Aztec Premier vs Imocan Flextight

[Bob Carnie]

I have just completed a set of basic test to compare colour negative scans of three images, 2- 6x9 images and one Noblex panoramic.
the prints were printed on my Lambda on Fuji Crystal Archive at 400ppi.

two basic sizes.. 16x20 and 30x40 inches for the 6x9's
12x29 and 29x 68 inches for the panoramics

Lenny Eiger did the Aztec scans to my specs with no sharpening and one of my operators did the Imocan scans to my specs with no sharpening.

At mid level size prints the difference was hard to detect and would be impossible to see on screen.
At full magnification, Lennys scan won out every time for sharpness and shadow detail.
I will hope to have Ted Harris repeat this test on his gear and if anyone here has a Tango I would love to send the negs to be scanned on this device as well.

 

[sanking]

I have just completed a set of basic test to compare colour negative scans of three images, 2- 6x9 images and one Noblex panoramic.
the prints were printed on my Lambda on Fuji Crystal Archive at 400ppi.

two basic sizes.. 16x20 and 30x40 inches for the 6x9's
12x29 and 29x 68 inches for the panoramics

Lenny Eiger did the Aztec scans to my specs with no sharpening and one of my operators did the Imocan scans to my specs with no sharpening.

At mid level size prints the difference was hard to detect and would be impossible to see on screen.
At full magnification, Lennys scan won out every time for sharpness and shadow detail.
I will hope to have Ted Harris repeat this test on his gear and if anyone here has a Tango I would love to send the negs to be scanned on this device as well.

Bob,

Can you tell us the resolution in ppi at which the Imacon and Premier scans were made, and how grain compares from the two scans on the larger print sizes?


Sandy King

 

[Greg_E]

Also really which Imacon Flextight was used, they make a few different models.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Sandy
For both scans I requested maximum resolution for negative size with knowledge that they were to be printed at 30 inches at the short side at 400ppi resolution.
Upon looking at the grain on all the images it is very clear to me that the grain is more defined on Lennys Scans .
The Imocon is not bad and quite acceptable at even this size but when looking side by side the Aztec clearly has a more defined grain structure.

Greg
We use the Imocan Precision 11 Flextight.

 

[sanking]

Sandy
For both scans I requested maximum resolution for negative size with
We use the Imocan Precision 11 Flextight.

Bob,

It is pretty clear why the print from the Premier scan is superior.

At the print size of 30” X 40” at 400 dpi you would need a file size of 12,000 pixels (short side) X 16000 pixels (long side), or about 1.9 gig.

The Flextight Precision II is capable of a maximum of 3200 ppi optical for 120 film size. For a 6X9 negative (which is actually 86 X 56 mm) you would get a maximum file size in RGB of 437 mb, well below your requirements for a 30X40 print at 400 dpi. To get the file size needed you would have to interpolate, which is not best practice. Without interpolation the maximum print size you should be able to get from the Precision II at print size of 400 spi is about 18X27", which requires a file size of 440 mb.

I am presuming that Lenny used the full resolution of the Premier for your scans, which is 8000 spi. According to my figures that would have resulted in a file size of 2.7 gig for a scan of a 56mm X 86mm film. This is quite a bit more than the 1.9 gig you need for the print, and thus requires no interpolation.

Based only on file size for the resolution and print size that you require the Premier would appear to be the only scanner in the world capable of the resolution needed. However, there is also the question of the resolution of the camera system. No medium format camera I know, other than Mamiya 7, is capable of resolution on film of more than 80 lp/mm, and even the Mamiya 7 will rarely go over 100 lp/mm. That means that the maximum resolution you should be able to take advantage of in the scan is about 5100 spi, which is below the capability of the IQSmart3.

I look forward to your comments about the prints made from the IQSmart3 scans.

Sandy

 

[Greg_E]

If my nikon 8000 ever shows up, I might be able to add a couple more data points to your test.

 

[Ike]

scanner comparison

Don't know if you guys are familar with this comparison. I took place in it a couple of years ago with my Flextight Precision II and Microtek 1100, we all scanned the same targets. Bunch of scanners recently added.

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/scanner-comparison.html

Ike

 

[toyotadesigner]

would be interesting to see a Nikon Coolscan LS 9000 in comparison to the Aztek and Imacon.

 

[Greg_E]

I don't think the Noblex will work in the Nikon scanners unless it is less than 90mm long, or the image is stitched from multiple scans. But the 6x9 should work fine either wet or dry mounted.

 

[Greg_E]

Give me a few weeks to learn how to use my scanner and get my wet mount materials in, and I'll scan the 6x9 frames on my Nikon 8000 if you want another couple of data points. I now have the regular 120 holder, glass 120 holder, glass rotating holder to try. The glass holders have a strange diffusion ground into the light source side of the top glass plate.