pass around scanner test : 1 neg, many scanners

Imacon 646 35mm crops. 3500dpi. Am missing the Velvia crop as I destroyed the file accidentally. Will not be able to rescan until next week unfortunately.

*EDIT* Velvia crop added.
 

Attachments

  • 160-crop-135.jpg
    160-crop-135.jpg
    120.9 KB · Views: 0
  • Neopan-crop-135.jpg
    Neopan-crop-135.jpg
    109.7 KB · Views: 0
  • Velvia-crop-135.jpg
    Velvia-crop-135.jpg
    116 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
well, I'll wait till you get that E6 before putting your pics on the site.

Those scans look very different from the others on the comparison so far. It IS the first Imacon, so I suppose that is fitting.
 
Imacon 646 35mm Full Frame. 3500 dpi
 

Attachments

  • 160-Full-135.jpg
    160-Full-135.jpg
    356.7 KB · Views: 0
  • Neopan-full-135.jpg
    Neopan-full-135.jpg
    303.2 KB · Views: 0
  • Velvia-Full-135.jpg
    Velvia-Full-135.jpg
    370.5 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
Imacon 646 MF Crops. 3500 dpi.
 

Attachments

  • 160-crop-645.jpg
    160-crop-645.jpg
    131.8 KB · Views: 0
  • Neopan-crop-645.jpg
    Neopan-crop-645.jpg
    88.3 KB · Views: 0
  • Velvia-crop-645.jpg
    Velvia-crop-645.jpg
    116.9 KB · Views: 0
Imacon 646 MF Full Frame. 3500dpi
 

Attachments

  • 160-Full-645.jpg
    160-Full-645.jpg
    365.6 KB · Views: 0
  • Neopan-Full-645.jpg
    Neopan-Full-645.jpg
    254.7 KB · Views: 0
  • Velvia-Full-645.jpg
    Velvia-Full-645.jpg
    342.2 KB · Views: 0
shutterflower said:
well, I'll wait till you get that E6 before putting your pics on the site.

Those scans look very different from the others on the comparison so far. It IS the first Imacon, so I suppose that is fitting.

Managed to locate a backup of the 35mm Velvia scan. Just uploaded the missing 35mm crop. It's on the original post.

Different? How so?

Now... back to some real work. It was quite fun giving the new scanner a workout.
 
Are we sure all the sampleas are without any kind of correction, even by the scan software?
Most of them seem quite well colour corrected to me.
 
I did color correct mine, manually though. The rest of the corrections were limited to tweaking the levels a tad to brighten the scene a little. No sharpening was applied.

As I thought the purpose of this comparison was to see how well different scanners reproduce details, I didn't think a bit of color correction would hurt.
 
Last edited:
For the Nikon V ED, I only colour corrected the C41 scan - the rest are as they were. No extra options (such as sharpening, grain reduction, DICE &c.) were applied.
 
fgianni said:
Are we sure all the sampleas are without any kind of correction, even by the scan software?
Most of them seem quite well colour corrected to me.

I am sure most posters corrected the colors in their scans - the C41 looks corrected pretty much invariably.

That is fine. What people want to get from this test isn't necessarily the default, blind scan from the machine, but rather what THEY would get from it if doing a quick scan on a frame. So, color correcting is something that any user can do automatically. It's not an intense image correction process, so I think it is OK to apply it.

This isn't an engineering style test. This is a user test. Just a test to show how the scanners will compare in the hands of real humans. Some people left their scans 100% intouched. I did. That's fine, we all know what we're looking at.

Also, the images are not all 100% sharp, so you kind of have to consider all the images from one scanner against those of another, not just 1 on 1, or you might perceive the Epson as being sharper than the Howtek. Or not.. . but you get the point.
 
Last edited:
well, that's even better. Untouched is best. Corrected is fine. Sharpened and/or curved is BAD.

Looks like we have a good pile here, though.

I am just about to put the Imacon scans on the website. They will be right at the bottom, below the Howtek.
 
funny. As I read the first few words of your post about the cookies. . . I felt a tinge of nausea. No idea why. Maybe because I just ate an entire pint of Ben & Jerry's Dublin Mudslide.

The site now has the Imacon on there. Bottom of the list.
 
Thanks George. The Fuji 5000 stacks up pretty well against the Imacon overall, imo.

If anyone wants my negs to test their own scanner, drop me an email. $6 via paypal to cover the costs of the negs, shipping and packaging should do it.
 
Terence T said:
Thanks George. The Fuji 5000 stacks up pretty well against the Imacon overall, imo.

If anyone wants my negs to test their own scanner, drop me an email. $6 via paypal to cover the costs of the negs, shipping and packaging should do it.

I know about that Fuji Finescan! Really impressive scanner. OF course, it probably demands a similar price to the dedicated MF film scanners. I don't know, though.



Thanks everyone for taking part. I pretty much broke even on my costs of film, developing and shipping and gas. This is a pretty decent scanner comparison. I wouldn't call it a test. More of a comparison since we aren't really testing the capabilities of the scanners.

ANd if anyone cares, the B&W was developed in D76 (standard developer at the IVey Imaging in Seattle, WA). They did all the development. I wasn't about to risk it myself.
 
Back
Top Bottom