From: Eric Neilsen (e.neilsen@worldnet.att.net)
Date: 11/12/02-07:16:06 AM Z
Yes Joe, I am glad that I'm not the one that spent the money on the
Flextight II at the studio. And if you don't like slicing up your 120,
consider that 35mm really takes a beating. But in a world where good
tech support is getting harder to find, they do have that going for
them.
Eric Neilsen Photography
4101 Commerce Street
Suite 9
Dallas, TX 75226
http://e.neilsen.home.att.net
http://ericneilsenphotgraphy.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Joe [mailto:jtait@texas.net]
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 12:19 AM
To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
Subject: Re: Other Scanners, MF--Imacon. . . ?
>
>
>Farber seems big on the Imacon series, and there appear to be quite a
few
>available out there in the refurb market. The Flextight Photo model
looks
>particularly promising in cost-to-production terms (20 Mb/minute, 3200
dpi,
>4.2 Dmax).
>
The flextight photo, I believe, only does up to two frames at a time.
This is lame as hell for a scanner so overpriced. I, for one, don't
wan't to take the inumerable number of three frame sections of 120 film
I have in sleeves, and be left with one solitary frame. That is one
downside. A scanner in that price range should have dICE. Software-based
dust removal will never substitute for hardware, this is another
downside.
A lot of people complain about the software. I have never used it and
imagine that it is probably as bad as most manuf. software. With the
other scanners, at least you can use 3rd party software, not so with the
Imacon.
3200 vs. 4000dpi for thousands less, hummm.....
Admittedly both scanners don't meet either stated resolution, but I have
seen Imacon Precision I & II scans, from individual owners and service
bureau scans, and when compared to a Minolta Multi-Pro, a good 8000ed
unit, or a Polaroid 120, the difference in terms of resolution, color,
tonal gradation, is nil. In fact, I prefer the Polaroid. You might get a
little better shadow detail (slide film) and things might be a little
sharper on a _Precision II_, but aside from that you are buying a name.
In real terms, you are talking about spending thousands of extra dollars
for a nominal increase in sharpness (via their curved film plane
scanning technology). Judicious use of USM in photoshop will recover the
softening in any of the competitors scanners, effectively reducing the
advantage anyways....
A CCD scanner is a CCD scanner, with all its inherent problems & if you
are willing to spend that much for a scanner, get a low-end of refurb
drum. Imacon's new 848 might make some headway by active cooling and
newer CCD's, better A/D converters etc., but then you are in the 13k+
range, and a PMT drum looks more attractive still.
Imacon makes good products but they are way overpriced. Go for the lower
"prosumer" CCDs, they are well within the capabilities of a Flex Photo
or refurb Precision.
-Joe
>
>Any comments, advise, or experiences (er, with Imacon, I mean) would be
>appreciated.
>
>Best regards!
>
>John
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 12/17/02-04:47:05 PM Z CST