Hasselblad discontinues Flextight scanners

The Hasselblad scanners are not obsoleted by labs using Noris and Frontiers, they're obsoleted by time and camera scanning.

Frontiers and Noris serve a market that wants good quality scans of every frame on a roll of film, which they can use to share on social media and make pretty good prints up to medium sizes. Perfect for 22" printers, but if I had to guess most don't get enlarged that size.

Hasselblad scanners are great for exhibition printing. Their definition of fast is laughable as compared to a Noritsu, but just fine for high end work. If you were a school, institution, Steve McCurry, agency, etc they make sense for your workflow. Luckily the used market has made these more available to home users but still they're a bit spicy from a price perspective.

I've built a scanning set up that uses a copy stand, a good LED panel, and a Pentax K-1 II. Using pixel shift and stitch techniques I am at least matching, and I might say exceeding the quality you can expect from a a Flextight. 848s and 949s are 3200 ppi when scanning 120. With stitching I'm getting about 4000ppi. Pixelshift all but eliminates noise, and the CMOS capture has loads of dynamic range. That being said, it's a ton more work to produce one of these files. You have to move the film around when scanning different quadrants, pixel shift takes time, then there is the stitch itself and various LR/PS corrections. It's pretty labor intensive. If I had a 949 or 848 sitting on my desk next to my camera scanning rig, I'd probably be using the Flextight a lot. But I'm not shelling out the thousands of dollars it would take to acquire one.

It should also be noted that you can buy an IQSmart2 or 3 from an advertiser on Photrio and out-do all of these set ups for less than a Hasselblad.

I have a Creo Eversmart Supreme and a Flextight, I enjoy both units and have no issue with scanning on either for exhibition purpose... I am really pissed about the flextight issue as I was considering another purchase of one which I know of but kind of put off about hassalblad not servicing in future with parts.

NortheastPhotographic said:

The Hasselblad scanners are not obsoleted by labs using Noris and Frontiers, they're obsoleted by time and camera scanning.

Frontiers and Noris serve a market that wants good quality scans of every frame on a roll of film, which they can use to share on social media and make pretty good prints up to medium sizes. Perfect for 22" printers, but if I had to guess most don't get enlarged that size.

Hasselblad scanners are great for exhibition printing. Their definition of fast is laughable as compared to a Noritsu, but just fine for high end work. If you were a school, institution, Steve McCurry, agency, etc they make sense for your workflow. Luckily the used market has made these more available to home users but still they're a bit spicy from a price perspective.

I've built a scanning set up that uses a copy stand, a good LED panel, and a Pentax K-1 II. Using pixel shift and stitch techniques I am at least matching, and I might say exceeding the quality you can expect from a a Flextight. 848s and 949s are 3200 ppi when scanning 120. With stitching I'm getting about 4000ppi. Pixelshift all but eliminates noise, and the CMOS capture has loads of dynamic range. That being said, it's a ton more work to produce one of these files. You have to move the film around when scanning different quadrants, pixel shift takes time, then there is the stitch itself and various LR/PS corrections. It's pretty labor intensive. If I had a 949 or 848 sitting on my desk next to my camera scanning rig, I'd probably be using the Flextight a lot. But I'm not shelling out the thousands of dollars it would take to acquire one.

It should also be noted that you can buy an IQSmart2 or 3 from an advertiser on Photrio and out-do all of these set ups for less than a Hasselblad.

Click to expand...

iQSmarts generally involve dealing with an ageing Apple G4 or G5 & you can quite easily get a 6300ppi scan of 120 out of an Imacon/ Hasselblad just about as fast as it takes to run the three scans & stitch them. On a 949 or X5, that's well under 10 minutes total. 2.5gb files off 6x7, if you need 48x60" at 300ppi.

That said, as you point out, pixel shift has drastic advantages in noise, newer sensors etc. It's also exactly how the Frontier operates & not a million miles off what Heidelberg etc seem to do in their drum scanners - a 10 micron aperture (2540ppi) and multiple averaged samples (11,000 steps per inch or something like that?) then averaging to get a resolution in the 5000ppi range depending on wear. Main problem with going beyond 4000ppi is the precision needed in components etc. There's a 70mp 24x36 CMOS sensor out there & with a suitable lens in front of it, let alone pixel shift, the potential it offers in speed etc is quite frightening.

Could someone explain what Pixel shift is. and what it is capable of doing

Bob Carnie said:

Could someone explain what Pixel shift is. and what it is capable of doing

Click to expand...

This link is informative: https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/olympus-e-m5-ii/olympus-e-m5-iiTECH2.HTM
I'd suggest paying particular attention to the last part of that review which describes how it does what it does.

It is just a method of oversampling, nothing new. In cameras it gets around bayer limitations something most scanners generally do not have to deal with anyway.

Also, if one is afraid of using old computers then you would definitely be afraid of using hi-end scanning equipment of the same age or even older.......

Grim Tuesday said:

I wouldn't worry too much about the end of scanning, a properly done DSLR scan beats a Noritsu any day of the week. The only innovation required to fully obsolete these crazy expensive film scanners is a way to automatically advance film through a DSLR scanning rig, which while not trivial, should not be impossible.

Click to expand...

We have 2 Noritsu S-1800 - one is 10 years old and the other we bought new in 2016.

They are expensive - but not that expensive for what they do - £18,000 with 135 and 120 carriers (if I remember rightly). What a Noritsu scanner is, is basically an automated scanning rig, as you describe - and as soon as you design and build something to operate in and withstand a commercial environment, and that thing is a specialist item made in small numbers - it gets expensive. There's no way around it.

But they can work all day, every day, 365 days a year scanning millions of negatives at very high speed and with very high quality results. And they virtually never break down. Consequently, because of the incredible efficiency, it's possible for the lab to offer process and scan packages at competitive prices.

The cessation of production of these scanners is a real concern and it should also be a real concern to film manufacturers too as the resurgence of film use is on the back of easily accessible commercial processing and scanning - no matter how easy it is to scan yourself - and many people do of course - many other people simply don't have the time. Thus, without good value, good quality commercial scanning as an option for film users, it reduces the number of people who may be inclined to shoot film.


On the Flextight issue - I think this is also a big problem for film in the longer term. We have an X5 and Hasselblad told me in March they were discontinuing the scanners and if we wanted another, to get in quick before the remaining 20 units sold. The reason was the Firewire interface. To re-design it for USB they had estimated would require an investment of 1 million Euro. This is what I was told by Hasselblad UK. (it seems those 20 units were sold pretty quick)

Matt5791 said:

The reason was the Firewire interface. To re-design it for USB they had estimated would require an investment of 1 million Euro.

Click to expand...

This is what I've been told too - 1 million to be paid off over 3 years. And I believe it isn't just the interface, but possibly the optics too.

Film Toaster is simple and relatively inexpensive.

Hasselblad does know how "pros" work, which fully explains their decision. Pros do not wait for lab convenience ...they have always wanted same/next day processing...which was the main reason they quickly invested big dollars in the early digital backs, Nikon etc. Time does fly.

My workplace (an art school) were looking to buy another X1 (we currently have four), but currently at a bit of a loss as to what to do as an alternative. Granted, the Firewire interface has been a bit of a pain in terms of adapter daisychaining with modern macs, but they're great scanners in terms of our students being able to get really good results without too much faffing around. I can understand that there's definitely a diminishing market in terms of high-end film users nowadays: even when I first started as a photographer's assistant 11-12 years ago, it was fairly standard practice for an editorial photographer to shoot features on a medium format film camera and digitise, where I think that would be almost unheard of now with the advent of high-res 35mm DSLRs and the lowering price of digital medium format cameras. I was really hoping that Hasselblad's acquisition by DJI might've opened doors to more innovative digital technology in the scanners, but it looks like the lack of market might be a hindrance.

I've been having a bit of a look at DSLR scanning as an alternative, and while I've had promising first looks in terms of image resolution, I've still yet to find a colour workflow that would be simple enough for most of our students to get their heads round. For all Flexcolor may have shortcomings if you're really looking closely enough, it gets people most of the way to where they need to be in terms of negative conversion with a lot less hassle.

A phase back system will deliver excellent results... but the price is out of reach for most... I will be researching a replacement as well or just buy as many used ones I can find. I like my Imocan, I also have a Creo Eversmart which delivers excellent scans.

Bob Carnie said:

A phase back system will deliver excellent results... but the price is out of reach for most... I will be researching a replacement as well or just buy as many used ones I can find. I like my Imocan, I also have a Creo Eversmart which delivers excellent scans.

Click to expand...

Phase One Cultural Heritage is exactly that: an high end medium format DSLR scanning platform with matching software.
Pricing is literally out of this world, both hardware and software.

I don’t understand why Phase One does not release a version of their Cultural Heritage software (even with a reduced function set) targeted at the crowd of amateur DSLR scanners. Instead of selling 10 licences a year at $20k, they could sell hundreds of thousands at $200... the software is already existing and would not require tons of change. I don’t want to teach those guys marketing 101, they surely have their reasons, but I am convinced that they are leaving a ton of money laying around which could easily be picked up.

Ross Finnie said:

My workplace (an art school) were looking to buy another X1 (we currently have four), but currently at a bit of a loss as to what to do as an alternative. Granted, the Firewire interface has been a bit of a pain in terms of adapter daisychaining with modern macs, but they're great scanners in terms of our students being able to get really good results without too much faffing around. I can understand that there's definitely a diminishing market in terms of high-end film users nowadays: even when I first started as a photographer's assistant 11-12 years ago, it was fairly standard practice for an editorial photographer to shoot features on a medium format film camera and digitise, where I think that would be almost unheard of now with the advent of high-res 35mm DSLRs and the lowering price of digital medium format cameras. I was really hoping that Hasselblad's acquisition by DJI might've opened doors to more innovative digital technology in the scanners, but it looks like the lack of market might be a hindrance.

I've been having a bit of a look at DSLR scanning as an alternative, and while I've had promising first looks in terms of image resolution, I've still yet to find a colour workflow that would be simple enough for most of our students to get their heads round. For all Flexcolor may have shortcomings if you're really looking closely enough, it gets people most of the way to where they need to be in terms of negative conversion with a lot less hassle.

Click to expand...

DSLR scanning is not complicated and offers students some valuable skills. It requires tethering which they should learn if they ever want to work commercially. Using LR and Negative Lab Pro is not a complex workflow and it will yield results that look better than Imacon software ever did. I would say using a DSLR scanner on a copy stand is no more complicated than an enlarger, and often much less complicated than the guess work of RA4 printing.

etn said:

Phase One Cultural Heritage is exactly that: an high end medium format DSLR scanning platform with matching software.
Pricing is literally out of this world, both hardware and software.

I don’t understand why Phase One does not release a version of their Cultural Heritage software (even with a reduced function set) targeted at the crowd of amateur DSLR scanners. Instead of selling 10 licences a year at $20k, they could sell hundreds of thousands at $200... the software is already existing and would not require tons of change. I don’t want to teach those guys marketing 101, they surely have their reasons, but I am convinced that they are leaving a ton of money laying around which could easily be picked up.

Click to expand...

Bulk software sales is a double edged sword - I've been in the situation of selling a software solution to two clients for several years for stupidly high prices. When we changed gears and expanded to selling the software to ten clients at half the price we ended up making slightly less overall as a company due to skyrocketing support costs and logistical slowdowns in development and response time... It was a hurdle that took several years to get over and change the business over from a narrow focus to a broad focus mindset.

Remember: End users are magical beings who will break software in unique and creative ways no development team could ever imagine... The more end users you let at the software, the more and bigger ways they ultimately break it. [And the less useful the feedback eventually becomes...]

Luckless said:

Bulk software sales is a double edged sword -

Click to expand...

Interesting points I was not aware of. Thank you!

Ross Finnie said:

My workplace (an art school) were looking to buy another X1 (we currently have four), but currently at a bit of a loss as to what to do as an alternative. Granted, the Firewire interface has been a bit of a pain in terms of adapter daisychaining with modern macs, but they're great scanners in terms of our students being able to get really good results without too much faffing around.

Click to expand...

Does the daisychaining of adaptors work? I use Nikon Coolscan machines with VueScan on an old Mac Book Pro and have just assumed I would need to keep the older computer hardware going with integrated FireWire to connect the scanners.

Tom

etn said:

Phase One Cultural Heritage is exactly that: an high end medium format DSLR scanning platform with matching software.
Pricing is literally out of this world, both hardware and software.

I don’t understand why Phase One does not release a version of their Cultural Heritage software (even with a reduced function set) targeted at the crowd of amateur DSLR scanners. Instead of selling 10 licences a year at $20k, they could sell hundreds of thousands at $200... the software is already existing and would not require tons of change. I don’t want to teach those guys marketing 101, they surely have their reasons, but I am convinced that they are leaving a ton of money laying around which could easily be picked up.

Click to expand...

I think you will find that once they have saturated the market with those willing to spend over 100k on a system that will be exactly what happens.

to think we started with 1mp cameras and now we are where we are.. those first cameras were really expensive..

NortheastPhotographic said:

DSLR scanning is not complicated and offers students some valuable skills. It requires tethering which they should learn if they ever want to work commercially. Using LR and Negative Lab Pro is not a complex workflow and it will yield results that look better than Imacon software ever did. I would say using a DSLR scanner on a copy stand is no more complicated than an enlarger, and often much less complicated than the guess work of RA4 printing.

Click to expand...

Not a chance.. I have compared an Imocan to the Phase One, they are comparable.

when i got into 4x5 a few months ago, I needed a scanner. was looking for a used flatbed to start, on craigslist. had been looking off and on for a few weeks when out of the blue a flextight precision showed up for the same price as a used flatbed. scam, I figured, but emailed the seller. wife of a recently deceased photographer and she was selling off his things. looked new ( i think, having never seen one new). anyway took it home and then dug out my very old win xp machine. went through my dads old computer parts box and found an old scsi pci card. slapped it in my machine and low and behold it fired up and scanned first try.

its a nice machine, but at the price they were offered, kind of a white elephant. I did some comparison scans on some 6x7 slide shots to my nikon cs9000. the flextight could dig in a little deeper into the shadows, but otherwise they are very very similar. the nikon has slightly higher resolution. but the flextight keeps the film very flat. I hate scanning ektar on the nikon as the film bends against the film holder on the nikon vs fuji film, which flattens when I use the AN glass in the holder. also, the flextight scans my 6x17 in one go, not needing 2 6x9 scans and then a stitch in photoshop. I really dislike the flextight software, but maybe thts because I am som familiar with vuescan and have it down pat. I'm getting there. It does scan much fast than the nikon, so for quick and dirty previews, I use the flextight. Now the question is how long will it last before I get a deathly issue that renders it unusable?

but that being said, it really is a good option for 4x5 sheets. much better than a flatbed. but.... i did 1 last test, just because I could. I used the 6x9 filmback to do some 4x5 vs 6x9 test, which told me a lot. based on the fact that the scanner scans at different resolutions (is that a word?) based on the lens zooming, I got better results from scans using the 6x9 negs at the higher resoultion vs the 4x5 scans. so now that I finally got used to 4x5, I need to give it up (ha, kidding)? this was based on my largest print size, 16x20. Now if I can find a 4x5 enlarger for a good price. seems they have gone thru the roof in price the last 2 years.

a long rant to say that its a shame that they are not making them anymore, but at the price they charged, I understand why some balked. for most people good enough for me is a flat bed. But the more I thought about it, most people shooting 4x5 care about quality, and the flextight was one of the best options for us.

john

Bob Carnie said:

Not a chance.. I have compared an Imocan to the Phase One, they are comparable.

Click to expand...

Well I can't say much for your "Imocan" scanner, I'm sure it's very nice. Unless you're using multishot back with Phase though you're still getting a bayer interpolated image. The S1R using 8 shot pixel shift creates a true RGB capture of 187mp on a 3:2 sensor. I've been using one to scan all formats from 35mm to 8x10 and the results are stunning. I scanned some 4x5 Portra 160 today. The resulting files are 155mp, the detail corner to corner is fantastic. Using Negative Lab Pro the conversions are beautiful too. You also have to understand that I haven't even needed to try stitching yet, which is always an option.

So, I'll stick with my set up. I'd try an Imacon if I found one in a dumpster some day I guess.

etn said:

Phase One Cultural Heritage is exactly that: an high end medium format DSLR scanning platform with matching software.
Pricing is literally out of this world, both hardware and software.

I don’t understand why Phase One does not release a version of their Cultural Heritage software (even with a reduced function set) targeted at the crowd of amateur DSLR scanners. Instead of selling 10 licences a year at $20k, they could sell hundreds of thousands at $200... the software is already existing and would not require tons of change. I don’t want to teach those guys marketing 101, they surely have their reasons, but I am convinced that they are leaving a ton of money laying around which could easily be picked up.

Click to expand...

We don't even know if the CH C1 software is any good frankly. It's not like they show off their color negative conversions. Looks like it has some nifty auto cropping features which could be interesting, but when you work the proper film holders that becomes less important. I did a ton of scanning with my set up this week, and between the Lumix tether app and LR, I didn't feel like I was missing anything.

I don't appreciate you talking to Bob that way. Your conduct in public is certainly not a very good testimonial to your business, is it?

There's a lot of technicians out there...dime a dozen, really. Not many people who are upstanding, positive people though and most professionals I know prefer to steer their money towards that.

NortheastPhotographic said:

Well I can't say much for your "Imocan" scanner, I'm sure it's very nice. Unless you're using multishot back with Phase though you're still getting a bayer interpolated image. The S1R using 8 shot pixel shift creates a true RGB capture of 187mp on a 3:2 sensor. I've been using one to scan all formats from 35mm to 8x10 and the results are stunning. I scanned some 4x5 Portra 160 today. The resulting files are 155mp, the detail corner to corner is fantastic. Using Negative Lab Pro the conversions are beautiful too. You also have to understand that I haven't even needed to try stitching yet, which is always an option.

So, I'll stick with my set up. I'd try an Imacon if I found one in a dumpster some day I guess.

Click to expand...

Colin Corneau said:

I don't appreciate you talking to Bob that way. Your conduct in public is certainly not a very good testimonial to your business, is it?

There's a lot of technicians out there...dime a dozen, really. Not many people who are upstanding, positive people though and most professionals I know prefer to steer their money towards that.

Click to expand...

Well this is definitely the weirdest thing I've read on the internet today.

Late jumping in here. Kick this to a new thread, Moderator, if I've trespassed.

I have an Imacon/Hassy 646. My biggest problem at present is that Flexcolor, Hassy's software for the scanner, isn't supported under the latest (64-bit) MacOS 10.15. So I'm dual-booting my Mac with 10.14 to keep it alive a while longer. I've been in touch with Hasselblad; no plans to release a 64-bit compatible version of Flexcolor. LaserSoft likewise has no plans to support the scanner in SilverFast. Ditto VueScan. I'm not a Windows guy so I can't speak to the situation there.

Any ideas or suggestions?

As to the Coolscan 9000 vs Imacon comparison someone brought up (I think): I likewise bought my 646 mainly for 4x5, where it was better than any flatbed solution affordable to me at the time. I can't say it's vastly better for MF or 35mm, but it's at least somewhat quicker than waiting for the 9000 to grind out hi-res scans. I'd like to keep using my 646 until it breaks or is no longer supported by anything. It's sunk cost at this point.

MikeSeb said:

As to the Coolscan 9000 vs Imacon comparison someone brought up (I think): I likewise bought my 646 mainly for 4x5, where it was better than any flatbed solution affordable to me at the time. I can't say it's vastly better for MF or 35mm, but it's at least somewhat quicker than waiting for the 9000 to grind out hi-res scans. I'd like to keep using my 646 until it breaks or is no longer supported by anything. It's sunk cost at this point.

Click to expand...

I've found the Coolscan 9000 can be incredibly slow for high res medium format colour scans, it really impacts on productivity and I try and be very selective with which frames to scan in this use case. Black & White seems much faster in my experience.