atufte Posted March 9, 2015 Share #1 Posted March 9, 2015 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) Hi I'm about to buy a Imacon scanner, but have two difficult choices. I have to choose between a Imacon 343, very good scanner, but have max 3200 dpi res and lacks AF, but this scanner have firewire, the latter has not, this means i can use a new computer and updated software. The other option is an Imacon Flextight Precision II, which has higher res 5760 dpi, it has AF but lacks firewire, and you are stuck with using an old computer (for scanning only) but it comes with a computer and of course you scan to disk and work on a modern computer. But this means no more updates, and forever stuck in the commodore 64 world...the problem is, or not a problem really, but this scanner is still VERY good, even with all this put in mind... I'm not going to scan bigger than 120 so that is a none issue, but I need the extra resolution, or do I....? I have the Minolta 5400 which i love, but I have problems with film flatness, which the Imacon does brilliantly. The Minolta 5400 is has 5400 dpi, and print fantastic in this size, but only the times I get total flatness, which is 5 of 10 times (hmmm), so the big question really is, how big can push the files form the Imacon 343 (3200 dpi) without any loss, compared with the Minolta...I know the 343 gives way sharper and more info than the Minolta, but it's a long way to go from...3200 - 5400 dpi... Will the 343 (which is the one I really want) hold up, or do I need the Imacon Flextight Precision II, with all it's quirks (which i really don't mind that much), it's far more important to get max quality, than a perfect workflow, after all if this was my main target, I would use digital only... Would love your say on this..thanks (BTW! They cost the same) Alex Edited March 9, 2015 by atufte Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 9, 2015 Posted March 9, 2015 Hi atufte, Take a look here Imacon Question. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
250swb Posted March 9, 2015 Share #2 Posted March 9, 2015 You don't say the price you are going to pay for the Imacon, but the Plustek 120 can do MF at 10,600 dpi. Steve Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted March 9, 2015 Share #3 Posted March 9, 2015 Would love your say on this..thanks (BTW! They cost the same) Alex Have both scanners been serviced in recent times? Worth thinking about before jumping in because the people I've known who have owned Imacon scanners found they got to know the service people quite well. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Henry Posted March 10, 2015 Share #4 Posted March 10, 2015 Hi Alex,the 343 will already be a good acquisition for the 120. Files are quite large 192-384 MB in 8 or 16 bits. The DMax is 4.3 which is respectable It costs 6000 Euros new. The only problem is the after sales service . In Holland? Otherwise the Minolta Dimage II is also very good for 135, I agree Best Henry Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
atufte Posted March 10, 2015 Author Share #5 Posted March 10, 2015 You don't say the price you are going to pay for the Imacon, but the Plustek 120 can do MF at 10,600 dpi. Steve I have tried the Plustek scanners and I don't like them, (and terrible for film flatness+ no AF, = bad combo) Alex 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
atufte Posted March 10, 2015 Author Share #6 Posted March 10, 2015 Hi Henry I already own two Minolta 5400 which are even better for 35mm than the Dimage II, so that's no point, and yes i'm gonna scan mainly 35mm, and this whole thing is to cure film flatness (without glass) and edge to edge sharpness of the negative...which to my knowledge is Imacon only, so back to the original question...343 or Precision II? Alex Hi Alex,the 343 will already be a good acquisition for the 120. Files are quite large 192-384 MB in 8 or 16 bits. The DMax is 4.3 which is respectable It costs 6000 Euros new. The only problem is the after sales service . In Holland? Otherwise the Minolta Dimage II is also very good for 135, I agree Best Henry Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Henry Posted March 10, 2015 Share #7 Posted March 10, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hi Henry I already own two Minolta 5400 which are even better for 35mm than the Dimage II, so that's no point, and yes i'm gonna scan mainly 35mm, and this whole thing is to cure film flatness (without glass) and edge to edge sharpness of the negative...which to my knowledge is Imacon only, so back to the original question...343 or Precision II? Alex Alex if you can pay for the Precision , go for it ! I know "Chrism" on the thread "I love film" has one. Send him a PM ! Best Henry 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrism Posted March 10, 2015 Share #8 Posted March 10, 2015 No need to PM. My two Flextights are the 848 and the X1. The 848 is being sold. I don't have any experience with SCSI version of Imacons, but lots of them are still going. You should ask any questions at the Yahoo! Imaconusers group, where there is a huge amount of knowledge to tap into. It's here. Chris 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
atufte Posted March 10, 2015 Author Share #9 Posted March 10, 2015 No need to PM. My two Flextights are the 848 and the X1. The 848 is being sold. I don't have any experience with SCSI version of Imacons, but lots of them are still going. You should ask any questions at the Yahoo! Imaconusers group, where there is a huge amount of knowledge to tap into. It's here. Chris Can you PM me a quote for the 848, I'm interested.... Alex Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted March 10, 2015 Share #10 Posted March 10, 2015 Have you considered stretching to a new X1, Alex? I know they are not cheap but the current price is under £7.5K (ex. VAT) which, to put it into perspective, is roughly the price of one and a half Monochroms or an M-P plus Summilux lens. The great thing of course about using film is that you need less money invested in the camera hardware (£500 M4-P vs. £5,650 M-P). 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipus Posted March 10, 2015 Share #11 Posted March 10, 2015 Alex, since you appear to want dpi similar to what the 5400 offers the 343 is out, isn't it? I have the Coolscan 9000 but considered other scanners, including the Precision - III in my case - and the various numbered models, including the 343, before buying the Nikon. I bought it because I was familiar with the Coolscans and I wasn't entirely thrilled by the old-tech Precision and the differences to the workflow that these scanners would require me to adopt. And the price turned out to be the same for the 9000. this whole thing is to cure film flatness (without glass)and edge to edge sharpness of the negative...which to my knowledge is Imacon only, so back to the original question...343 or Precision II? I am wondering if it wouldn't be better to look into glass carriers for the 5400. I am currently looking into that for my 9000. Until I find a pro flatbed for reasonable money I will continue with the 9000 and glass holders to get flat 120 edges. This has the benefit of not messing too much with my workflow, including digital ICE which I find very useful. The largeformatforum and the scan-hi end yahoo groups are also good places for information (which you probably know). Br Philip 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
atufte Posted March 10, 2015 Author Share #12 Posted March 10, 2015 Yes, but some people say that, due to exeptional detail and edge to edge film flatness you get from the 343, i will gain get better quality from 3200 sdpi caled up to 5400 dpi or bigger...but is this true, or is it just Imacon fanboys spreading the word? (I wish someone would tell me this...) Alex Alex, since you appear to want dpi similar to what the 5400 offers the 343 is out, isn't it? I have the Coolscan 9000 but considered other scanners, including the Precision - III in my case - and the various numbered models, including the 343, before buying the Nikon. I bought it because I was familiar with the Coolscans and I wasn't entirely thrilled by the old-tech Precision and the differences to the workflow that these scanners would require me to adopt. And the price turned out to be the same for the 9000. I am wondering if it wouldn't be better to look into glass carriers for the 5400. I am currently looking into that for my 9000. Until I find a pro flatbed for reasonable money I will continue with the 9000 and glass holders to get flat 120 edges. This has the benefit of not messing too much with my workflow, including digital ICE which I find very useful. The largeformatforum and the scan-hi end yahoo groups are also good places for information (which you probably know). Br Philip Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted March 10, 2015 Share #13 Posted March 10, 2015 I have tried the Plustek scanners and I don't like them, (and terrible for film flatness+ no AF, = bad combo) Alex It's not what I find, but it depends when you tested it, they have re-designed the film holders since the scanner was first introduced and they lay even the curliest film flat. As for no AF, well you only need to focus scanners that go out of focus, which the Plustek doesn't. Steve 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipus Posted March 10, 2015 Share #14 Posted March 10, 2015 Yes, but some people say that, due to exeptional detail and edge to edge film flatness you get from the 343, i will gain get better quality from 3200 sdpi caled up to 5400 dpi or bigger I'm no expert but it strikes me as odd - all the amazing tools in Photoshop notwithstanding (and esp in CS6) - that an image which is scaled up to almost double resolution would print sharper than one scanned at that double resolution. I'm of course happy to be educated on this. Nevertheless, the glass carrier route, if possible, should be a much cheaper way to gain similar results (and maintain workflow). Based on my own research it seems introducing a sheet of glass in the light path will not degrade the scan significantly. br Philip 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted March 10, 2015 Share #15 Posted March 10, 2015 I'm no expert but it strikes me as odd - all the amazing tools in Photoshop notwithstanding (and esp in CS6) - that an image which is scaled up to almost double resolution would print sharper than one scanned at that double resolution. I'm of course happy to be educated on this. It wouldn't surprise me if the 3,200dpi Imacon scan surpassed the 5,400dpi scan of the Minolta. IMO 5,400dpi is overkill anyway for a 35mm negative– at that kind of dpi you are just enlarging the grain and I'm not sure you get any meaningful increase in resolution over a better quality, lower dpi, scan. I think Alex is on to something when he identifies film flatness as one of the main limiting factors in scanning but I'm not sure of the merits of pursuing one of these older SCSI-era Imacons versus selling some lesser used digital gear (assuming you have it) and acquiring a newer Firewire-era (possibly Hasselblad branded) one. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
menos I M6 Posted March 10, 2015 Share #16 Posted March 10, 2015 Alex, when I shopped for scanning solutions a few years ago, I contemplated the Imacon route for a while. I decided back then that I will push this matter if Imacon or not some time in front of me and use best lower cost scanning methods until then. As you I use a Minolta 5400 for scanning 135 (I do 2700dpi quick scans of all film in bulk and then scan the keepers selectively after they are archived under heavy weight for some time at higher dpi with multi pass scanning and properly adjusted exposure, etc …). For medium format and funky negatives like Widelux or Noblex 150 negs, I use a Minolta Multi Pro. I use exclusively the Minolta OEM glass film holder in this one (two glass sheets will hold the film perfectly flat). For really curly 135 film I also use the Minolta Multi Pro as of it's exquisite glass holder for perfect flatness. I like the Minolta 5400 a lot better for bulk scanning, as it is much faster and less complicated to deal with (can be set up fully automated through VueScan without any mouse clicks or button presses on the scanner - just keep swapping film holders and it will keep scanning and saving files as adjusted). The Minolta Multi Pro medium format scanners are of the same calibre as the Nikon 9000 - currently though it seems you can still get the Minolta MP for much less than the Nikons. It still is in the 1000 - 2000 EUR range for an outdated scanner which can fail at any given time without support (hence the Plustek and EPSON 750 choices are so popular). The Minolta Multi Pro will scan medium format only up to 3200 dpi, 135 it can scan up to 4800dpi (the Minolta 5400 will deliver better quality and is A LOT FASTER if film flatness is not an issue). If I make the final decision for an Imacon it very likely will involve selling off some camera gear and buying a current model either new or with recent service and surely a warranty of sorts. I would not go for an obsolete model without local support. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
atufte Posted March 10, 2015 Author Share #17 Posted March 10, 2015 BTW! I have a barely used 2015 Leica M-P in Silver Chrome I'm willing to trade for a Imacon scanner (preferably a 848, but others are interesting as well) Please send me a PM... Alex Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_livsey Posted March 10, 2015 Share #18 Posted March 10, 2015 There is much useful testing and information in this recent posting to another site: http://luminous-landscape.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/The-New-Epson-V850-Pro-Scanner-Final.pdf This links to an 89 page .pdf comparing the EpsonV850 to a range of scanners including the Plustek 120, Nikons and Imacon and across formats. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotomas Posted March 10, 2015 Share #19 Posted March 10, 2015 Hello, I have worked with Imacon Precision II, the Imacon 343 and the Minolta Dimage Scan Multi with glas-holder. Unfortunately I never had access to these scanners all together at the same time, so I couldn't do a comparison with the same film. Remembering my experience I would assume that both Imacons would outperform the Minolta. But I can't tell how my old Minolta was compared to the Minolta 5400. Nikon 9000 comes close to the Imacon. If your Minolta is similar to this, the difference might be not so huge. Pros for the Precision is the higher resolution and the opportunity to scan film up to 5 x 7 inches. Cons are that Hasselblad dropped support for this gears as soon as they bought Imacon, the SCSI-interface and maybe the scan-speed. If you want really high resolution scans (ca. 0.9 x 1.2 m print size) one scan takes about half an hour. Support should still be possible here: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/film-forum/320965-scsi-imacon-flextight-support.html#post2630238 I guess that the 343 would be at least twice as fast. But I never have tested this with the same resolution against each other. Pros of the 343 is of course the Firewire and the service trough Hasselblad (maybe they dropped that also. better check). The 343 also takes care that the light-tube is warmed up before scan after falling in sleep mode. With the Precision you have to be aware of this yourself. Cons maybe that it can only scan stripes with 4 35mm-pictures at once. For the Precision you can get a film-holder for 6 35mm-pictures or even more. With the missing AF I never had a real issue. If you have a Noblex 150 I'm affraid you have to cut the film in 6 seperate stripes since the film-holders are shorter as for the Precision. For the Precision it might be possible to get a special customized holder up to 250 mm length. Quite expensive (ca. 280 euros), but so you can scan 2-picture stripes in one rush. Workes at least for 646, 848 and later scanners. Think it should also work with the Precision, but you better ask a dealer for this before if this is important. With the standard 120er film holder (ca. 180 euros) you have to rotate it once. This film-holder is not part of the base package, so you have to check if it's included. I still have access to the 343 so I could do a test if you are interested. Just send me a PM. If you can not be sure to have a reliable running computer with SCSI I would tend to the 343. Frank 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotomas Posted March 10, 2015 Share #20 Posted March 10, 2015 Hello again, now I found some specs for the Minolta scanner I used in the past. Digital Film Scanners - Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Film Scanner Review, Information, and Specifications As I remember the results was very poor and I never missed it after I had access to the Imacons. But the specs are also much worse then one from the Minolta 5400. So your Minolta might performe way better. Guess the Imacon will be better, but not so much. Mostly high density areas will have a better definition. Regards Frank Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.