Epson V800 scanner is still available as well, at least in Australia anyway.
I have the V800.
I have the V800.
Are Imacon scans supposed to be good, or....?
-
H
- Thread starter Mammoth_research
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Negative Supply-PRO RISER MK3 Like-New Condition $700
- Started by JuanG
-
For Sale Nikkor SW 150mm f/8 including Sinar Lens Board $2300
- Started by JuanG
-
For Sale FS: Versar Portrait & View 5x7 8.75" f/6 Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale FS: Hermagis No. 7 Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale FS: Nicola Perscheid Objektiv 42cm f/4.5 Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
Forum statistics
Your original post should have mentioned the V600 was not made to scan 4x5s. Its film scanning area is 2.7" x 9.5" requiring two setups and two scans of different areas of a 4x5 film sheet and subsequent stitching. A V850 can scan the 4x5 in one setup and scan. The Dmax of the V600 is 3.6 vs 4.0 for the V850. Owning both units, I have found the V850 to provide better resolution as well especially with 35mm.
Obviously that's the OP's decision as he did say he was disappointed with the resolution of the scan. I would be too if I'm only getting 1600dpi scans from such a big glorious piece of film.
I can understand the disappointment as I used to scan 35mm with the Coolscan 5000 and medium format with the V700 and given the results it didn't make sense to me to pay more for medium format but only to get less then what I get from my 35mm. So I got the Coolscan 9000 for medium format scanning.
I used to work with a colleague who's dad was a WWII combat photographer and apparently all he shot was 4X5. So he asked me to scan some of it on my V700 so he could see the quality that could be had. Below is a 2400dpi scan of one I did and he was very pleased with the results.
Don Miller 2400-005 by Les DMess, on Flickr
I own and operate an Imacon Flextight Precision II and can confirm that what the OP received was very sub-par for what these scanners are capable of. Each of the 4x5-capable Flextight scanners (Precision II, Precision III, 848, 949, X1, and X5) can scan 4x5 film at an identical max resolution of 2,040 ppi, which will produce a 16-bit RGB file that's typically around 250 mb. The poor results the OP received are entirely due to operator error. Here's what I'm seeing:
1) Inadequate scanning resolution -- The file size reported by the OP clearly indicates it was scanned at low-intermediate resolution.
2) Iffy scanner focus -- The earlier Imacons, like my Precision II, don't have autofocus and instead use a focus-calibration routine that can be done periodically (e.g., once every few months) by the operator using a special focus target that comes with the scanner. Basically, the scanner checks the focus target, finds the optimal lens height for a few different film sizes and scanning resolutions, and then saves those height settings in the software. The later scanners (e.g., 949, X1, X5... possibly the 848) have autofocus. A mistake some operators make is they just assume the focus calibration on the earlier machines is set correctly, when in fact, it's quite common with some films (i.e., due to different base thicknesses) to need to adjust the focus height using the "descreen" function in Flexcolor by trial and error (takes maybe a couple minutes to find optimal focus). I've never used one of the autofocus-enabled Flextights, so I can't comment on how accurate their autofocus is, but I believe those later scanners can also be adjusted on a per-scan basis using the descreen function. Either way, I think high-res scans on 4x5 film should be checked individually by the operator.
3) Poor color profiling and/or histogram adjustments -- Without seeing the film original, it's hard to say if the fault lies in the film or the scan. If we assume the film is okay, the problem in the scan could be due to a couple things. First, the Flexcolor software allows a user to select an input profile for scanning film. Flexcolor comes with several default profiles in the ICM settings that were made by Imacon/Hasselblad, and some of these profiles are better than others. More importantly, a user can create a custom .ICC profile using an IT8 target. I can report that custom profiling makes a big difference for scan quality on color positive films like Velvia 50 and Ektachrome (color and B&W negatives don't benefit from profiling). The color and contrast from a profiled scanner will look identical to what you see on a light table. My guess is that the lab hasn't profiled their scanner for Provia (or at all) and they're just using a canned input profile in Flexcolor. The second issue is that the various color, gamma, and histogram adjustments that are available in Flecolor don't look like they were properly set by the operator at the lab. Flexcolor is like any scanning software: You really need to put in a lot of hours before you understand how to use it.
As far as the quality that's attainable with an Imacon scanner, they're really quite good. I own a couple Howtek drum scanners and am comfortable attesting to what a "good" scan should look like. Although the drum scans are capable of "more" in terms of resolution, sharpness, and shadow detail, the Imacons do really, really well in the hands of a competent operator, particularly with medium format and 4x5. For most peoples' end uses (e.g., scanning for web and making prints under 30 inches wide), an Imacon is all you need. (If you're shooting 135 film, I think a better option is a Nikon scanner or a DSLR scanning setup, simply because of easier/faster workflow, but that's a whole other conversation...)
1) Inadequate scanning resolution -- The file size reported by the OP clearly indicates it was scanned at low-intermediate resolution.
2) Iffy scanner focus -- The earlier Imacons, like my Precision II, don't have autofocus and instead use a focus-calibration routine that can be done periodically (e.g., once every few months) by the operator using a special focus target that comes with the scanner. Basically, the scanner checks the focus target, finds the optimal lens height for a few different film sizes and scanning resolutions, and then saves those height settings in the software. The later scanners (e.g., 949, X1, X5... possibly the 848) have autofocus. A mistake some operators make is they just assume the focus calibration on the earlier machines is set correctly, when in fact, it's quite common with some films (i.e., due to different base thicknesses) to need to adjust the focus height using the "descreen" function in Flexcolor by trial and error (takes maybe a couple minutes to find optimal focus). I've never used one of the autofocus-enabled Flextights, so I can't comment on how accurate their autofocus is, but I believe those later scanners can also be adjusted on a per-scan basis using the descreen function. Either way, I think high-res scans on 4x5 film should be checked individually by the operator.
3) Poor color profiling and/or histogram adjustments -- Without seeing the film original, it's hard to say if the fault lies in the film or the scan. If we assume the film is okay, the problem in the scan could be due to a couple things. First, the Flexcolor software allows a user to select an input profile for scanning film. Flexcolor comes with several default profiles in the ICM settings that were made by Imacon/Hasselblad, and some of these profiles are better than others. More importantly, a user can create a custom .ICC profile using an IT8 target. I can report that custom profiling makes a big difference for scan quality on color positive films like Velvia 50 and Ektachrome (color and B&W negatives don't benefit from profiling). The color and contrast from a profiled scanner will look identical to what you see on a light table. My guess is that the lab hasn't profiled their scanner for Provia (or at all) and they're just using a canned input profile in Flexcolor. The second issue is that the various color, gamma, and histogram adjustments that are available in Flecolor don't look like they were properly set by the operator at the lab. Flexcolor is like any scanning software: You really need to put in a lot of hours before you understand how to use it.
As far as the quality that's attainable with an Imacon scanner, they're really quite good. I own a couple Howtek drum scanners and am comfortable attesting to what a "good" scan should look like. Although the drum scans are capable of "more" in terms of resolution, sharpness, and shadow detail, the Imacons do really, really well in the hands of a competent operator, particularly with medium format and 4x5. For most peoples' end uses (e.g., scanning for web and making prints under 30 inches wide), an Imacon is all you need. (If you're shooting 135 film, I think a better option is a Nikon scanner or a DSLR scanning setup, simply because of easier/faster workflow, but that's a whole other conversation...)
I should add to my above post that most people don't need an Imacon. Les' post (#53) illustrates that you can get perfectly good scans from an Epson flatbed, depending on what your end use is. The key is understanding how to use the software. My broader point was to convey that what the OP got from their lab was not representative of what an Imacon can or should produce.
They gave you low resolution scans - you have to scan for output
Say 16x 20 @ 300 dpi minimum : your scan should be around 200 meg each the way I understand it.
OP got 600dpi, 8bit (premium!) scans.
For whatever it's worth, I compared my V850 flatbed and someone else's Howtek 8000 drum using the same 4x5 Tmax 100 shot. Here's the forum thread. The V850 compared well with the Howtek.
Howtek 8000 Drum vs. Epson V850 flatbed scanners
Here's a comparison between Howtek HiResolve 8000 drum scanner and Epson V850 flatbed. Negative is mine, Tmax 100, processed normal by North Coast Photo dip and dunk with Clayton F76+ developer (similar to Kodak D76). Taken on a Chamonix 45H-1, Schneider Symmar APO 150mm with B+W orange...
www.largeformatphotography.info
I just double checked and you're right as I must've been looking at a a different image!
I'm curious for those using the V850 if you've ever seen artifacts of uneven illumination. I had one briefly and ended up returning it because uniform areas like properly exposed skies would show very perceptible diffuse lines of more or less intensity parallel to the orientation of the scanning bed. I guessed that may have been related to the switch from cold-cathode illumination to an LED array, and that my unit might have been missing or have a misplaced diffusing component or something. I ended up with a V700 which has been fine, but I've been curious about this - the degree of unevenness I saw was enough that people in this thread at least would have been all over it.
in my experience, parallel lines are usually caused by dirt on the sensor or a problem in the calibration area (beginning of the scanning bed).
but normally I've never encountered unevenness with an V850 and I used three different units and scanned quite a lot of film with it.
but normally I've never encountered unevenness with an V850 and I used three different units and scanned quite a lot of film with it.
Saving files in jpeg with too high of compression will cause bands in the sky. What settings are you using.
Sorry, I wasn't looking for troubleshooting advice, just thought I'd mention the phenomenon I saw and see if anyone else had seen it.
I sent the helpful people at Epson scans of different formats of film from 35mm to 4x5 and at different orientations to the scanning bed. 35mm frames had 4 or 5 parallel bands, 120 had 8 or 9, 4x5 even more, etc. They agreed it was abnormal and RMA'd the scanner.
If you're interested in seeing the thing I'm talking about --
Again, not looking for troubleshooting advice, this was resolved years ago. Sorry, it was just an off the cuff query, and I did not want to derail this thread.
I really enjoyed looking through those photos. Curious, surreal, but also very tasteful. Thanks.
Hey, thank you very much!
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2004
- Messages
- 425
- Format
- Super8
Watching this thread. I'm either buying a GFX100 or an Imacon 949 this year. Can't buy both. I love Imacon scans but it seems like GFX negative "scans" would have a lot more flexibility if the capture quality can be made equal, especially the ability to tweak the light source. Currently looking into enlarger and macro lens solutions.
Imacon scans seem better suited for some images but not others. I have some drum scanning experience but I don't want to wet mount and production time is way too slow.
Imacon scans seem better suited for some images but not others. I have some drum scanning experience but I don't want to wet mount and production time is way too slow.
I think the camera has a lot of potential. In my efforts to go beyond "snapshot" level I found that flatness of field in the reproducing lens, and actual film flatness, are not completely trivial. As far as film, with 35mm I think it's possible to get by with a decent film carrier, but with anything bigger I've found I end up being happier wet mounting (flat) on glass anyway. Also it's taken me some fiddling to find the optimal aperture for the lens I'm using - too wide and the corners suffer, too small and diffraction is a problem. It'd probably be easier if I were using something more expensive than the Sigma 70mm F2.8 macro, though it does do well on 35mm. Keeping the film plane parallel to the sensor plane is obviously important too, but that's pretty easy to achieve with a mirror at the film plane.
If you let me offer unsolicited advice: you are not going to be happy with the GFX100. The reason is that there are no suitable lenses for scanning film available for that mount. Fuji doesn't offer a 1:1 flat-field macro with auto-focus, so you'll be stuck with legacy medium format macro lenses with manual focus and an adapter. Spoiler alert: there are just 4 to choose from. None of them, unless you're willing to drop another $5K on something like this, will be able to take advantage of that glorious sensor [1]. After several months of buying/selling/returning/researching/testing I gave up and sold my GFX and got the Sony A7R IV with Sigma Art 100mm Macro. That's a major step up from GFX and I am convinced it's the best setup for scanning film under $10K at the moment, and it wipes the floor with Imacons (scanning speed and image quality) for 35mm. If you're willing to stitch dual-shot scans, it destroys Imacons for medium and large format as well, assuming you find a way to keep film flat. My suggestion is to spend on Negative Supply film holders and adopt a flat film drying routine.
[1] All GFX lenses suffer from two problems: corner performance (and that applies to Fuji's 1:2 macro with rings) due to uneven focus field and manual focus errors. These issues with legacy lenses aren't visible on lower resolution platforms, but get exposed by that glorious 102MP beast.
Last edited:
TheFlyingCamera
Membership Council
which four medium-format macro lenses are you referring to?
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2004
- Messages
- 425
- Format
- Super8
I do appreciate your advice. I have to say I'm surprised that your experience is that optimum camera based "scans" are superior to Imacon. I would be happy with just "as good as" Imacon. I will be scanning mostly 6x6 and 35mm with a very small number of 6x17-120 and 4x5s. The GFX (or A7R IV you're using) is also appealing for print reproduction. I don't ever see myself in the darkroom ever again and I have some prints I'd like to duplicate and archive.
I wasn't really considering the GF macro lenses. I was thinking that a 120 enlarger lens might work better. I see EL-Nikkor APO 105mm lenses for around $2k. There are good but less costly options too, like the standard EL-Nikkors, Fujinon EX, and Computar DLs. That would make an entire GFX duplication outfit potentially less costly than a clean Imacon 949, with the added bonus of being able to use the camera for photography. That camera's 16-bit files seem promising.
The reason I'd prefer not to wet mount is that - in my limited wet mounting experience - my impression was that the fluid added diffusion to the (drum) scans. The majority of my negatives are relatively grainy and I want to maintain somewhat crisp grain definition. The wet mounted drum scans seemed to smooth out the grain a little. While the Imacon scans emphasized it if anything. Some place in between would be ideal. I mostly printed with a Focomat Ic with the diffusion condensor glass filter. That's the kind of crisp but not harsh definition I'm looking for.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2004
- Messages
- 425
- Format
- Super8
Has to be Zeiss (Hassy or Rollei), Mamiya, and Pentax 120mm f/4 Macros.
I’m coming late to this thread obviously. Very interesting to hear you break down the actual labor of providing a high quality scanning service. And yes it’s a lot of work that’s probably unaffordable for most folks.
Responding to a few things at once I would say that anyone shooting sheet film these days is concerned about image quality as a priority. In today’s world that leaves the hard choice of either:
A. Darkroom printing!
B. Paying (Justifiably) expensive rates for premium scanning services or
C. Accessing a good enough scanner or Dslr set-up and learning how to get the best out of it.
If options A. and B. are not viable, then there’s really no choice but to plunge into option C. Otherwise there’s no point in shooting LF or even MF film in the first place.
Sadly there is no longer the option D. which was my go-to. Option D. was shared access to an otherwise unaffordable piece of hardware like an Imacon. Over 15 years I used four different Imacon machines in photo-coop’s in Stockholm, Copenhagen, and two different ones in Dublin over the years, until about 10 years ago. They’re pretty much all gone now. The Imacon is not in my opinion a particularly difficult machine to use. It’s sort of like a digital enlarger. The results were frankly superb, only short of a drum scanner, whilst being way easier to use.
And to end with a direct response to the O.P. I usually made 2000 dpi 16 bit TIFF scans from 4x5. RGB scans were about 450 megabytes each, and at a proper optical 2000 dpi I felt there wasn’t much more resolution to extract from the negs.
FWIW I’m on the Dslr scanning train. I have several macro lenses, high quality enlarger lenses, and a PB-4 bellows and am continually playing around with different configurations.
I’m considering investing in a Nikon z8 with the Z mount 105 micro-Nikkor to make use of its multi-shot capabilities for capturing MF & LF film without stitching. It’s a >5k spend, which is a lot, but a hugely capable camera given I also do some video work. I’m not sure if the glass is up to the resolution demands - more research required. Alternatively I might just rent a z8 rig for a week and batch scan a ton of recent negs simultaneously.
I’m considering investing in a Nikon z8 with the Z mount 105 micro-Nikkor to make use of its multi-shot capabilities for capturing MF & LF film without stitching. It’s a >5k spend, which is a lot, but a hugely capable camera given I also do some video work. I’m not sure if the glass is up to the resolution demands - more research required. Alternatively I might just rent a z8 rig for a week and batch scan a ton of recent negs simultaneously.
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2004
- Messages
- 425
- Format
- Super8
Which lenses did you try on the GFX besides the GF Macro?
I see your point about trying to make this work on larger than FF. I'm looking into using something like a 120mm Makro Symmar with focus stacking similar to in that Kasson post. I have a Mamiya Z 140mm macro, but I doubt that will be sufficient.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |