Imacon Flextight II

[campy51]

Is this scanner worth getting and I assume there is a scsi to usb adapter that will work with today's computers. Any better than the Epson V700?

 

[Lachlan Young]

Any better than the Epson V700?

Yes. Massively so. Resolution matters far less than actual optical MTF performance - which Flextights are very good at and Epsons very bad at. The Imacon/ Hasselblad software can be maddening - I don't think the Precisions work with the later Flexcolor software (which has been updated slightly more recently) - but I think there are workarounds to get the Precision II to be operable in a usable way with a modern windows machine. Apple, you're likely stuck with something fairly ancient that can understand SCSI (probably G4/G5 at best). The main thing is to get unclipped, un-inverted 16-bit files out of the scanner and do all subsequent work in Photoshop etc.

Check for banding issues - they can be simply from dust on the bulb/ scanner gate, or they can be sensor related and require some slightly fiddly work to eliminate.

 

[Frank53]

Concerning the quality I agree with Lachlan. The Epson is no competition for the Imacon. I have been using both scanners next to each other for years.
That’s the good news.
The bad news is that it’s a problem to get it working and keep it working. If you can get it with a working Mac G3 or G4, you may be fine for some time (untill the computer or the scanner needs servicing).
Using it with a scsi to firewire adapter sounds good but is not. I tried several, but only the Ratoc works and is terrible to get it working and if you make a mistake when switching on the combination you have do the whole configuration of the Ratoc software all over again.
I sold the Imacon when I could still get a good price for it and went back to the darkroom.
Regards,
Frank

 

[grat]

Is this scanner worth getting and I assume there is a scsi to usb adapter that will work with today's computers. Any better than the Epson V700?

Depends on your definitions-- My v800 took me less than 15 minutes to get running on a modern Windows PC, and after spending some time dialing it in and learning how to get the best quality from it, I get perfectly reasonable scans.

If you can get the Imacon running, and keep it running, it should produce better output-- after all, when new, it cost several times what an Epson V850 costs new today, and even used, it's still easily twice the price.

 

[cramej]

Good luck finding a SCSI to USB adapter. Then good luck getting it to actually work. You'd have better luck finding a Imacon/G4 set that has already been set up and working.

 

[Lachlan Young]

I think people have got them to run using PCIe SCSI cards, then through a VM for the software - but don't quote me on that.

 

[Frank53]

I think people have got them to run using PCIe SCSI cards, then through a VM for the software - but don't quote me on that.

I tried that. Cost me a lot of money and had to give up. Apple left scsi a long long time ago and did not get it to work on my 2010 G5.

 

[Lachlan Young]

I tried that. Cost me a lot of money and had to give up. Apple left scsi a long long time ago and did not get it to work on my 2010 G5.

Did you try on both Windows and Apple machines or just Apple?

 

[Pieter12]

If you have the room for it, a dedicated G4 tower seems like the best route to go. Of course, both the G4 and the Imacon are orphans and you'll have to deal with that if anything doesn't work down th road--or even when you set it up.

 

[jslabovitz]

It's been hinted at here, but I'll be more explicit and state that the SCSI-USB adapters do *not* work for the Imacon. It's a great scanner (I have one here), but you have to be okay with driving it with vintage technology. Doesn't actually have to be G4/G4, but no current/modern Mac will work. If this is more than you're up for, move on to something else.

 

[Frank53]

Did you try on both Windows and Apple machines or just Apple?

Not really. I did try it with Windows on a Mac, but that was the same hardware and did not work.

 

[runswithsizzers]

I can't comment on the Imacon hardware or any Imacon-specific software, but I was able to use a Minolta SCSI film scanner with a 2011 Intel iMac that had Firewire by using a RATOC FR1SX converter and VueScan. As others have mentioned, be prepared for some technical troubleshooting, and success is not guaranteed.

In my opinion, using a digital camera with a good macro or enlarger lens may be a more attractive option going forward than trying to get these old-school film scanners to work, especially for b&w and slide film.

 

[destroya]

I have one and love it. I rebuilt my old winXP machine by adding a SCSI card from ebay, $20, and away I went. the results have been nothing but great. I got it for 4x5, but have to admit that I prefer the results I get from it with MF film and especially 35mm over my nikon 9000 (and its much faster than the nikon). The key for me is the film flatness. the scan results need little to no sharpening, its that good (at least mine is). yeh the software is not the greatest, but it is what it is. they are old and every time I use it, I keep wondering, for how much longer. earlier this year I spent a week trying to find a place in californina that could do a CLA, to keep it working condition even though I have had no issues (better to do preventative servicing for something like this I think) and had no luck. so switched to nation wide, again no luck. Think there is a place in europe that could do it, but would cost the price of a car for shipping.

dont let this stuff scare you. if you can find one in good shape that works AND you have the capability to use a real SCSI card, not a dongle, then go for it AT the right price. these scanners are built like tanks, made to run 8 hours a day and easy self servicing/replacing of some parts like belts and so on. make sure you can try it out before you buy it. And yes, it is much better than any epson scanner

john

 

[Lachlan Young]

I rebuilt my old winXP machine by adding a SCSI card from ebay

That's what I recalled others having done too - but with a VM on a more modern Windows machine.

There's at least two places in the UK that can service them (up to a point at least - it may depend on parts availability) - the bigger issues with parts availability may arise if you get main board failures or sensors that need replaced.

 

[campy51]

What would be a no brainer price for one? What should should I make sure is included with it?

 

[Helge]

You’d have to have no brain to buy an Imacon now.
If you where given one, sure play around with it and see if you can find an ancient Mac to run the software off.
But if you have to pay any amount of what some people seem to think it’s worth, just don’t even consider it.

Camera scanning is so much better in any regard.
Optimal? Hell no! But better than any legacy scanner you can think of.
Even better than drum scanners. Especially for 135 and 120.
You get so much more bang for the buck, image quality, speed and convenience with a good camera scanning setup it’s not even remotely a competition.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

I have one and love it. I rebuilt my old winXP machine by adding a SCSI card from ebay, $20, and away I went. the results have been nothing but great.
dont let this stuff scare you. if you can find one in good shape that works AND you have the capability to use a real SCSI card, not a dongle, then go for it AT the right price. these scanners are built like tanks, made to run 8 hours a day and easy self servicing/replacing of some parts like belts and so on. make sure you can try it out before you buy it. And yes, it is much better than any epson scanner

john

I don't get it. All these workarounds with SCSI adapters and other things. Destroya listed the rational approach. Buy an old WIN computer in a tower that can accept a SCSI card. Use the hardware and operating system from the era that the scanner was built. I run a 2000 era Minolta Scan multi medium format scanner on an old Dell with 3mb ram (!) running 32-bit WIN 7.

 

[Frank53]

You’d have to have no brain to buy an Imacon now.
If you where given one, sure play around with it and see if you can find an ancient Mac to run the software off.
But if you have to pay any amount of what some people seem to think it’s worth, just don’t even consider it.

Camera scanning is so much better in any regard.
Optimal? Hell no! But better than any legacy scanner you can think of.
Even better than drum scanners. Especially for 135 and 120.
You get so much more bang for the buck, image quality, speed and convenience with a good camera scanning setup it’s not even remotely a competition.

I don’t agree. In former posts I wrote about my experience with the Imacon (I also used a Minolta 5400 for years and the quality was just as good, but only 35mm). Since I sold all those canners except the Epson V700, went back to wet printing, I use a Nikon D800E for scanning and the results are ok, but nothing near the Imacon. Those scanners get everything there is in a negative, while the dslr results are just fine, better than the Epson, but that’s it. Maybe I’m doing something wrong

 

[Helge]

I don’t agree. In former posts I wrote about my experience with the Imacon (I also used a Minolta 5400 for years and the quality was just as good, but only 35mm). Since I sold all those canners except the Epson V700, went back to wet printing, I use a Nikon D800E for scanning and the results are ok, but nothing near the Imacon. Those scanners get everything there is in a negative, while the dslr results are just fine, better than the Epson, but that’s it. Maybe I’m doing something wrong

You’re doing something wrong.

Critical focus is important.
That includes flatness and parallel sensor and film.

For large print work, it’s important to macro and stitch. Also to take exposures at different light levels and f stops to get all the shadow information.
A good drumscan can accurately “punch” through high Dmax slide, but can also avoid blooming and veiling in shadow areas on negative.
The same can be done with camera scanning with careful technique and gefühl, without the negative impact on micro aperture scanning on ultimate resolution.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

First question, what will you do with the scans?

 

[faberryman]

I don't think you are an analog photographer unless you shoot film, develop it yourself, and make your own prints. Otherwise, you are just shooting film. This sending it off to the lab and letting them develop and scan it so you can look at it on your computer and post it on the internet is just pretending.

 

[grat]

I don't think you are an analog photographer unless you shoot film, develop it yourself, and make your own C-prints. Otherwise, you are just shooting film. This sending it off to the lab and letting them develop and scan it so you can look at it on your computer and post it on the internet is just pretending.

*yawn*

Although I do develop all my film.

 

[Lachlan Young]

A good drumscan can accurately “punch” through high Dmax slide, but can also avoid blooming and veiling in shadow areas on negative.
The same can be done with camera scanning with careful technique and gefühl, without the negative impact on micro aperture scanning on ultimate resolution.

Unlike the old high end flatbeds (where there's lots of extra glass & mirrors to potentially cause flare/ halation), the Imacons are essentially very close to camera scanning in terms of no mirrors etc in the light path, straight through a lens to the sensor - the overall halation is usually no better or worse than an a competently set up camera scanning system.

And not all drum scanners are created equal (or maintained well) in terms of the lamp choices, optical chains, PMTs/ amplification etc - and much of why the Heidelberg drum scanners are praised are not because they have the highest Dmax, but because they deliver a very 'natural' looking image. That doesn't mean they're better overall than a Flextight, depending on what you are doing - realistically, if both are operated carefully and well (and you don't let the scanner intervene before the data gets to Photoshop) the meaningful visual differences are largely in the low single digit range for what even really fussy photographers are after - unless you work with 5x7 or up. On the other hand both types of scanner can give amazingly bad output without much effort...

That said, camera scanning is potentially extremely good (and easily far higher resolution than any scanner) - if you work around the challenging quirks. The shift and stitch stuff is nothing new - conceptually speaking, it's not far off how the Heidelberg Tango/ Primescan works (10 micron aperture/ 2540ppi, 10,000 samples per inch, effective final output resolution in the 5000ppi range, depending on how well it's run / looked after).

 

[faberryman]

Although I do develop all my film.

Good man.

 

[destroya]

You’d have to have no brain to buy an Imacon now....

sorry but I disagree. you are free to have your own opinion, but clearly YOU have no brain to come to that conclusion, as every person should be able to make their own decision and their own results as they chose.

 

[Helge]

sorry but I disagree. you are free to have your own opinion, but clearly YOU have no brain to come to that conclusion, as every person should be able to make their own decision and their own results as they chose.

Facts are facts. Numbers are numbers.
It was a play on the post before it.
At worst you’ve been had by decades old warmed over hype, if you buy an Imacon.

It’s an ok scanner if you look at nothing else but the results. But only that.
The second you start to look at all other factors it’s dead.

If someone made an Imacon quality scanner in a tight, fast package for around a thousand dollars, that was serviceable and compatible, I’d be all over it and for it.
But surprisingly, even though it would be quite easy, no one seems to be doing it.

Instead they keep faffing about with minor and easy DIY stuff like holders and backlight for camera scanning.

Get an enlarger with a removable optical block, with free passage to the film holder.
Put the camera on the easel board, pointed up into the head.
That’s your holder, backlight and camera stand.