epson V700 vs Imacon Flextight Precision II

[artyvisual]

Owning both scanners, I thought I would made a comparisation. Film is ilford delta 400.
Have a look at the results: no sharpening, no lightning correction. The one on the the right is the imacon.
Epson, film scanned on 4800 dpi
Imacon on 3200 (maximum)

Film grain is visable on the imacon, the espon seems a bit blurry.

 

[gmikol]

"scanned at 4800"...

So this was film that was placed flat on the scanner glass? That's where the 4800 DPI lens focuses.

Overall, this is not surprising. It's well-documented that the Epson has about 2400 DPI of real resolution.

Thanks for the comparison.

--Greg

 

[glhs116]

I am intrigued how close they are but the Imacon looks more natural even from a distance.

Sam

 

[federico9001]

Both are too bad scanners

 

[Les Sarile]

Is the film 35mm?

 

[artyvisual]

Is the film 35mm?

no, 120.

Both are too bad scanners

I love working with the Imacon, although it is an older scanner, I believe the detail in shadows can't be beaten.

So this was film that was placed flat on the scanner glass?

No, in the original holder. I never read before that the focus point was on the glass.


___

I will do some more testing with a fuji velvia 50 4x5 later, so there won't be any grain (The film above has more than usual grain after development but I thought I would made a good test)

 

[federico9001]

The Precision II is known to produce very grainy scans. The later Imacon-Hasselblad are much much better in that.

 

[artyvisual]

Ah, that's good to know. I will pay attention to it. So far it did't occured to me. I always read positive reviews about this scanner, so when I could pick it up in return for a bottle of whiskey I was in heaven.

 

[federico9001]

Have you ever scanner color negs with it?

 

[artyvisual]

no. Quit a few color positives (fuji velvia 50), where I was happy with. I can't remember any visable grain, but I will have a look at some of them later

 

[federico9001]

For slides it's an acceptable scanner, I agree. For color negatives is a disaster.

 

[rknewcomb]

For slides it's an acceptable scanner, I agree. For color negatives is a disaster.

Which scanner are you referring to here? And, what about B&W negatives?

Robert N.

 

[rknewcomb]

Hi,
Robert N. here and I'm a newbie on this forum.
Here's the deal. I shoot color DSLR for work but I really love using some of my old film cameras for my personal work. I can see the advantage of digitally produced enlarge B&W negatives for making alternative prints. I also like the old look of film and think that digital files from a DSLR are too perfect sharp etc - I'm not a sharpness freak.
So, I'm trying to decide if I should try scanning B&W medium format film or rely on the qualities of the Alt process print to transform the hard too sharp look of the straight digital file from the DSLR.
I don't really want to go buy a scanner without some input from you good folks who may be willing to help me in this question.
Probably 16 inch or so gum, platinum etc prints is the goal.
Thank you!
Robert N.

 

[Halka]

16 inches on the long edge seems to be quite a lot if you are planning to use a flatbed scanner (which I assume you are planning to acquire since anything better costs an arm and a leg). Which format are you using?

Please note, I'm not using a scanner yet and joined this site specifically to learn about the limitations of 'budget' scanners for film scanning, and as such have no experience in the area; but the above seems to be the prevailing opinion.

There is also the possibility to 'scan' your film using a DSLR with a macro lens (which could be cheaper if you own both already), but I haven't found anything conclusive to prove which is, well, better.

 

[rknewcomb]

For B&W film I shoot 6x6 medium format. I have often made 16 inch sq silver prints in the darkroom so I'd like to do that in an alt process like Gum or platinum.
As I said, I'm not into sharp hard prints. But, the flatbed scanners may not be up to the task. I don't either. The very good but older film scanners seem to get into issues with the newer computer operating systems and software/hardware issues so don't know about that route.

My issues with using a straight digital path to larger printed negatives for alt processes is I'm afraid they would be too sharp. Plus, I like my older wooden camera and old lenses.

 

[glhs116]

Two good solutions exist for the problem of running a proper film scanner. You can wait until next month and see if the new Plustek OpticFilm 120 lives up to its hype. Otherwise, you can get an old film scanner and run it with an old computer dedicated to that use. Old computers are cheap.

If you want to see some "real world" examples of colour film scanned by several different scanners I have a collection on Flickr that organizes a bunch of my photos by scanner. Amongst them are a Coolscan 9000, some cheap flatbeds and a Howtek 4500 drum scanner.

Collection: By Scanner

Sam

 

[artobest]

For B&W film I shoot 6x6 medium format. I have often made 16 inch sq silver prints in the darkroom so I'd like to do that in an alt process like Gum or platinum.
As I said, I'm not into sharp hard prints. But, the flatbed scanners may not be up to the task. I don't either.

Hi Robert

The Epson V700/750 is fine for scanning 6x6, especially with a film holder from BetterScanning.com. In fact, stats and figures aside, I think the Epsons give a very pleasant rendering of medium format film. Yes, it is a slightly softer rendering than the likes of the Nikons, but it also lacks the aggressive grain you often get in film scans, as evidenced in the Flextight example shown here. The scans themselves sharpen up nicely, especially using Photokit Sharpener or another edge-masked sharpening technique. Just be alert to colour fringing - with black and white, I would scan as colour positive, invert and isolate the green channel using PS's channel mixer. Used this way, the Epson is really quite a competent greyscale scanner.

 

[rknewcomb]

Thank you for all the good information - I appreciate the help.
Robert N.