Hello all,
does anybody have experience with the differences between these 3 scanners for medium format use? most of my archive is rollfilm, using a 6x9 viewcamera and i wondered if the 9000 would give me high quality scans for lightjet/inkjet prints at a 30"x40" size.
i appreciate any input.....also how long does a 6x9 neg take to scan using the different scanners? i know somewhere i read that a multi pass scan on the 9000 could take about 20 minutes?
thanks,
robert
I have a 9000 and it is just tops, I never made multi passes because it is so good. I have quit digital a couple years ago and gone back to 100% wet...Evan Clarke
I've got the LS-4000 and I've been very happy with 12X18 prints from 35mm from most films, which is roughly the same enlargement as 30X40 from 6X7/6x9 film. I think you would find the Nikon LS-9000 would produce satisfactory prints at that size.
I don't like to multipass scan with the Nikon. It does reduce noise a bit, but it also seems to reduce sharpness in my experience.
I can't say how long a 6X9 neg would take to scan, but a single pass 35mm scan with digital ICE on takes about 45 seconds.
I have a Nikon 9000 and an Eversmart Supreme and usually use the 9000 for medium format scanning. It does a very good job, but if you go with the Nikon plan on getting the optional glass film carrier. It holds film flat and that is almost impossible to achieve with the holder that comes with the 9000. I have not timed a scan, but I would say that it could very well be in the neighborhood of 15-20 minutes for full res scan.
I think that is a rather obvious observation. If you have an archive of excellent 6X7 images from which you wish to make 30X40 prints, that isn't really an option.
The IQ3 can probably make mincemeat of the Nikon LS-9000 when it comes to dense shadows, but there is a major price premium to pay for that ability and it may not be an issue in all cases.
I have had a few scans of my 6x6 from Rolleiflex T done with Imacon X5 (3200 spi) and Coolscan 5000 (3000 spi).
The differences were just not possible to notice. I did not do an explicit test of noise in shadows (like using VERY strong levels adjustment in PS) but the dynamic range and detail look nearly identical.
The only downside of the Coolscan was that rather often the edges of the scan were not sharp. This was the issue with film holder not keeping the film flat and the guy at the service did not have a cure for that (he offered me glass holder scans, but warned me that the sharpness will be bit lower).
I would love to have a few scans done with the Creo IQsmart3, but did not come across a lab having one here in Germany.
I may post a few samples (but probably only after Easter as I will be traveling)
Matus
I've owned all three.Originally Posted by robert lyons
IQSmart 3- The best scan quality of the 3 by far and the ability to scan film or prints as large as 12 x17", the down side is that the software is designed for pre press professionals and is not user friendly. Far higher resolution that the other 2 scanners and the ability to gang scan many images as well as wet mount if you so choose.
Imacon, very good image quality, far better than the Nikon, but not in the same league as the IQ3, and able to scan larger MF negs than the nikon without having to stitch. Extremely easy software to use. I had banding issues with my 646 which was defective and Hasselblad/Imacon were not helpful. Not supposed to wet mount but I know people who have jury rigged wet mount methods, but you do so at your own risk.
Nikon, I'm not sure if it does 6x9cm in one pass, or if it requires stitching, I recall for 6x12 it did. For the money, compared to the other 2, it's a great buy, but if you're looking for the best image quality it's not in the same league as the other 2.
The Nikon will do 6x9 in a single scan, but not 6x12, using either the recommended glass holder or the supplied holder. I fully concur with the recommendation to use the glass holder, despite occasional newton-ring issues and more work for the digital ICE process. The supplied holder does not reliably provide consistent focus across the film.
Considering the law of diminishing returns, there is probably something like a hyperbolic relationship between price and quality. An Epson flatbed is below the knee of the curve at these enlargement ratios, and the Nikon is probably right on the knee. One gets a very noticeable increase in quality, especially at the anticipated enlargement levels, compared to a consumer flatbed, but getting noticeable improvements beyond that might require additional cost approaching or exceeding an order of magnitude. Translation for me: I was willing to buy a used 8000; I cannot afford more expensive options and would be forced to pay someone else to make the scan. And if I'm going to do that, I might as well get a scan with a PMT drum scanner. But I'm not making 30x45" prints from 6x9, either.
Rick "who would rather get what most would consider excellent on his own rather than having to rent someone else's state-of-the-art process" Denney
What films? I have a smaller nikon scanner, with, I expect, a very similar light source to the 9000. It is excellent with fine-grained film. With coarser grained film, though, it tends to magnify the grain, and it's enough to effect resolution. So for tech pan, Tmax 100, Acros and similar, I'd recommend the Nikon. With coarser grained film, the effect will also change a bit with the type of development. For example, if you do a lot of stand development with FX-1, or something similar, I'd avoid the nikon. Stained negatives usually scan well.
“You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know
there is a high end scan forum on yahoo groups and they continously argue about which is best. No one has mentioned drum scanners here but they will certainly win, followed closed by the creo... me? I use a Creo Eversmart Pro2 and a couple of Leaf45's...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks