Imacon scanners. Anyone have one?

[kevin m]

I'm curious about Imacon film scanners and I'd like to know if anyone here owns one or has used one extensively. I wonder if they offer a sort of "night and day" difference in image quality when compared to something like the Minolta 5400 or Nikon 5000, and if they offer a similar difference in working speed or functionality. Thanks! 🙂

 

[rogue_designer]

I used one extensively for two years (Model 848)

It's not night and day. It's an incremental improvement. It is sharper... but is it $10,000 sharper, probably not. The biggest was the increase in dmax characteristics, which is nice for slide film. Also they are extremely consistent, and manual focus overrides on some models are nice for tricky or wrinkled/damaged negs.

Very slightly slower than the Nikon 5000/9000.

But the option to do 4x5 at the same resolutions is fantastic.

The included software is very very good as well.

Personally - if I shot only 35mm, they would hold very little interest for me. But since I shoot everything up to 4x5, they are high on my wishlist for personal ownership. Tho given the price of them even used, I'm probably going to get a 9000 and a better flatbed for the large format work.

 

[visiondr]

I have the same questions. But, the enormous price of these machines has kept me from bothering to ask.

As an aside - for this observer, it's a bit like asking how well a Ferrari will perform; I can't imagine ever being able to afford one, so why bother. Then again, isn't that why we have specialist automobile magazines?

 

[visiondr]

But the option to do 4x5 at the same resolutions is fantastic.

Those files must fill up huge chunks of hard drive space! Imagine the processing power you'd require to perform some more complex P'shop manipulations.

 

[rogue_designer]

1.5gb tiff files are the order of the day. 🙂

 

[kevin m]

It's not night and day. It's an incremental improvement. It is sharper... but is it $10,000 sharper, probably not.

Thanks. I was wondering if it was similar to, say, the difference between MF and 35mm. My wallet is probably glad to hear it's not. 😀

Personally - if I shot only 35mm, they would hold very little interest for me. But since I shoot everything up to 4x5, they are high on my wishlist for personal ownership.

That makes sense, thanks. 🙂

 

[visiondr]

1.5gb tiff files are the order of the day. 🙂

I guess you only scan the keepers then?! 😱 😀

 

[rogue_designer]

I guess you only scan the keepers then?! 😱 😀

Yeah. It's actually rare that I needed one at that size. I usually scanned ones intended for final prints at 2000 dpi (big enough for very good 20x24 prints). But some advertising clients wanted them bigger for their archives. And when I was at the magazine, they sometimes wanted something that large before they started heavy duty retouching.

Beats me.

But they were glorious files.

The ferrari comparison is very apt. A porsche (the Nikon 9000) is pricey, and will get you *most* of the performance, but you have to shell out alot more for that little bit more performance. It all depends on if that is really what you need. Or want.

 

[jplomley]

Don't waste your time on Imacons. They're way overpriced for their level of performance. Either a Creo iQ3 or Cezanne Elite will blow the Imacon out of the water in both Dmax and resolution, especially for 4x5. Best you can do on the Imacon for 4x5 is 2,040 spi, whereas either of the Creo or Cezanne will furnish a true 5,400 spi resolution at a Dmax of around 4.8 If you want the ultimate, try a Tango drum scanner. Now you're squeaking every last bit of information out of that film!

 

[visiondr]

Question:

With these high end, high resolution scanners, are you able to avoid some (though, of course, not all) of the problems with grain aliasing inherent in scanning at lower resolutions?

 

[rogue_designer]

Best you can do on the Imacon for 4x5 is 2,040 spi, whereas either of the Creo or Cezanne will furnish a true 5,400 spi resolution at a Dmax of around 4.8

That's interesting. We were getting options and numbers higher than that. Is it interpolating above 2,040?

 

[jplomley]

Must have been interpolating, because the native resolution, even on the new X5, is 2040 for 4x5 film. Resolution increases as you move down in format (~ 3200 for 120 and up to 8,000 for 35mm)

 

[rogue_designer]

Good to know. We had two stations with the 848s and the image lab had specific requirements we provided to our clients regardless of appropriateness, or apparently the hardware constraints of what we were using.

Still - bloody good scanners. If pricey.

 

[M like Leica M6]

Don't waste your time on Imacons. They're way overpriced for their level of performance. Either a Creo iQ3 or Cezanne Elite will blow the Imacon out of the water in both Dmax and resolution, especially for 4x5. Best you can do on the Imacon for 4x5 is 2,040 spi, whereas either of the Creo or Cezanne will furnish a true 5,400 spi resolution at a Dmax of around 4.8 If you want the ultimate, try a Tango drum scanner. Now you're squeaking every last bit of information out of that film!

But there is one big difference: with an Imacon you never to fiddle with tape and oil...and, after scanning, removal of tape and oil. Do the Creo iQ3 and Cezanne Elite work without that stuff? Then, give me the phone number if they are so much better. What do they cost? I paid 6,000 Euros for my used 646.

I have an Imacon 646, and it DOES make a night-and-day difference compared to Coolscans (used one) and the old KonicaMinoltas (owned one). The difference is incredible when you scan black-and-white negatives because of the much higher REAL Dmax the Imacon reads. If you understand how to use the Imacon software you never want a different scanner again, well maybe a Hasselblad X2...

My Hasselblad dealer sent me a special offer today: X2 for just 12,000 Euros, plus 19% VAT, instead of 18,500 :bang:

 

[jplomley]

With either the Creo or Cezanne, you can scan either dry or oil mounted. IMHO, there is no need to oil mount on either of these scanners unless grain is an issue, at which point if you r are going to the hassle of oil mounting, you may as well perform a drum scan.

As to cost, the Creo iQ3 runs $20,000 and the Cezanne around $35,000. USD of course. Cezanne's are available through Screen USA, and Creo's are now distributed by Kodak.

 

[M like Leica M6]

With either the Creo or Cezanne, you can scan either dry or oil mounted. IMHO, there is no need to oil mount on either of these scanners unless grain is an issue, at which point if you r are going to the hassle of oil mounting, you may as well perform a drum scan.

As to cost, the Creo iQ3 runs $20,000 and the Cezanne around $35,000. USD of course. Cezanne's are available through Screen USA, and Creo's are now distributed by Kodak.

Here in Europe I could get a new Hasselblad X1 (which is an Imacon 646) for $11,000. Can a Creo at almost twice the price be SO much better or more productive? How many scans, let's say 35mm, 6x6, 4x5" can you do with that machine per hour?

 

[v3cron]

My LS9000 died a couple of months back, so i've been renting time on an Imacon 848 and 949. The speed is night and day - the 949 cranked out 18 scans in one hour at 5000dpi. The Nikon would do 2-3 in an hour at 4000dpi (since it needs multisampling and the Imacon does not). I've decided not to repair the Nikon, but keep renting the Imacon. It's just that much more efficient. The flatness is better on the Imacon, without resorting to glass on glass (the Nikon requires glass even for 35mm, if corner sharpness is necessary). The Imacon appears to have less noise in general, but I haven't done a rigorous test.

 

[jplomley]

Can a Creo at almost twice the price be SO much better or more productive? How many scans, let's say 35mm, 6x6, 4x5" can you do with that machine per hour?

These are pre-press scanners designed for productivity using software much more advanced than Flextight. The Dmax on these scanners blows the Imacon out of the water, as in, not even the same ball park. Resolution is a native 5,400 spi for all formats, up to 8,000 ppi with XY stitching. The focussing mechanism as well is much more accurate meaning you don't need to introduce as many artifacts in post due to corrective sharpening. Almost on par with a drum scanner which requires at most a radius of 0.2 if the optimal scan aperture is used.

Concerning productivity, since these are large flatbeds, you can load an entire tray and just let it chug along. IIRC, you can do ~120 35mm's in about an hour. Is that productive enough for you. Oh, and with OxyGen software you can scan once and re-purpose using some pretty sophisticated algorithms for down-sampling that are artifact free. So once the scanning is completed you can batch process for purpose (e.g. web, print, etc etc). You may want to visit the HybridPhoto forum to learn more about scanners.

http://www.hybridphoto.com/forums/home.php

http://www.hybridphoto.com/forums/home.php

 

[kevin m]

...blows the Imacon out of the water, as in, not even the same ball park.

Language like this doesn't really mean anything. Mixing baseball and naval warfare metaphors doesn't help, either. 😛 Got any specs, or, better, some examples?

 

[jplomley]

Mixing baseball and naval warfare metaphors doesn't help, either

😀😀

Specs are at the manufacturers website.

I'll dig through my 4x5 scans when I get a chance. I know I have at least one or two files where I scanned the same tranny on the iQ3 and the 949 for a comparison scan that was going to be submitted as an article in View Camera magazine, but never materialized due to the passing away of the contributing editor. It clearly demonstrates the differences in Dmax and focussing accuracy of the two scanners.