtek i800 and i900 all use the same or very similar CCD arrays. The 1800f uses a very different array, and that is the biggest difference. There is no question that the 4990 will give you slightly better resolution than the 1800f. OTOH, the 1800f will give you better DMax than the 4990 and that may well not be very important unless you are scanning a lot of chromes. This whole discussion will be moot in a very short time though as the 1800f leaves the market.

The "V" series do offer us an interesting new option with the two lenses but how well will it serve the LF photographer without a very high powered computer system?

The original question was 4990 v. an older gneeration Imacon and most agreed the Imacon wasn't a good choice unless it was very very very inexpensive. The larger question is whether the performance gap between the consumer/prosumer/low priced (under $1000) scanners and the high-end flatbeds and drum scanners is narrowing. I believe the answer is a qualified yes. Yes, in that the consumer class scanners can now easily produce acceptable output to permit an 8x10 print that will satisfy the most discriminating eye, depending on the scanner an 11x14 that will satisfy most viewers and, depending on the scanner, the viewer and the original material sometimes a 16x20. There are also some users who are completely satisfied with the outpuyt of these scanners for the production of much larger prints and satisfaction is in the eye of the viewer. However, I still strongly believe that if you keep everything except the scanner constant and produce two prints of 16x20 or larger (maybe a bit larger), one from a file originally scanned on a "V" series, 4990, i900, 1800f (take your pick) and the other from the same original but scanned on a Creo Select, Screen Cezanne, Howtek 8000, Optronics Colorgetter Falcon, etc. the differences will be immediately apparent .... even to the viewer who thought they were completely satisfied with the output of the consumer scanner.

As always the caveat that the skill of the operator is as important as the capabilities of the hardware and both the hardware and the software of the consumer scanners is far simpler to master than the high-end machines and their software.

By the way, IF price is a consideration then right now there is a window that makes the decision very very very simple. Epson is currently offering refurbished 4870 scanners for $199 with an additional 20% off if you have the coupon code needed. At $160 the 4870 is a steal ....

[Sheldon N]

By the way, IF price is a consideration then right now there is a window that makes the decision very very very simple. Epson is currently offering refurbished 4870 scanners for $199 with an additional 20% off if you have the coupon code needed. At $160 the 4870 is a steal ....

I can confirm this. I just ordered a refurbished Epson 4870 directly from Epson, and with the 20% coupon code the total came to $159.20 with free shipping. That's an absolute steal!

[Tim Lookingbill]

One caveat about the Epson 4870 is it's build quality which looks and feels like it was built by Fisher Price. Be careful handling the lid. They built 2 position knuckle springs into the hinges that can pop to the next position unexpectedly as you lift the lid. It can get you to think there's another position coming where there isn't one and you may end up dropping the lid on the glass.

Uh...Someone say coupon for the 4870? I couldn't find any reference to it searching their site when I bought mine about 3 weeks ago.

[Kirk Gittings]

I have been really busy with now two flooded houses and not able to put my two cents in here.

My opinion is as a fine art and commercial printer who currently owns two Epson 4990's, a Nikon 8000, a Microtek 1800F and who has regular access to an Imacon 646 and a 949. I also have extensive experience with previous Epsons, previous Imacons and 4 Canon 9950's.

The 4990 is great for commercial batch scans which I do to the tune of 80 per week on a regular basis. Its strenght is batch scanning, reasonalble resolution and d-max and Digital Ice. An unscientific resolution test limits me to 11x14's by my taste. When I needed a better scan for my b&w exhibits (I don't print larger than 16x20), I found a step up in terms of resolution and D-max with the Microtek 1800f. It gives me an acceptable 16x20.

Where I disagree with Ted is with the Imacon. I have used 646's and Epson 4870's extensively where I teach and found the Imacons superior to their 4870's, my 4990's and my the 1800f and my Nikon 8000 in terms of resolution. Now that I have access to a 949 it is my go to machine when I need a first class scan for my art work. I have tested the 4990, 1800f and the Imacon 949 in side by side scans extensively and the Imacon wins hands down. It may simply be because of their fancy sharpening techniques which sharpen without leaving obvious artifacts, but I frankly don't care. The Imacon scans give me, in my workflow, a much better final b&w 16x20 than the 1800f or any of the Epsons. I would not buy a new (20g's!) Imacon 949 at the current price compared to an 1800f but since I do not have to that point is mute for me.

While I have the greatest respect for the Scanner Comparison it is dependent upon the varied skills of numerous owners and the varied quality of their individual scanners. Imacons in particular require regular maintenance. For instance the 646's that the students use where I teach require much more consistent maintenace to achieve opitimum performance than the same scanner which is reserved for the staff. The student scanner has much heavier use and needs more maintenace and is out of adjustment much more often than the faculty one.

[Jeremy_D]

Having personally owned a Flextight II (long since sold) and had it sitting immediately next to an Epson 4870, I can promise you the Imacon is far, far, far, far better than the Epson. Having also extensively used Creos and drums, I can tell you that while some of the drums have very slightly lower noise in deep shadows than an Imacon 949, the actually ability to extract detail is surprisingly similar. The Creos are about the same as Imacons at the same resolutions, but way fiddlier and messier to use, but they can go to higher resolutions with large format and do multiples at a time...but that's irrelevant to your choice - which is Flextight 2 versus Epson, and the Flextight absolutely romps that in.

[Ted Harris]

Kirk and I don't disagree, not at all. My point regarding Imacons is that with the current models you need to go to the 646 to handle 4x5 adn at a price of 10K new there are other options that should also be considered and .... that the 4990/4870/v Series/1800F at under 1K are remarkable values if you are budget constrained.

More importantly, Kirk makes and excellent point that has only been briefly alluded too in this and other recent scanner discussions, namely: "It may simply be because of [the Imacon's] fancy sharpening techniques which sharpen without leaving obvious artifacts, but I frankly don't care. The Imacon scans give me, in my workflow, a much better final b&w 16x20 than the 1800f or any of the Epsons." We often go to great (perhaps too great) lengths to note that the Imacon's sharpening controls need to be set to some minus value to avoid any sharpening while scanning. We do this for purposes of coming as close as possible to one-on-on resloution tests with other scanners. OTOH, and very important, is the point about the sophistication of their sharpening algorithm. This level of sophistication also holds true for the scanning software from other high-end manufacturers as well. It is something I never really thought about until I started using the Screen Cezanne which also has incredible sharpening capabilities. I sat down and tested the Cezanne with the prepress folks at Darthmouth Printing before I bought mine and was amazed when they applied sharpening while scanning, that went against everything I had ever done before. Then I looked at the results and compared them to post scan sharpening in Photoshop ..... bottom line Kirk is right on. Not saying that I always do it or recommend doing it with the the Cezanne or an Imacon but dang, it does work. Remember though that we are comparing apples to oranges here, very sophisticated software programs that, by themselves, cost many times the price of the consumer scanners and their packaged software. Another point that underscores the differences.

Thanks Kirk for bringing out this point!

[Doug Dolde]

Ted,

Are you wet mounting on your Cezanne? I understand that buying Screen's accessories for wet mounting can be expensive.

[Ted Harris]

Doug,

The wet mounting accessories came with the machine. I bought a "new" demo unit direct from one of Screen's sales rep's.

I imagine, like anything, in any high-end equipment world, they could be expensive separately. However, there is absolutely no reason why you couldn't wet mount without any accessories as long as you do it carefully.