Imacon alternative?

[cmo]

Since more than 2 years I use an Imacon 646 (which is today sold as Hasselblad X1).

Nice machine, very good scans, but slow, large and costly. I had tried a Nikon 9000, a KonicaMinolta Dimage Elite II and a horrible Epson flatbed with a negative holder, but nothing came close to the Imacon at that time - especially for real old-fashioned black-and-white films that I have used for 99% of my images.

As I still believe in progress, is there an alternative in the meanwhile? A scanner that can achieve the same quality with genuine b/w films, but faster and maybe at a lower price?

(If you want to answer: "why don't you use XP2 instead?" I can tell you that I have many thousand negatives on real b/w film, and I have no chance to take the photos once more.)

 

[Pinholemaster]

"I have many thousand negatives on real b/w film"

The only alternative to any of the excellent, but slow Imacons, is the Nikon 9000. At least you can do strips of negatives (35 mm).

Medium format, well, you're back to the slow processes of one at a time.

If you have unlimited Euros, look into a large flat bed such as the Scitex, or a Heidelberg Topaz.

 

[Greg_E]

Imacon 949 is still around if you have the money. For the same price you can buy a new drum scanner from the few remaining companies.

And as with many things, speed and quality are inversely proportional. Fastest would be a digital camera on a copy stand, best would be wet mounted on a drum scanner. Also it seems that quality and price are directly proportional. More quality = more price in what may be some kind of exponential equation.

 

[jd callow]

I think progress in scanning may be slowing if not stalled. There probably isn't a growing demand as film usage declines so will scanning. Although I suspect that scanning will decline at a slower pace. Imacon had a batch scanning attacment that allowed for unattended scaning. I don't know if it'll fit your scanner or how much it will cost, but at least it allowed you to go elswhere whilst th escanner churned away.

 

[sanking]

I think progress in scanning may be slowing if not stalled.

At the high end that is probably true. On the other hand, there continues to be significant, though not spectacular, improvements in consumer flatbeds. I expect this will continue because there is a huge market.

My personal opinion is that Imacon scanners are much over-priced for their capabilities. For much less you would be able to purchased a used drum scanner (Howtek D4500) or a high end flatbed like the Creo EverSmart or Fuji Cezanne Elite.

Sandy King

 

[jd callow]

Sandy,
I mostly agree with you. There is a great deal of room for improvement at the lower end of the market. I don't see the demand that you do, but then I'm guessing.

FWIW, I've used both the Creo Eversmart supreme and the Imacon flextight II fairly extensively. The imacon was 15k in or around 2000 and the creo was about 30k and a couple years older. The Creo's strength was that it had a higher resolution then the imacon on anything other than 35mm film and could scan 9 sheets (i think) of 4x5 unattended -- although setup was far more painful. On the down side the Creo required more fidgeting (the film holding masks were a PIA) and tuning and the scans were not as good as the imacon's.

I agree that I'd buy a used drum scanner before buying a new imacon, but that isn't really how things always work. If I'm a company (and they are the folks driving the market at the high-end) I'd buy the best scanner I can that comes with a warranty/service agreement first. Afterward I may look to supplement that with a riskier thing like a used drum. As a company I'd also want an efficient production tool and the imacon is not nearly as efficient as the big high-end flatbeds -- unless the batch feeder is as good as it looks.

As an individual I'd probably go with the best scanner I can afford that has a good track record. For me that would probably be the Nikon 9000 plus a good flatbed for 4x5.

 

[Marco B]

Since more than 2 years I use an Imacon 646 (which is today sold as Hasselblad X1).

Nice machine, very good scans, but slow, large and costly.

Although good machines as well, the 646 and X1 are both the "budget" models of Imacon / Hasselblad. This means less scanning resolution and considerably less speed than the 949 and it's successor X5. The latter high end models are much faster, with just about 1-1.30 min for a scan... I have never had problems with scan speed on the 949 that I could hire per hour in a photolab. Incredibly fast in my opinion, considering it creates 80MPixel (8000x10.000) scans.

 

[lenny]

I agree that I'd buy a used drum scanner before buying a new imacon, but that isn't really how things always work. If I'm a company (and they are the folks driving the market at the high-end) I'd buy the best scanner I can that comes with a warranty/service agreement first. Afterward I may look to supplement that with a riskier thing like a used drum. As a company I'd also want an efficient production tool and the imacon is not nearly as efficient as the big high-end flatbeds -- unless the batch feeder is as good as it looks.

As an individual I'd probably go with the best scanner I can afford that has a good track record. For me that would probably be the Nikon 9000 plus a good flatbed for 4x5.

You can also buy a new drum and a warranty from a couple of companies. Aztek and ICG.

Lenny

 

[cmo]

Many years ago I worked in a company that had drum scanners, Hell and Crosfield, and I remember that they were very difficult to use and not too fast.

How fast can I load an Aztek or ICG scanner? How fast are they, and how is the quality? And not to forget, I just looked into a list of used scanners, and the ICGs were really expensive even when old, even compared to a Hasselblad X2.

 

[sanking]

JD,

I don't have any secret on the market either, but I do note that the new iterations of the better Epson and Microtek scanners get a lot of attention on the forum and in reviews, and sales appear to be good. So I think there is a big market out there for a really top quality scanner for under $1k.

Scanning for business and for personal use are very different things. I don't scan for others and never batch scan. My only interest is in getting the most possible out of the negative, taking into consideration the size at which I want to print.

The Nikon LS-9000 is a good scanner for MF, but I can get a much better scan with the old Leafscan 45 by scanning MF with the 2:1 mode at 5080 spi and stitching. Sure, old technology, but since I don't do this for production I can take the time to get the most out of my scans.

I also have an EverSmart Pro with optical resolution of 3175 spi that comes close to the Leaf at 5080, spi, but I reserve it for LF use.

A used drum scanner of 5000 spi (Howtek for example) may be on the horizon for my MF negatives.

Sandy

Sandy,
I mostly agree with you. There is a great deal of room for improvement at the lower end of the market. I don't see the demand that you do, but then I'm guessing.

FWIW, I've used both the Creo Eversmart supreme and the Imacon flextight II fairly extensively. The imacon was 15k in or around 2000 and the creo was about 30k and a couple years older. The Creo's strength was that it had a higher resolution then the imacon on anything other than 35mm film and could scan 9 sheets (i think) of 4x5 unattended -- although setup was far more painful. On the down side the Creo required more fidgeting (the film holding masks were a PIA) and tuning and the scans were not as good as the imacon's.

I agree that I'd buy a used drum scanner before buying a new imacon, but that isn't really how things always work. If I'm a company (and they are the folks driving the market at the high-end) I'd buy the best scanner I can that comes with a warranty/service agreement first. Afterward I may look to supplement that with a riskier thing like a used drum. As a company I'd also want an efficient production tool and the imacon is not nearly as efficient as the big high-end flatbeds -- unless the batch feeder is as good as it looks.

As an individual I'd probably go with the best scanner I can afford that has a good track record. For me that would probably be the Nikon 9000 plus a good flatbed for 4x5.

 

[lenny]

Many years ago I worked in a company that had drum scanners, Hell and Crosfield, and I remember that they were very difficult to use and not too fast.

How fast can I load an Aztek or ICG scanner? How fast are they, and how is the quality? And not to forget, I just looked into a list of used scanners, and the ICGs were really expensive even when old, even compared to a Hasselblad X2.

I load up a drum in about 5 minutes.... anywhere from 1 to a dozen negs. It gets very easy with experience. I have an Aztek Premier, which is expensive, and does 8,000 dpi optical. It scans a 4x5 at 4000 dpi in about 20 minutes. The quality is unbelievable.

One doesn't need a Premier for large format, however, the 4500 can do 4000 dpi. They are available from 1.5K to about 10K, depending on health, maintenance, and what is included - software, mounting station, drums, etc.

Lenny

 

[cmo]

I load up a drum in about 5 minutes.... anywhere from 1 to a dozen negs. It gets very easy with experience. I have an Aztek Premier, which is expensive, and does 8,000 dpi optical. It scans a 4x5 at 4000 dpi in about 20 minutes. The quality is unbelievable.

One doesn't need a Premier for large format, however, the 4500 can do 4000 dpi. They are available from 1.5K to about 10K, depending on health, maintenance, and what is included - software, mounting station, drums, etc.

Lenny

Aztek scanners are not available here in Europe, but I know the story of a friend who bought a used Heidelberg Tango for "only" 5000 Euros. After a few weeks it stopped working. Repair costs were estimated around 6000 Euros. He managed to sell it "as is" for 500 Euros and purchased a good Imacon 848...

 

[Maretzo]

Cmox,
" As I still believe in progress, is there an alternative in the meanwhile? A scanner that can achieve the same quality with genuine b/w films, but faster and maybe at a lower price."

You mentioned the high cost of the Imacon, is it the cost for buying or for operations? I want to know because, after trying a V700 for some time, I wish to upgrade.
Thanks, Serge

 

[cmo]

Cmox,
" As I still believe in progress, is there an alternative in the meanwhile? A scanner that can achieve the same quality with genuine b/w films, but faster and maybe at a lower price."

You mentioned the high cost of the Imacon, is it the cost for buying or for operations? I want to know because, after trying a V700 for some time, I wish to upgrade.
Thanks, Serge

Serge, it's the buying price, the price for yearly maintenance and its speed. I have asked this question in several forums, and the result is that still the only alternative are "real drum" scanners like Tango, Aztek, Crosfield etc. No flatbed or other negative scanner comes close.

If image quality is your main goal you will find out with one simple test that the V700 and even the oldest Imacon scanner are worlds apart. With B/W negatives the gap between these machines is even wider.

 

[toyotadesigner]

An excellent alternative would be the Nikon Coolscan LS 9000 **plus** the AN glass holder FH-869G plus a copy of VueScan Professional plus an anti static Kinestat KS-070 brush from Kinetronics.

 

[cmo]

An excellent alternative would be the Nikon Coolscan LS 9000 **plus** the AN glass holder FH-869G plus a copy of VueScan Professional plus an anti static Kinestat KS-070 brush from Kinetronics.

It's much better than the flatbeds, sure. If the negatives are not too dense and not too grainy and the prints you want to produce are not too big, then it's an alternative, maybe. I tried that scanner and second Nikon's opinion that it is not suitable for traditional B/W films and that means it is not an alternative but plays second fiddle.

 

[toyotadesigner]

CMOX, if you think the Nikon 9000 is not good enough for b&w, you might try it with a wet mounting kit. Sure, it will slow down the scanning process, but I've seen several scans with a wet mounting kit and they are fantastic.

 

[cmo]

CMOX, if you think the Nikon 9000 is not good enough for b&w, you might try it with a wet mounting kit. Sure, it will slow down the scanning process, but I've seen several scans with a wet mounting kit and they are fantastic.

What does a wet mounting kit change? I expect it might reduce grain, but resolution and the scanner's ability to look through dense highlights? It can not imagine that wet mounting changes these properties.

But now I am curious. Who offers those kits?

 

[toyotadesigner]

You can get more information here:

http://www.wetmounting.com/Film_Scanners.html

 

[dalton]

And a brief real-world example of wet scanning and the LS-900 here:
http://weaved.net/wet.htm

 

[cmo]

The comparison shows a little more sharpness, details and grain, but it's not worlds apart. More interestingly, I saw on the website of that wetmounting.com company that there are also wet mounting holders for Imacon scanners... so I must admit I am still crazy for more quality and not mature to use a scanner with less reolution and Dmax than my Imacon...