Nikon 9000 vs. Imacon vs. Creo Iq3

[sanking]

The problem with this is that digital editing can greatly effect the outcome. There are so many variables involved, and assuming one does a good job, all the mentioned scanners with give very good results. My guess is that at very large sizes, you'll start to see a difference between the IQ3 and the Nikon, with the IQ3 being slightly better. I doubt that an Imacon would be much better than the Nikon, although it may have better software. And then a top-of-the-line drum scanner would be even better, especially if the materials being scanned get pretty dense.

Peter is right. Unless you make very large prints, or need to scan very dense negatives, the skill applied in digital editing of the scan is more important than actual differences in the scans of any of these three scanners. In fact, digital editing would still be the most important factor, IMO, even if we were to include a scan from drum scanner.

And there is one more factor, and that is the fact that the negative itself is often the weak link in the comparison. Most negatives of 4X5" in size or larger will have no more than about 2000-2400 dpi of effective resolution/detail. Even an Epson V700, if used correctly, will come very close to pulling out that much detail.

Medium format negatives, especially those made with high grade optics like Mamiya 6 or 7, are capable of much more resolution (and they are enlarged more) so one would probably see a difference between a scan with a Nikon LS-9000, which IMO will not give more than about 3500 spi, and a scan with an IQ3, which is capable of more than 5000 spi. But, even in this case the superiority of the IQ3 would probably not be evident except in very large prints.

Sandy King

[Nathan Potter]

I'm curious why no one ever mentions how the final print quality looks between the different scanners? For example, how does the print look in terms of spatial rendition/dimensionality, tones wise, existing artifacts such as grain or digitization, and overall look.

If the scanners are all equally similar in the "quality of output", then talking only about resolution makes sense.

It's similar to comparing digital cameras. Take the Canon 5D as an example and compare its clean image quality even at ISO 100 vs. other digital cameras. At the same time, you hear and even see examples of people's images that explain how one brand has a more photogenic look/quality about it that is natural vs. a flat and stale look from the other.

Where do film scanners play a role when it comes to the "quality and look" of the scan, even at very small print sizes?

If we leave the resolution aspect out of scan description I think that the "quality of output" as defined by the properties you suggest - spacial rendition/dimensionality etc. are very difficult to articulate verbally, especially since we are mostly visual people on this forum. Resolution is a measurable quantity so can be thrown about with some degree of accuracy and consistency within the LF community. These "other" properties as outputed from the three scanners mentioned, then manipulated digitally through to printing, will have substantially altered the same "properties" as seen on the original, rendering comparisons specious.

In a way the same difficulty is found in trying to articulate the qualities of a silver print at a detailed scale, so we tend to defer to resolution criteria only.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[Findingmyway4ever]

If we leave the resolution aspect out of scan description I think that the "quality of output" as defined by the properties you suggest - spacial rendition/dimensionality etc. are very difficult to articulate verbally, especially since we are mostly visual people on this forum. Resolution is a measurable quantity so can be thrown about with some degree of accuracy and consistency within the LF community. These "other" properties as outputed from the three scanners mentioned, then manipulated digitally through to printing, will have substantially altered the same "properties" as seen on the original, rendering comparisons specious.

In a way the same difficulty is found in trying to articulate the qualities of a silver print at a detailed scale, so we tend to defer to resolution criteria only.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

I definitely agree that resolution is a very important aspect especially when we are attempting to determine what sized film we can resolve X amount of details out of using Y scanner vs. Z scanner. For example, with 35mm film, if a super high end scanner can resolve the amount of detail on the slide that the lower end one cannot do, then it would be the best choice for a person needing that level of resolution. But I'm more of a person that enjoys the level of resolution/sharpness/ability to enlarge, but most importantly, what I am looking at.

But think about these things:

1) Majority of ALL photographers, even more cliche ones that own multiple 100K in digital equipment or those in film that are using 30K worth of 8X10 equipment, aren't printing mega prints, let alone much of anything larger than 20X30.

2) In this case, and if everything is only about resolution, I can make a 20X30 or larger look superior to a 120 shot scanned with a Nikon 9000 or name your scanner by doing however many consecutive shots in a row to make the equivalent output one is acheiving with that one shot of 120. That comment made in the thread about the 5D MKII let alone an original 5D not being as good is a load of crap. Maybe shot for shot, but not stitching loads and loads of shots either on stationary objects or wide aspect type panoramic shots.

3) I have see more than a fair enough share of the Imacon being inferior to just about every single flatbed, drum, etc. scanner from Cezanne/Creo/Eversmart/Howtek/ICG/etc. So is that Nikon 9000 able to beat the Imacon as clearly as these other scanners?

4) I've seen people argue that an enlargement more than a given amount/size starts to deteriorate at this given enlargement point. I forget what it was that this one person argued, but he could clearly see degradation starting to occur at something like 4-6X enlargement of the original size which is WAY smaller than the user has printed 120 film on the Nikon 9000. This person also used top end equipment from scanner-printer-materials/equipment/etc. It is to say that what one may say looks sharp and good may look like blur and pixellated to another.


Again, I understand that resolution is a nice scientific way to discuss things, but if resolution was all it was about, we would all be stupid not to be using even 6mp DSLRs with excellent output.

[Findingmyway4ever]

In fact, digital editing would still be the most important factor, IMO, even if we were to include a scan from drum scanner.

And there is one more factor, and that is the fact that the negative itself is often the weak link in the comparison. Most negatives of 4X5" in size or larger will have no more than about 2000-2400 dpi of effective resolution/detail. Even an Epson V700, if used correctly, will come very close to pulling out that much detail.

Sandy King

In other words...

1) I send an excellent example of a 4X5 (or a 5X7 if that size is needed for an Epson to resolve all the higher end scanners will resolve) negative to Lenny and also to a person that knows their Epson as well as Lenny knows his Aztek.

2) I have them both do a scan of the neg.

3) I send these files to you so you can post-process/edit them.

4) You send the post-processed files to a high quality printer and have them make even 8X10 or 11X14 prints of each.

5) When I receive the prints, both will look identical with a possible exception being in the shadows region where the drum scan may have pulled out a bit more than you were able to do in post-process.

Is this right?

[sanking]

In other words...

1) I send an excellent example of a 4X5 (or a 5X7 if that size is needed for an Epson to resolve all the higher end scanners will resolve) negative to Lenny and also to a person that knows their Epson as well as Lenny knows his Aztek.

2) I have them both do a scan of the neg.

3) I send these files to you so you can post-process/edit them.

4) You send the post-processed files to a high quality printer and have them make even 8X10 or 11X14 prints of each.

5) When I receive the prints, both will look identical with a possible exception being in the shadows region where the drum scan may have pulled out a bit more than you were able to do in post-process.

Is this right?

Essentially that is what I am saying, but you would have to take *me* out of the post-processing because I am fairly mediocre at this. But let's say we send the files to someone like Bob Carnie at Elevator Digital, who does this kind of work professionally and is very good at it.

In the size you mentioned, 8X10" or 11X14" prints from 4X5" or 5X7" negatives I am *almost* certain that one would not see a difference between a good scan made with Lenny's Premier and a good scan made with an Epson V700. And if you started with a B&W or color negative that was well exposed and not over developed I don't think you would see any difference even in the shadows.


Sandy King

[Findingmyway4ever]

Essentially that is what I am saying, but you would have to take *me* out of the post-processing because I am fairly mediocre at this. But let's say we send the files to someone like Bob Carnie at Elevator Digital, who does this kind of work professionally and is very good at it.

In the size you mentioned, 8X10" or 11X14" prints from 4X5" or 5X7" negatives I am *almost* certain that one would not see a difference between a good scan made with Lenny's Premier and a good scan made with an Epson V700. And if you started with a B&W or color negative that was well exposed and not over developed I don't think you would see any difference even in the shadows.


Sandy King

Thanks for your input Sandy.

I really need to see some quality work. I've seen very little work for comparison basis. I have seen prints done with an Epson scanner, original size of 4X5 and 8X10. I have also seen prints from various cameras including FF cameras.

With exception of an 8X10 contact print, nothing 4X5-8X10 scanned/printed with an Epson or anything digital looks as good as even 35mm negative film processed/scanned/printed at a local grocery store that has the system on automatic. I can see "obvious" differences, even at an 8X10 print size.

I wonder how much it would cost to get some sample prints from anyone around here or even Bob Carnie.

I'm still trying to find anyone that can show me something that can beat my lousy 35mm prints.

[Findingmyway4ever]

For the hobbyist a 20x30 is more then enough. For those selling on their website, most are able to provide high end prints up to 60 inches (why we have 44/60 inch printers).This allows them to satisfy different markets requiring different sizes. Check out a few websites (eg- by Ken Duncan, Peter Lik, etc).

It's unfair to bring up stitching and then make a comparison with a larger format camera. Don't forget we do that too with our larger cameras (eg- two 4x5 shots to get 4x10, or I'll sometimes stitch 3 shots with the Pentax 67). I also won't need to take as many shots. You can't catch up. Also see paragraph 3.

The Nikon 9000 with 6x7 does a 37 inch print at 300ppi. Do you really think you will get the same quality with a 5DII (5616ppi horizontally)? We all have different ideas of what represents fine quality, but we can bring that down to mathematical terms....and at 37inches that is only 152ppi. At that level saturation of colors will no longer be the same, and often this is more important then sharpness (eg- not all scenes have lots of detail).

People are also deceived by stitching. If you take a 10mp dslr and stitch 100 images together, it still will not resolve the fine crystalized detail in snow while 6x7 film will. Why? We all know 35mm film cannot record the fine snow detail like medium format or large format film. So by stitching many35mm shots (roughly 10mp) together, you get a bigger file, a bigger image, but not one of those frames resolves the detail like a single piece of 6x7 film you are trying to imitate. The concept is simple....shoot a barn on 35mm film and it may be 1/2 inch in size, while on 4x5 it is 2 inches in size, and maybe 5 inches in size on 8x10 film...allowing for far more information that can be recorded.

Thanks Van.

I only pointed out the stitching technique as I know a lot of digital photographers will argue it to death. I personally do not see how, as you put it, a smaller format can capture the level of detail that a larger format can. Even if you stitch infinite captures of the same subject, I don't see why or how it is possible to "add" detail if the level of detail from 35mm is still limited by the fact that it is 35mm. Maybe for those that want big blowups, they can get away with a nice clean photograph, even if it is not as refined/detailed/etc. as one from a bigger sensor digital or a large piece of sheet film, etc.

I still have yet to see anything made by a digital camera that looks remotely as nice as even horribly scanned and not even tripod based/quality 35mm work. I posted this after what Sandy had to say about the post-processing being the important factor (rather than the scan/scanner itself) in getting the scan properly onto paper/into print. I have also seen an Epson scan of both 4X5 and 8X10 sheet film that look flat and no different than a digital print albeit maybe a little more depth and nicer/truer looking coloration. Detail wise (I didn't mention this in my response to Sandy), the Epson scanned sheet film prints are remarkable. It's easy and obvious to see that these prints absolutely demolish say, a capture from the original Canon 5D. It's really not even close. But this is the only sense about these digital scanned sheet film images I liked=The amazing level of detail/sharpness (very good), etc. But the actual "feel/essence" of the print leaves a LOT to be desired. Even a poorly done 8X10contact print shows how the digitized version of the same negative to look "ok", but at the same time, quite ugly by comparison. It's almost like comparing vinyl and digital where even an "ok" vinyl rig sounds superior to a top flight digital rig. Though the very best vinyl rig w/exception that the recording plainly sucks, makes one question if listening to digital is possible to ever do again.

But in this world of prints and music, I enjoy them all, even if I am always going to be a critique.

Oh, and I hope I have made it clear that I'm not trying to say the 35mm prints I have received from a local grocery store are amazing shots and I'm so proud of them. I'm just surprised they are not close to my better work, only basic handheld shots, yet, still look better than what I discussed above.

Last note, I have scanned these 35mm shots on a Nikon (too wayyyy too long because some 4? years ago, I still had a way outdated laptop I was using or else they would have gone "very fast" with my computer today) and though my skills were severely limited to basically a weekend at most and I never did put them into photoshop, but did the scans with Nikon software, I did get a better level of detail and a solid coloration/look vs. what was acheived by the store.

I also have not wanted to make my statements put down the Nikon as I know it's a great machine, especially in its compact nature vs. these MASSIVE drum and even press flatbeds or a Leaf, but I'm quite shocked hearing Sandy and Peter comment about how the digital processing/post processing is the real art of scanning nowadays and that it only takes a cheap budget scanner to make an equally good looking print as one done with a dedicated film or pro-level scanner.

[Peter De Smidt]

Is a Nikon 9000 a budget scanner? I wouldn't call it that.

A digital print's looking "flat" or having poor color is a result of poor scanning, digital editing or printing. It is not inherent to an Epson or any other scanner.

Prints made at your local grocery store are in all probability scanned and printed digitally on a Fuji Frontier (or similar.)

I have a fairly "massive" scanner, a 5 foot wide Screen Cezanne. It cost in the 10s of thousands of dollars when new, which was only a couple of years ago. I also have a Nikon Coolscan 5. With fine-grained bw film, the Coolscan is in the same quality league as the Cezanne, at least it is up to any print size that I'd print 35mm film. I've never gone bigger than full-frame on an 11x14 sheet, either with an optical enlarger or digitally.

The size and expense of the Cezanne enable the scanning of much bigger film than the Nikon, and it's easier to keep film flat. (With the 9000, use the glass carrier.) Plus, the Cezanne is better suited to a ton of work. Sure, it can resolve about 2000 spi more than the Nikon, but why would I want to print a 35mm frame that big? If you do, then the answer is simple. Get a pro scanner. If you shoot a lot of Velvia and want huge prints, then a drum scanner is for you. If you shoot 120, and you make mid-sized enlargements, then the 9000 would be by far the best bang for your buck.

[Findingmyway4ever]

Is a Nikon 9000 a budget scanner? I wouldn't call it that.

A digital print's looking "flat" or having poor color is a result of poor scanning, digital editing or printing. It is not inherent to an Epson or any other scanner.

Prints made at your local grocery store are in all probability scanned and printed digitally on a Fuji Frontier (or similar.)

I have a fairly "massive" scanner, a 5 foot wide Screen Cezanne. It cost in the 10s of thousands of dollars when new, which was only a couple of years ago. I also have a Nikon Coolscan 5. With fine-grained bw film, the Coolscan is in the same quality league as the Cezanne, at least it is up to any print size that I'd print 35mm film. I've never gone bigger than full-frame on an 11x14 sheet, either with an optical enlarger or digitally.

The size and expense of the Cezanne enable the scanning of much bigger film than the Nikon, and it's easier to keep film flat. (With the 9000, use the glass carrier.) Plus, the Cezanne is better suited to a ton of work. Sure, it can resolve about 2000 spi more than the Nikon, but why would I want to print a 35mm frame that big? If you do, then the answer is simple. Get a pro scanner. If you shoot a lot of Velvia and want huge prints, then a drum scanner is for you. If you shoot 120, and you make mid-sized enlargements, then the 9000 would be by far the best bang for your buck.

Seems crazy to me that if one uses any of these scanners, make prints intended for the limits of the scanner or even less than the limits just to give enough headroom, that they will all be equal once you post-process the file correctly. I guess when seeing people with say, the Nikon 9000 say they cannot pull out the detail of a colorful sunset, it makes me wonder if another scanner would or if scanners simply cannot pull out certain detail, even a beautiful sunset that looks great on the lightbox, but cannot be replicated from the scan from the 9000.

Let me ask, just how much work are we talking about in post-processing to get, say, a 4X5 or 8X10 piece of film to look as good with an Epson as with a Cezanne/IQ/Howtek/etc.?

I agree with you about what you said on the 11X14 size with 35mm, even with a solid drum scan, though it depends on the film as I've seen some printing quite large with 35mm film dependent. But on a general basis, I wouldn't want to go any larger than 11X14 just from personal experience, and would even say 9X12 may be more like it. With 120, say 6X6 or 6X7, I'd probably go 16X20 or a pinch larger and with 4X5, maybe 24X30, and so on. I know each can be enlarged more, but even with a perfect scan, I'd want that headroom to work with and I'm particularly picky. Sure, once a print goes behind glass, or we step away, things diminish a lot, but I like to see the print in hand and know just what it looks like in hand since it's more important for me to know that regardless of glass covering a print or how far away I am standing from it, I will always know exactly how that print looks from when it was in my hands.

I agree with you about the Cezanne and other scanners like this being highly versatile, allowing for great quality with pretty much all formats let alone being able to scan in other materials besides film negatives.

I didn't mean to say Nikon was a budget machine, but it is when you compare it to the price these pro beds and drum scanners sold for.

I guess I have to figure out why I am shooting with even 5X7 film when it seems rather overkill since I don't print that large, though I do have the 4X5 back and can always add in roll film holders.

[mrladewig]

It seems to me that you're trolling at this point. I am reluctant to address your question, but in the best interest of dispelling false information, I think its necessary.

An Epson scanner can produce an excellent scan and so can the Nikon. You can easily make prints from digital files from those scanners that look as good or better than the drug store frontier prints. Keep in mind that RA-4 printing just like the frontier is an output option for any scan from home. You just need to work with a lab that prints on a Chromira, lightjet, etc...

So what does it take to get there? Time to learn how to master the process, get the most from the scanner software and photoshop. Fluid mount scanning on an Epson can give most of the same clarity that it offers on a IQ3, Cezanne or Aztek. It won't have the resolution of the drums or pro flatbeds, but it can produce a solid 16X20 on inkjet or RA-4.