2 images scaned with Imacon 949 and Minolta Dual Scan IV

[Beniliam]

Two images scaned with the last Imacon Drum Scan the 949 and my scaner the Minolta Dual Scan IV.

The resolutions are optimized for one copy 20 x 25 cm.

 

[Beniliam]

Minolta (left) - Imacon (Right)

 

[Beniliam]

Minolta (left) - Imacon (right)

 

[Beniliam]

Minolta (left) - Imacon (right)

 

[Beniliam]

Minolta (left) - Imacon (right)

 

[dmr]

Thank you! This is the kind of stuff that is really helpful! 🙂

 

[dmr]

Minolta (left) - Imacon (right)

Hmmmm ... on this last one it almost seems like the KM is pulling in more information from the negative.

 

[RayPA]

While the Minolta is not too shabby at all, the Imacon results are very nice, much more shadow detail. You don't even need to click on the images of the woman and the child to see the differences. Thanks, David!

🙂

 

[aad]

How much does the Imacon cost?

 

[Beniliam]

http://www.jvhtech.com/imacon949.php

http://www.adorama.com/IMAF949.html

 

[aad]

Yikes! That puts some perspective on the whole thing...

 

[Beniliam]

Crops of the comb.

Minolta (left) - Imacon (Right)


Here you can see some differences...

I must remember that the density levels of the Imacon are 4.9 and the KM Dual Scan are 3.2. The Imacon has 8000 DPI (3 ccd´s without interpolation...) and the KM DS IV 3200...

 

[Terence T]

Yikes! That puts some perspective on the whole thing...

They go for some 60-70% of the original price on the used market for a relatively recent copy (3-5 yrs). The "lower" end models like the 343 and 646 are capable of putting out similar results for a much "lower" price. We're still talking about $3500 for a 343 and $5000 for a 646.

 

[jlw]

May I ask what was the original film from which the scans were made?

 

[Beniliam]

The first photo (boy with key) is Tri X at 400 Iso. The second too is Tri X at 400 Iso. The developer was Xtol 1:1. The lens used in both photos was Konica Hexanon 50 mm.

 

[amateriat]

Since I have a contact at B&H, I've toyed with the idea of putting my Minolta 5400 (I) up against an Imacon 949/848. I've no illusions of my scanner trumping an Imacon, but given the results shown here (and with a Minolta Dual IV: The Punk Meets the Godfather!), I'm evern more curious.

But, as I've said before, that little Minolta offers serious bang for the buck, while those Imacons offer serious quality, but also serious sticker shock.


- Barrett

 

[amateriat]

BTW, I believe the third set are identical scans from one or the other scanner; you might want to check that.


- Barrett

 

[sf]

honestly, I see almost no benefit in the image quality offered by the Imacon in any way but DMAX. 3.2 is very minimal. If you scan that neg with a 5400, or something with 4.8 DMAX, you'd come so close to the Imacon that we'd never tell the difference on our screens.

Imacons are worth the money if speed and longevity are your main concerns - and they have probably on-site, very effective customer service, considering the pricetags on their products.

 

[Beniliam]

Barrett. Thanks for your advice. I see the photos. Again I upload other crops... but its difficult see the differeces in these little details. Maybe... the Imacon is designed for shine in big copies, but they dont have ´much´ more quality than the KM DSIV at these size. Have better detail in shadows, more sharp...
I do only 35 mm. I dont know if in the future can buy one scanner with more DPI... one Nikon ... but this little Minolta have plenty possibilitties... The new Epson seems that dont have really good results almost in 35 mm ( my interest)... So...

 

[Terence T]

One big advantage the Imacons have over most other scanners is the ability to accept negs and transparencies of all shapes and sizes. That is the main reason why I acquired mine, there simply wasn't any other viable alternative which could handle the 6x17 and 6x24 stuff which I shoot. Granted some flatbeds might be able to handle the larger stuff but it does come at a compromise to scan quality. I had an Epson 4990 for a while but found the quality wanting and its negative holders cumbersome to use. In contrast, the magnetic holders for the Imacon are so easy operate.