Fuji LANOVIA vs IMACON scanner

Which scanner is better for scanning negatives and slides?

The Lanovia has both higher resolution and DMax .... will generally outperform an Imacon.

Do you have your eye on a specific machine that is for sale?

I am surprised. Because Lanovia is a flatbed scanner. And as far as I know film scanners are better then flatbeds.

I'd be very surprised the Lanovia could outperform an Imacon. Output dpi and resolved

resolution are two entirely different things, as anyone that has owned a 4000dpi Epson can

tell you (optically sub 2000). For another, the dMax on the Fuji scanner is 3.9 - an Imacon

(which contrary to the above reply can scan much higher than 5000dpi) will knock the socks

off in terms of dMax.

If my memory serves me, the dMax on an Imacon 848 is 4.6 against the 3.9 of the Fuji, and

max resolution of the Flextight 848 (on 35mm) is 8000 dpi against 5000 dpi for the Fuji. The

Imacon resolution decreases as the film format increases however, but anyone scanning a

4x5" chrome at 5000dpi 16bits is insane anyway. ;-)<p>

Naturally, feeding in a 3-dimensional object into your Flextight will cause problems...

True that dedicated film scanners outperform consumer flatbeds, not true for the high end

flatbeds from Fuji, Creo, Screen and Microtek where the beds move in two directions as

well as having far superior stepping motors, better optics and software, etc.

 

The Imacons occupy a place in between the consumer scanners (e.g the Epsons) and the

high end flatbeds and drum scanners. They are really flatbeds where the film moves

rather than 'virtual drum scanners' as they are advertised. The problem with their

specifications is that they are done more in the way thos are done for consumer scanners

than the way they are done for the high end scanners. We tested the DMax of an Imacon

848 for a View Camera article several years ago and it didn't get much over 2.5when

tested with a Stouffer Step Wedge. The Fuji Lanovia, OTOH does deliver in the range of

3.9.

 

I will be testing one of the new Imacons this Spring and will ahve a much better feel for

their prformance then.

Hi.

 

I haven't used either scanner directly, but I have heard nothing but good words about the

Fuji -- it has an excellent reputation. So do the Imacons, but it is important to keep in

mind the relative capabilities of each scanner. The Imacon is meant to be essentially a

"personal" scanner, for photographers to scan their own work. What the Fuji will give you

(quality aside) is the ability to batch scan, and to scan oversize originals, both reflective

and transparent.

 

Right now, that may not seem like such a big deal, but I promise, the day will come when

the workflow advantages of the Fuji will become apparent, and you'll curse yourself if you

picked up the imacon instead. Scanning one transparency at a time will keep you tied

down at your workstation all day to process a large shoot. And no matter what size Imacon

you get, (2x2, 4x5) someday you'll find yourself wanting to scan the next size (5x7, 8x10)

up.

 

If the Fuji is too pricey, take a look at used Creo/Kodak or Heidelberg (Topaz, Nexscan,

etc.) flatbeds.

I used Imacon 848 and 959 so many times. I am quite satisfied with the results. I am just looking for something less expensive so that I dont have to go to a lab to hire an Imacon all the time. I am sure fuji is almost the same or may be more expensive but just want to see my best options if one day! i can find 20k at some point to invest on a scanner.

New the Fuji is much more expensive than either of the current model Imacons, used you

may find one for less.

Not knocking Imacon, they do a good job for smaller films. However, soon as film size goes up, the resolution goes down and at 4x5 it is only 2040ppi. Maybe 5000ppi sounds insane, but you will find many services now scanning at 4000ppi, so not so insane after all. Consumer flatbeds may not perform as well as a film scanner, but the pro flatbeds like Creo (IQ2 and IQ3), Cezanne, or Lanovia will blow the Imacon away at medium format and above (with 6x6 film, the Imacon 949 only does 3200ppi). For the price of a new Imacon 949. the Creo IQ3 would be a far better unit in every respect.

I m quite surprised . I never looked at this pro flatbed scanners before. In my mind, the flatbed scanners were always second class. Now what i m reading here changed my mind.

 

It would be nice to see some examples compared to imacon tough.

 

And where do they sell these pro flatbeds?

Here are some examples:

 

http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/

 

as for where they sell them, try ebay for a used model (but do a lot of research first -- older

models can have peculiar compatibility issues) For new, parrot is always a good option:

http://www.parrotcolor.com/store/home.php?cat=618

 

or just go to kodak's website

thank you very much for the information. it helped me a lot. i didnt have any knowledge about these pro flatbed scanners. they are absolutely in a different league. what i ve seen in the comparison link is very helpful. a quick look showed me lanovia and scitex supreme is incredible. id idnt see any imacons compared next to them but i will take a good look one more time.

 

one last thing, if you guys have to put them from the top to the bottom, can you give me a comparison list from your views and experiences.i mean like

 

1-scitex

2-lanovia

3-imacon

 

etc...

I can only speak from personal experience; the Scitex was the best non-drum scanner I have

ever used, with a Heidelberg Nexscan being a close second. The scitex was an old model

(340L) but I have also had scans done on a newer Creo (which merged with Scitex and sold

products under the Creo name) and found them to be superb. I have also used a Umax "high-

end" scanner (powerlook, I think) and found it to be horrible -- worse than even an Epson

desktop. I haven't used Fuji, Screen or other high-end flatbeds.

In a comparative test done by Seybold several years ago the top 5 were:

 

1 -- Screen Cezanne

2 -- Screen Cezanne Elite

3 -- Fuji Lanovia

4 -- ICG 365

5 -- Heidelberg Nexscan F4200

 

Send me an email and I can send you a pdf of the entire reoprt, It used to be online free

but Since Seybold's merger it costs $$.

BTW Leo the Eversmart Supreme was 7 or 8, tied with the Tango, As for the UMax Powerlook

III .... not highend, just highend 'prosumer' for its time.

The Cezanne or the Creo IQ2/3 has been mentioned by several people to beat the Tango. They are that good, and for what it is worth, I wouldn't bother with a drum scanner unless you need to scan at 8000ppi from smaller formats. Sure some will disapprove, but I don't like the mess, workstation thing, and considering the quality... to me it is not disputable. The Cezanne operates at 5300ppi, Creo IQ3smart at 5500ppi, and the IQ2 at 4300ppi ($13k Cdn). In comparison, Epson and other similar flatbeds are just toys when it comes down to large format printing, okay for small stuff, but that is it (and even then it lacks the dmax of the pro models). Check out

 

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/

 

The Creo IQ3 is razor sharp compared to the Tango. An ICG would be nice, but $$$$! Regardless of how accurate the tests are (I have never seen a test that everyone could agree with), these products are amazing and do more then a Imacon, and far more convenient then drum scanning.

 

If you can find a place that rents time, that is the way to go I feel for many of us. Check out http://www.pikto.ca .

Hi all.

I have no doubt some of the newer scanners are better -- Scitex made some of the best,

and most innovative hardware in the business, but they evaporated into Creo and then HP/

Kodak. A lot of the Creo-branded gear has, I think, suffered in quality comparatively. It's

still a hell of a lot nicer than any consumer grade stuff, but it isn't the best you could do. I

have worked with a S3400 and a Tango. The Tango was much easier to use and maintain,

mostly because of the smaller drum, but the 3400 produced better scans. But the Scitex

was almost aas good, and way more useful. Honestly, we used the Chromograph a lot less

than we thoght we would when we got it. The Tango was at a different job, where we were

forbidden to use the flatbed (the Nexscan) for chromes. The Nexscan was a newer

scanner, so I expected it to be better then the Scitex, but I have to say that I just found the

Scitex scans to be aesthetically "nicer." There was a slightly harsh, yet also unsatisfyingly

soft quality to the Nexscan images -- almost like those early CDs with bad, 16-bit A/D

conversion. Whereas the Scitex scans were just plain pleasing. I found the software for

both platforms to be comparable, with the Scitex having the slightly steeper learning

curve. I just remembered that I also used a Topaz briefly, but I don't remember anything

about the scans...

 

Having said all that, I think that after a certain point, advances in input hardware are

obscured by the limitations of output. The inherent limitations of all but the highest

quality output are combined with the simple fact that most operators are only semi-

competent and won't pull good scans, or output anything approaching the gamut

limitations of their equipment. The result is that I think it gets a little silly debating the

precise ranking order of various high end scanners. Get some good kit, learn to use it well,

and spend your energy making good work that you're happy with -- that should be the

goal, I think.

 

Anyway, while I'm here, I'll make a plea for anyone with experience wet-mounting on a

flatbed to post to my "wet mounting" thread a few post up from here. Thanks all.

Van, thanks for that link of side-by-side scanner comparisons. I had seen that comparative test over on Large Format forum, but looking now specifically again the Lanovia vs the Imacon Photo (what is that exactly, I don't know - but it sounds like it seriously predates something of the ilk of an 848, given that it needs to be stitched to cover a 4x5" so hardly a current comparison).<p>

Even then, I'm sorry to say that the Imacon scan is hands down much better than the Lanovia. Look through the newsprint portion, look at the knitted fabric, look at the texture of the stone bench... <p>

That comparison also shows how much better a Tango scan can be of course, but that's not the issue here I believe.

Those comparisons are helpful, but I wouldn't put too much faith in them. For instance, you

compare the Imacon scan to the Lanovia, pointing to the differences in the newsprint image.

But do the roll-over, and look at how much more (apparent) sharpening has been done to the

Imacon image. The Fuji image just has a touch of sharpening, leaving the resultant image a

bit undersharp at that magnification. There are all sorts of inconsistancies in these scans, and

a lot of the differences are within the "margin of error" for different operators of varying skill

levels and other variables.

I should have mentioned that I was comparing the unsharpened versions of each scan... the post-USM of each scan is all over the board; look at the Creo IQ which has been grossly oversharpened for example. <p>

It may be operator difference as well, as knowing how to turn off USM in the Imacon is not obvious for example... <p>

What price range are the Fuji's in by the way?

IIRC the Fuji's are over 20K ... closer to 30 I think but remember they are not currently

available in North America except (very rarely) used.

Peri,

 

I wasn't thinking so much about the Lanovia in my earlier comments (I agree with your results). The Lanovia is also hard to find, hard to get service or tech support. Not knocking Imacon, just that it only does 3200ppi for medium format and less for 4x5 (2040ppi). There is no way the Imacon will match a Cezanne or Creo for larger negs. The best is get scans done by the distributor (they offered it to me no charge). Now if you ever decide you want to do 5x7, 8x10, are you ready to start shopping all over again? These things are big bucks!

 

Which is best, Tango or Creo or Cezanne? Yu know, I really don't care, as long as I don't need to stand at a work station, play with taping, oils, cleaning up. All three are incredible, and any will meet your needs, where as an Epson or Microtek falls way short (just toys...looking at weight alone, Epsons weigh likely around 15 lbs, vs 160 pounds for a Cezanne due to high precision machined components). Quality also improves if you wet mount, and you don't need to fiddle with height adjustments like you do with Epsons for optimal resolution.

 

Good luck with your purchase.

I've had a pretty good look at scanners, trying to understand all the hype about dpi and

what mtf is for scanning. It is amasing now that it is possible to purchase what was a

$70,000 Heidelberg Topaz scanner about ten years about for about $5,000 (plus the OSX

software). Their technology is still relavent, but has fallen out of vogue in the high-end

graphics market because of digital capture.

 

Try www.hudsongrafik.com

 

I have a Circon I bought from, of course, Ebay. I had to add a scsi card and Silverfast to it.

It can be manually focused. It has three lens for scanning three different areas of the bed.

Each area has a different max dpi 800/1200/2400. The resolution is extremely good as is

the dMax. Plus, it doesn't take at all very long to do a hi-res scan of six 6x7 negs.

 

Look into older high-end flatbeds, there is nothing wrong with them. On the high-end,

though, the r&d as meet it's limit on dollar return.

 

ARC Photographic