From: Phillip Murphy (pmurf@bellsouth.net)
Date: 11/13/02-05:58:48 PM Z
Hello,
I have used the Imacon Flextight Precision II for the past two years on a daily
basis. The number of high resolutions scans (96-320MB files) I've made is in the
thousands. I also have in my lab the most current Nikon 35mm and the Minolta
Dimage Scan Multi Pro for 120mm (they both are collecting dust). Oh, and yes
down the hall is a Polaroid for backup. The images produced from the Flextight
in terms of clarity and tonal range are in an entirely different class than the
slide scanners that you speak of.
Anyone can see the difference immediately. (it's not a little difference) The
Imacon is much closer to what is produced from a drum scan. I intend to
purchase in the next year a model 848 from Imacon. Trust me. It's nearly
indistinguishable from a drum scan.
The money that you're paying is for one of the best engineered and easy to use
scanners on the market. The software is probably the most intuitive and
flexible scanner software that I've used bar none. A great deal of effort went
into the programming and it shows. Oh, and yes, the latest iteration for the
scanning software has Imacon's version of defect removal built in.
In case you're wondering, I have no affiliation whatsoever with this Dutch
company. Their line of scanners isn't for everyone. They are designed
for the photographer who has no room for compromise when it comes to creating
the most faithful and exquisite translation of a negative or transparency.
all the best,
Phillip
Joe wrote:
> >
> >
> >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