Jump to content

Comparison Beoon/Rodagon 2.8 and Epson 850


Avatar

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

ich seh kaum oder keinen Unterschied ?

 

sogar in dieser Bildschirmauflösung sieht man einen deutlichen Unterschied ... erst recht, wenn du hochaufgelöste Daten aus dem Imacon hast.

 

Mir wurde schon vor einiger Zeit ein Imacon Precission II in Aussicht gestellt ... ich hoffe, das wird noch was ... Imacon und Flachbettscanner sind (für mich) zwei verschiedene Welten.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

bsp 1

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

BSP2

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark - for me there is no comparison: I would rather have the output of the second as a "flat scan."  The first looks like someone took the liberty of getting a head start on the dodging and burning.   If the second is not the epson, the neg should be able to scanned more flat to look like the second.  

 

As for the hurculean scanning project that you/your friend is facing, I totally sympathize.  I scanned a stockpile of a mere 824 6x7 color negatives (with a few dozen positives sprinkled in) from my late Father's paparazzi days in NYC in the late 60's.  I used my nikon coolscan 9000 and vuescan and I scanned at full res.  It took me TWO YEARS!!!  I can't imagine how daunting of a task that several thousand scans would be.  Especially Kodachrome, which I understand from others (I have no experience) can be tricky to scan.  

 

Although it wouldn't be my normal workflow, I think that if you get good enough results scanning the film with your digital camera and that BEOON thing it may very make sense to complete the project with it.  If nothing else, you can always rescan the film with the traditional film scanner if you want to make a large print and feel that you can get more out of the film.

 

Just my opinion, which is colored by having had only one single scanning workflow.

 

 

 

I'll preface this post with a bit of background on this comparison I am sharing.

 

To be fair, I am not a pixel peeper by nature, nor do I do comparisons frequently.

 

This example is non scientific and I am sure some of the experts at scanning or the Beoon would know how to do more flat scientific testing.

 

As said I don't have the knowledge or inclination to do much of this in the first place but I know some of you will be interested in the results.

 

I shot a roll today and as the Epson was scanning (3200dpi), I used the Beoon with enlarger lens set at F8. Just as I know the scanner can be set better, possibly different F stops might improve the Beoon's performance.

 

I used an M246 and had good focus on the negative. I set the M246 to base ISO of 320 and used a 2 second timer to reduce shake. Shutter speeds were slow, guessing 1/2 of a second.

 

My scanning skills  are abysmal. I did try adjusting height but still I doubt I have it set 'right'. I unselected unsharp mask and used the supplied Epson software. 

 

I'll have to make two posts due to 500kb size restrictions.

 

I wasn't going to identify which is which but don't think it means a lot.

 

My original thesis was the Beoon was really good, super fast and convenient. I am even more convinced than ever of that! I was able to capture 36 frames in less than 10 seconds per!

 

For me this means, I can use the Beoon to see my images and the ones I really want to print or share, I probably would scan.

 

I will be using the Beoon later this week with an SL on a ton of Kodachrome slides from the 60's-80's. The Beoon is invaluable and I am excited to save time on this project as well. 

 

Oh, pictures taken with an M7 and 28mm Elmarit.

 

 

Here's the other..

 

I will do another better test tomorrow with an image that is less grainy,

 

All the images are shot on Tri-Ex metered 400, developed 800

Link to post
Share on other sites

two examples from the comparison Epson 700 vs Flextight scanners 

 

http://www.cafr.ebay.ca/itm/Imacon-Flextight-646-848-vs-Epson-V700-scanner-TEST-analogue-film-cameras-lenses-/251468816288

one is an example Epson 700 - the other Flextight 646

 

are each of these the finished edited result or intended to illustrate the "flat scan" output of each of the scanners?

Link to post
Share on other sites

One of these days I have to find and post the tests a friend and I did, Epson 850 and Hasselblad X1. Cleary the X1 is better of course but...the tests we did, Tri Ex 35mm were surprising less than we thought.

 

We scanned and printed on an Epson P800 with Cranston Bartaya paper. Differences on screen were not big and differences in print around 11 x 14 were just about impossible to say which one came from which scanner at any sort of distance.

 

This means less about the X1 and more about the Epson 850! 

 

I am extremely satisfied with the Epson 850 and to the original topic of this thread, the Beoon, now lives at a friend's place. Maybe I will use his SL on the Beoon to quickly digitize 1-2k slides but other than that, the Epson 850 bests the Beoon for my needs. Not trashing it as it is a great solution for many reasons for some people, just for me, the issue of using a digital camera in lieu of a scanner is resolved.

Edited by Avatar
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This eBay listing is for a DVD containing 16 raw original TIF filesthat two scanners produced during a scanner test using eight slides. Compare the results of the two scanner technologies yourself, and decide which one looks best to you.

Since this is not an exact science it is you, the artistic photographer, who should judge from the final TIF results. Use my tests to your advantage and decide weather you want to go for Imacon technology or for Epson technology, without having to depend on other opinions and tiny image crops in reviews on the internet. 

You receive 16 TIFF originals via postal mail on a DVD from both scanners namely the EPSON V700 and the IMACON 646 (which performs the same technology as the 848). Eight panoramic slides (made by 6x17 panoramic camera on professional Fuji Velvia50 and Velvia100 slidefilm) resulting in a mix of Seascape, Landscape and Cityscape panoramas taken honestly in the watery flatlands of Holland where I live, scanned with Imacon and again with the Epson. Both set to neutral settings with ICE off and scanned at the scanner's native resolution. The files vary from 55MB (Epson) to 110MB (Imacon) each.

 

Before purchasing any new scanner open my tif files yourself and work with them a little in your own comfort workflow and make a descicion based on the real world outputs that these scanners freshly delivered. Pay close attention to contrast, sharpness, colordepth...

Spoiler alert: when the V700 got some special treatment by a third party plugin the results from the V700 (in my view) blew away the IMACON 646 off the table in some regards. At ten times lower price new, the V700 really deserves some attention to say the least. It performed faster in scanning too at higher color bitrates. Most importantly, the colors are very natural looking. I own both scanners and love them both since one has unique strengths that the other one complerely lacks. Without any manipulation the Imacon appears shaper. Some professionals claim this is due to the automatic shapering that Imacon software secretly applies. In any case you decide which one looks best to your eyes, and your judgement!

Good luck deciding!

 
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting, Gauss. Made me do a search on differences between Epson v700 and 8500 and I am not surprised by your statements on how well results compared to the much more expensive Imacon.

 

Against a brand new X1, we were amazed at how well the 8500 held it's ground. Humbling when you consider the X1 is about $16,000.

Edited by Avatar
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This eBay listing is for a DVD containing 16 raw original TIF filesthat two scanners produced during a scanner test using eight slides. Compare the results of the two scanner technologies yourself, and decide which one looks best to you.

Since this is not an exact science it is you, the artistic photographer, who should judge from the final TIF results. Use my tests to your advantage and decide weather you want to go for Imacon technology or for Epson technology, without having to depend on other opinions and tiny image crops in reviews on the internet. 

You receive 16 TIFF originals via postal mail on a DVD from both scanners namely the EPSON V700 and the IMACON 646 (which performs the same technology as the 848). Eight panoramic slides (made by 6x17 panoramic camera on professional Fuji Velvia50 and Velvia100 slidefilm) resulting in a mix of Seascape, Landscape and Cityscape panoramas taken honestly in the watery flatlands of Holland where I live, scanned with Imacon and again with the Epson. Both set to neutral settings with ICE off and scanned at the scanner's native resolution. The files vary from 55MB (Epson) to 110MB (Imacon) each.

 

Before purchasing any new scanner open my tif files yourself and work with them a little in your own comfort workflow and make a descicion based on the real world outputs that these scanners freshly delivered. Pay close attention to contrast, sharpness, colordepth...

Spoiler alert: when the V700 got some special treatment by a third party plugin the results from the V700 (in my view) blew away the IMACON 646 off the table in some regards. At ten times lower price new, the V700 really deserves some attention to say the least. It performed faster in scanning too at higher color bitrates. Most importantly, the colors are very natural looking. I own both scanners and love them both since one has unique strengths that the other one complerely lacks. Without any manipulation the Imacon appears shaper. Some professionals claim this is due to the automatic shapering that Imacon software secretly applies. In any case you decide which one looks best to your eyes, and your judgement!

Good luck deciding!

 

 

Wow, I really am impressed and grateful for your generous interest in helping others on this.  

 

Having said this, I don't find either scan particularly appealing.  They wouldn't sell me on either scanner.  Just stating my opinion based solely on the examples that you shared.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...