Imacon Question

[menos I M6]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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

 

CAREFUL!

 

Frank, you are pointing to the much older Minolta medium format scanner "Minolta Scan Multi"

 

I was referring to the latest model (on par with Nikon 9000) "Minolta Multi Scan Pro".

 

These are entirely different scanners (basically the model you where using was an older generation 12 bit scanner while the later model is Konica Minolta's flagship 16bit scanner to compete with the Nikon 9000 model).

 

Here is a review of the Minolta Multi Pro:

Digital Film Scanners - Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro Scanner Review, Information, and Specifications

 

Conclusion

The previous Dimage Scan Multi model offered the capability to scan a variety of film formats, but suffered from reduced resolution when scanning medium-format film. The new Dimage Scan Multi Pro totally eliminates that limitation, and in fact sports the highest resolution we've yet seen on a desktop scanner, at least on 35mm film. (On medium format, it's still no slouch, at 3200 dpi, but isn't quite up to the 4000 dpi of some models.) At the same time, Minolta has greatly improved the electronics and made incremental enhancements to the scanning software. The net result is an exceptionally powerful scanner that is capable, fast, and easy to use. Image quality is first rate in every respect: This is a scanner that takes a back seat to no one in image quality, and is also one of the faster units we've tested, at least when running from inside Photoshop on the Mac platform. We also liked the speed and fluidity of the user interface, but that's a very subjective issue - Other people may not like it as much as we did. All in all though, the Dimage Scan Multi Pro seems like an excellent choice for professionals and serious amateurs working with medium-format film, looking to bring their scanning in-house. Kudos to Minolta on this one!

 

I believe there is also somewhere a scanner review where both the Nikon 9000 and the Multi Pro have been compared but I cannot find it (I remember also EPSON's then new EPSON 700 was involved in that test).

 

 

Thanks a lot for the info on the Imacons - much appreciated.

I recently have read in one of the threads that there is a Chinese based eBay seller who will made custom made film holders for Imacon scanners (I think it was mentioned by a seller of a second hand Imacon, who used some of these successfully).

This might be worth to investigate regarding making longer holders for film strips or special formats.

[Doc Henry]

 

I believe there is also somewhere a scanner review where both the Nikon 9000 and the Multi Pro have been compared but I cannot find it (I remember also EPSON's then new EPSON 700 was involved in that test).

 

Dirk you have the reply here :

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/2900703-post18.html

Best

Henry

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[fotomas]

CAREFUL!

 

Frank, you are pointing to the much older Minolta medium format scanner "Minolta Scan Multi"

 

I was referring to the latest model (on par with Nikon 9000) "Minolta Multi Scan Pro".

 

These are entirely different scanners (basically the model you where using was an older generation 12 bit scanner while the later model is Konica Minolta's flagship 16bit scanner to compete with the Nikon 9000 model).

That's all I'm saying or at least what I want to point out. The newer Minolta is probably much better that the one I used. It might be comparable with the Nikon 9000. But I don't have experience with the new one.

Sorry if it could be understood the other way round. I'm not a native speaker.

[250swb]

I did have a Minolta Multi Pro and generally speaking it was an excellent scanner, easily comparable to the Nikon 9000. It needed tweaks to it's hardware to get the most from it, and it didn't like Vuescan which generated yellow banding, but people using the Nikon had foibles to contend with as well.

 

But the one big problem I found with it was that it scanned very precisely a thin layer of grain when we all know film has a depth of grain, so whatever film you used it had none of the look of film. In terms of getting the look of film from scanning the Epson V700 does a better job in MF if not having quite the same resolution, but it's a trade off and I prefer my Epson scans viewed side by side against scans from the Multi Pro.

 

And it is in respect to the look of film that I prefer scans from my Plustek 120. I suspect it not only uses a newer and cooler running light source than the Nikon 9000 and Minolta Multi Pro, so doesn't need to compensate for dimensional changes due to heat, and therefore doesn't need focusing, but I also suspect it has a slightly better DOF because the scans against earlier Multi Pro versions are smoother in tonality and less graphic and granular yet at comparable dpi are also sharper.

 

Steve

[atufte]

Thanks everyone, I ended up with a Imacon Flextight II for the res + AF (I will update it to version III which is software based) and then it will become almost identical to it's younger brothers, except the SCSI part and speed, which really does not bother me...I'm in no rush, but I demand quality...

 

Thanks again

[plasticman]

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.

 

This was a really interesting comparison - I found it most encouraging because it's continually a worry what I might do the day when the Coolscan 9000 stops working. The methodology and interpretation seemed a little biased towards the V850*, but in general it showed that the flatbed was very much an adequate scanner, and held up pretty well even against the Imacon.

 

In any case, given the lack of focusing on the Plustek120** together with other apparently ongoing quality-control issues, I'd certainly take a look at the V850 as a possible future replacement.

 

*Scanning a flattened negative on the Epson, but not using the glass holders for the other scanners (where available) for instance.

 

**I'd have to disagree with Steve here, that the 9000 needs autofocus because it "goes out of focus" or even because it runs warm (it doesn't particularly). In my experience, every film has its own physical curve or inconsistency, and Vuescan even allows the actual point of focus on the negative to be chosen - which is especially useful for 6x6 or larger negatives.

 

PS: I'd love to have an X1 or X5 though - I thought especially the shadow detail in the comparison images was incredible.

[philipus]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks everyone, I ended up with a Imacon Flextight II for the res + AF (I will update it to version III which is software based) and then it will become almost identical to it's younger brothers, except the SCSI part and speed, which really does not bother me...I'm in no rush, but I demand quality...

 

 

 

Thanks again

 

 

Congrats, a great choice I think. Would be very interesting to see some examples of even comparisons with other scans you've made. There's not enough of that online.

[chris_livsey]

This was a really interesting comparison The methodology and interpretation seemed a little biased towards the V850*, but in general it showed that the flatbed was very much an adequate scanner, and held up pretty well even against the Imacon.

 

 

*Scanning a flattened negative on the Epson, but not using the glass holders for the other scanners (where available) for instance.

.

 

I agree with the bias but it was looking primarily at how well the V850 compared with "the rest" so to some extent tweaking was allowed, but it should have been a level playing field. OTOH it is not a level playing field on price!!

 

I don't think anyone, including me, is going to argue that given the time and money the Imacon is unbeatable but the V850 is versatile and does get the job done to a pretty high standard pretty quickly. It depends on your criteria but for me it is at "good enough" spot. I know I can get more but I can outsource for that when necessary.

[250swb]

certainly take a look at the V850 as a possible future replacement.

.

 

 

But that limits you to MF or bigger, because its still as much rubbish with 35mm as the V700 is. As for the Multi Pro and Nikon 9000, what is the first thing that you have to wait for when you want to scan? It's the 'scanner warming up' message, so something 'warm' is happening. You don't get that with the Plustek.

 

Steve

[plasticman]

Steve - it feels like you’re a bit defensive about the Plustek120 because you’ve made the ‘going out of focus’ dig a few times in different threads. Even though there are a lot of things that may not be perfect about the Coolscan, one thing I wouldn’t wish away would be its auto-focus capability. Suggesting that a scanner’s ability to dynamically adapt to irregularities in the loaded film is a shortcoming is really pushing it a bit, in my opinion.

 

I’ve really hoped the Plustek120 would be a great scanner, because it really does seem the natural progression from the Coolscan9000, once Nikon discontinued it. But I can hardly believe the QC issues that still crop up on a regular basis, and especially the way that Plustek have denied some of the best-documented problems.

 

A scanner at this sort of price is a long-term purchase, but reliability doesn’t seem to be Plustek’s highest priority.

 

In any case, if anything happens to the Nikon I’ll probably end-up with the Plustek anyway. But I’ll probably need to pay a premium to buy it from a supplier I can trust will deal with problems in a sympathetic way.

[pop]

... first thing that you have to wait for when you want to scan? It's the 'scanner warming up' message, so something 'warm' is happening. ...

 

As far as I know, that's the fluorescent lamp which has to reach the proper color temperature which takes a little time.

[jip]

I enjoy my Nikon Coolscan 4000 but it only does 135 film.

 

Wrote about it here: Scanning film with Nikon Super Coolscan 4000 - Jip van Kuijk

 

I think the one with the commodore is gonna be fine if you have the room/space to put the set down.

[menos I M6]

…

 

In any case, if anything happens to the Nikon I’ll probably end-up with the Plustek anyway. But I’ll probably need to pay a premium to buy it from a supplier I can trust will deal with problems in a sympathetic way.

 

For me the route was easy to choose a specific scanner to do high quality, fast (or convenient at least) scans for 135 and a second scanner that handles larger film and can be slower or even more demanding in setting up (which is for me currently the latest Minolta Multi Pro but could as easily also be a CS9000).

 

If for me the 120 film scanner breaks irreparably only three options I see currently sufficient:

 

- replace the broken scanner with the same Multi Pro (or get a parts donor and repair)

- buy a EPSON 850 (although I am extremely reluctant to go for any flatbed without AF mechanism with my former EPSON flatbed experience and truly mediocrity in regards of getting fine detail if film flatness is an issue)

- get a new Flextight scanner (likely one of the lower priced models)

 

Never would I buy another Plustek product under any circumstances, ever.

[chris_livsey]

But that limits you to MF or bigger, because its still as much rubbish with 35mm as the V700 is. As for the Multi Pro and Nikon 9000, what is the first thing that you have to wait for when you want to scan? It's the 'scanner warming up' message, so something 'warm' is happening. You don't get that with the Plustek.

 

Steve

 

Neither with the V800/850, the "new" lamp is ready instantly.

The definition of rubbish on 35mm is relative, for proofing use they are more than adequate but I agree for a large print or finished work you would look elsewhere. The 35mm rubbish comment is one we used to hear comparing 120 to 35mm and the answer is the same, different beasts.

Scanning 5x4 is equally rubbish on the Multipro and Nikon 9000 (Lets' not drag the Plustek in)

Edited March 13, 2015 by chris_livsey

[chrism]

Scanning 5x4 is equally rubbish on the Multipro and Nikon 9000 (Lets' not drag the Plustek in)

 

Ha! Good luck fitting that negative in either of them.

 

I'm approaching the point of using the X1 for 35mm and 120 only. My humble Epson 4870 does a remarkably good job on 4x5 negatives. It's not surprising, I guess, that the larger the negative the less you have to worry about the resolution of the scanner. And should I ever go up to 10x8, it will be the only game in town....

 

Chris

[Rolo]

I was happy using a Nikon 8000 with the anti-Newton Ring holder until I got the opportunity to buy an Imacon Flextight 848 six years ago. When I bought it, Hasselblad provided a technician to service it in my home, replacing the belts and switching to the included spare lamp that's housed in the machine, all for a cost of £125 + VAT. The scanner had a scan count of 325 scans. Since then, I've not had the need to have it serviced, in spite of the encouraging messages from the scanner to have its Annual Service.

 

The scanner can easily be stripped down, if necessary. The light source is easy to replace, the Rodenstock lens is easy to clean and the service software will show if there's any dust on the lamp. All very clever stuff, IMO.

 

What many don't appreciate is that the Imacons are 'industrial quality' scanners. They're designed to be used in very heavy duty applications, all day long, every day. Hasselblad told me that The British Library and Magnum offices have many of them and work them hard and get them serviced when needed. I doubt very much that my Nikon scanner would have survived that level of duty for more than a few months, but I'll accept anyone else's experience on this.

 

In spite of the very many entrenched opinions by photographers, or bloggers, that have never used an Imacon, I find the 848 is quite incredible to use. Other scanners do produce excellent scans and at their very best might match the Imacon, but the Imacon produces top quality scans every time. Perfectly flat, high resolution files with adequate DMax. It'll scan 35mm to 8,000 ppi and it's easy to recite that this is unnecessary, but a Velvia transparency scanned to that level is amazing.

 

Because it's a 'production machine' it speed of operation is unmatched. For 120 film, I run two film holders and scan the whole strip as a single image on a single pass in the .FFF format. I struggle to clean and load the second film into its holder before the first scan at circa 250mb has finished.

 

The software is dedicated and again designed for production environments. It's purpose is to scan any film just once, clean up the dust and then use that file to output any variant of the file from the .FFF Master, size, colour or B&W version and retain the repeatable 'sidecar' settings, just like Lightroom users are familiar with.

 

I like my 848. It's the most important piece of film equipment, central to my ongoing film interest.

 

Two recent samples, at 72 ppi.

 

Gary

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited March 20, 2015 by Rolo

[Overgaard]

I still have the Imacon Flextight Photo scanner that runs SCSI on a dedicated computer.

 

I recently saw the upgrade offer from Hasselblad and noticed that the scan speeds haven't improved.

 

The scanning is so slow that you will not sit and look at the scanner and wait for it. I find that a setup with a dedicated computer that deals with the scanner works well, and then you transfer the files to your working computer after for cleaning and finishing.

 

The SCSI setup is quite a headache, but when it is done it works flawlessly. I guess what I'm saying is that if you get a SCSI scanner, then get it with the whole setup and computer.

 

They used to service it at Goecker in Copenhagen (lamps, cleaning, negative holders) but I don't know if they still do. Macon was on the other side of the street and Goecker.dk had a very good technician who knew Imacon scanners in and out.

 

leica.overgaard.dk - Thorsten Overgaard's Leica Sites

[Jager]

What Gary (Rolo) said.

 

I recently bought a new Flextight X1 (selling a bunch of old Nikon gear - which I rarely used anymore - to fund it) and can't say enough about it. Simple, straightforward workflow. No more fiddling with film holders trying to get the film flat. Consistent, exceptional scans.

 

Scanning is never going to be the easy path that direct-digital imaging is, but for those of us who remain committed to film, and have a need to digitize our results, it doesn't get much better than Hasselbald/Imacon.

 

My Nikon Coolscan 9000 is a truly excellent scanner, but neither its workflow nor its results compare with what can be achieved with the X1. One of the best photographic investments I've ever made...

[Rolo]

I timed a scan during my last scanning session. A single pass on 3x 120 film strip, from clicking on the scan icon, to the film being ejected and coming to rest took precisely 3 minutes ! It produced a 220 mb FFF file. During that 3 minutes I prepared the next strip for scanning. Full 12 exposure roll scanned within 15 minutes.

 

I scan 35mm strips in a similar way and in a similar time. 36 frames scanned in less than 20 minutes. You might understand how it takes the pain out of scanning.

 

The .FFF file opens directly into Photoshop for dust and scratch removal and can be returned to Flexcolor as a FFF file, or can be processed in Photoshop to completion and saved in your favourite format.

 

Gary

Edited March 31, 2015 by Rolo

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Steve Ash]

envy [emoji1]