From: Rick Becker-Leckrone (rick@picturenetcorp.com)
Date: 11/12/02-06:28:30 PM Z
Phillip,
My thoughts exactly. Before investing in Imacon, I consulted with a number
of industry professionals. Scans from my Imacon Photo are clearly superior
to any other scanner in the same price range. There really isn't much
debate about this in the imaging community. I would say drum scanners DO
have some advantages, such as minimizing apparent dust. However, my
wet-mount friends don't get as much done as I do in the same time frame. I
can mount and scan immediately - no oils, no solvents. Sure, I can only do
a couple at a time, but while I have the next couple scanning, I'm in
Photoshop working on the first two.
As for dust removal algorithms, they are all software - whether on a chip in
the scanner, or on the host computer. And all of them create some image
softening. Best to get the transparency as clean as possible before
scanning and then work the healing tool in Photoshop in my opinion.
Anyway, I'm sure Joe has some reasonable points. And budget is always a
concern. But I've been very happy with my Imacon, and so have my clients
and agencies.
Cheers,
Rick
Rick Becker-Leckrone
President
PictureNet Corporation
http://www.picturenetcorp.com
640 Paulson
Las Vegas, NV 89123
702 808-3182
-----Original Message-----
From: Phillip Murphy [mailto:pmurf@bellsouth.net]
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 3:59 PM
To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
Subject: Re: Other Scanners, MF--Imacon. . . ?
Hello,
I have used the Imacon Flextight Precision II for the past two years on a
daily
basis. The number of high resolutions scans (96-320MB files) I've made is in
the
thousands. I also have in my lab the most current Nikon 35mm and the
Minolta
Dimage Scan Multi Pro for 120mm (they both are collecting dust). Oh, and yes
down the hall is a Polaroid for backup. The images produced from the
Flextight
in terms of clarity and tonal range are in an entirely different class than
the
slide scanners that you speak of.
Anyone can see the difference immediately. (it's not a little difference)
The
Imacon is much closer to what is produced from a drum scan. I intend to
purchase in the next year a model 848 from Imacon. Trust me. It's nearly
indistinguishable from a drum scan.
The money that you're paying is for one of the best engineered and easy to
use
scanners on the market. The software is probably the most intuitive and
flexible scanner software that I've used bar none. A great deal of effort
went
into the programming and it shows. Oh, and yes, the latest iteration for the
scanning software has Imacon's version of defect removal built in.
In case you're wondering, I have no affiliation whatsoever with this Dutch
company. Their line of scanners isn't for everyone. They are designed
for the photographer who has no room for compromise when it comes to
creating
the most faithful and exquisite translation of a negative or transparency.
all the best,
Phillip
Joe wrote:
> >
> >
> >Farber seems big on the Imacon series, and there appear to be quite a few
> >available out there in the refurb market. The Flextight Photo model
looks
> >particularly promising in cost-to-production terms (20 Mb/minute, 3200
dpi,
> >4.2 Dmax).
> >
>
> The flextight photo, I believe, only does up to two frames at a time.
> This is lame as hell for a scanner so overpriced. I, for one, don't
> wan't to take the inumerable number of three frame sections of 120 film
> I have in sleeves, and be left with one solitary frame. That is one
> downside. A scanner in that price range should have dICE. Software-based
> dust removal will never substitute for hardware, this is another downside.
>
> A lot of people complain about the software. I have never used it and
> imagine that it is probably as bad as most manuf. software. With the
> other scanners, at least you can use 3rd party software, not so with the
> Imacon.
>
> 3200 vs. 4000dpi for thousands less, hummm.....
>
> Admittedly both scanners don't meet either stated resolution, but I have
> seen Imacon Precision I & II scans, from individual owners and service
> bureau scans, and when compared to a Minolta Multi-Pro, a good 8000ed
> unit, or a Polaroid 120, the difference in terms of resolution, color,
> tonal gradation, is nil. In fact, I prefer the Polaroid. You might get a
> little better shadow detail (slide film) and things might be a little
> sharper on a _Precision II_, but aside from that you are buying a name.
> In real terms, you are talking about spending thousands of extra dollars
> for a nominal increase in sharpness (via their curved film plane
> scanning technology). Judicious use of USM in photoshop will recover the
> softening in any of the competitors scanners, effectively reducing the
> advantage anyways....
>
> A CCD scanner is a CCD scanner, with all its inherent problems & if you
> are willing to spend that much for a scanner, get a low-end of refurb
> drum. Imacon's new 848 might make some headway by active cooling and
> newer CCD's, better A/D converters etc., but then you are in the 13k+
> range, and a PMT drum looks more attractive still.
>
> Imacon makes good products but they are way overpriced. Go for the lower
> "prosumer" CCDs, they are well within the capabilities of a Flex Photo
> or refurb Precision.
>
> -Joe
>
> >
> >Any comments, advise, or experiences (er, with Imacon, I mean) would be
> >appreciated.
> >
> >Best regards!
> >
> >John
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 12/17/02-04:47:05 PM Z CST