Hasselblad Imacon Flextight scanners - discontinued

I came upon a newsletter that they are discontinued and B&H list them as such too.

 

Does that leave film photography with b/w film?

 

Give it several year like Nikon, Hasselblad might state there are no longer parts and servicing are no longer provided other than a CLA. Over the years more and more labs will no longer have Hasselblad scanners, drum scanners I believe are also no longer officially supported. Over the years also those who still repair Nikon, Hasselblad scanners unofficially more of them would start to retire.

 

Your thoughts?

For 35mm I see no problem - cinema scanners are at least as good as drum scanners, and they can be adapted for stills use. Medium format might be a different story, although an IMAX scanner can certainly be adapted for that.

Who has access to these cinema scanners? Only the larger countries? Expensive? How available and convenient to customers / hobbyists?

Although I don't personally do it, DSLR "scanning" with high resolution(36mp+) cameras seems to be delivering excellent results for 35mm film and even medium format.

 

As MF digital gets even more affordable and attainable(see the new Fuji at $10K, an unprecedented low price) it wouldn't surprise me if folks start using that instead of scanners. After all, what's not to like about 100mp on a larger than 35mm sensor?

 

Aside from quality, scanning even a relatively clean frame on my Coolscan V takes a minute or two, and a 6x6 or 6x7 takes a couple of minutes on the 8000. That's not counting the time to load the film in the scanner, which with slides on the V is as quick as I can pop them in and out(and not much longer with strips aside from getting them indexed correctly). From what I've seen, getting the film loaded is the slowest step of camera scanning, and even that's not a big deal. Once loaded, the actual capture takes an insignificant amount of time.

As film becomes an increasingly "legacy" item, the market for new medium to high performance scanners will disappear, replaced by flatbed scanners and for enthusiasts, copying with digital cameras.

 

A digital camera with 24 MP sensor has the same resolution for 35 mm film as a Nikon scanner, and 24 MP is the new normal. When copying medium format film, a 50 MP cameras uses about 35 MP when copying a square format, and is nearly 90% efficient when copying 645 and 6x7 formats. While a Nikon 8000 has higher resolution, most of those pixels are wasted reproducing dye clouds, grain, and chemically diffuse images. Digital has surpassed film not because it is newer technology, but because it is better, and every device devoted to film is diminished in the process.

I don't care much. - High end scanning the heck out of film is pretty much a project for the eighth day of the week, in my eyes. Color would go through a consumer lab, with their mediocre scanners, without data transfer to me. BW is something I might again enjoy doing at home, wet & optically and of course in moderate dosage...

For everyday mass printing needs reproducing or scanning with digital cameras seems the way to go, for me. High end scanners had their niche, when (good) enough digital captures weren't at hand. If I recall things right: A Hasselblad scanner was in a Fuji DMF price range? - Why buy it plus film?

 

I suppose pro labs will stay going for a decade, so why not simply burn the film you have and look and see, if you 'll want any high end scans at all?

FTR: I believe in a superiority of film, in case you can shoot stuff with LF. Otherwise its a fun project, so why seriously worry?

In terms of scanning film (particularly older slides) with a digital camera and enjoying the faster capture compared to a high-end scanner with infrared-based dust removal, good luck with spotting out the dust with Photoshop...you're gonna need that extra time (and software based solutions are going to create noticeable 'artifacts')

I think its a pity. The Imacon Flextight was/is about the most economical scanner that a lab ( or you ) could use to realise the real benefits of medium format film- and whilst I have a large quantity of scans from these and drum scanners, I have thousands of 6x6 and 67 slides that haven't been scanned. I've got some very nice prints sized between say 16" sq and 24" sq that had Imacon scans as an integral part of their journey.

 

But then I think

 

1. When was the last time I had a batch of slides scanned? the only time I do that nowadays is for a Blurb book and for that application I get what I need from an Epson. Its years since I sold a large print from a slide- and indeed its years since I sold a large print full stop. I can't recall the last time I needed to make a scan that I couldn't make on a V700.

 

2. How many new scanning operations are starting off? Most of those I've used in the last twenty years don't operate any more. The few that do don't exactly flood my mailbox with excited notifications that they've bought new scanners. The feeling you get is that when their scanners break, that'll be the cue to close their scanning business.

 

So have Imacon/Hasselblad discontinued these scanners? Or have we done it for them by not scanning, and not patronising the scanning sources that might buy Flextights? I'm sad to see a good product go - though it doesn't mean that the scanners out there will stop working right away. They can't keep their product line going if no-one buys it. All of which doesn't make it any less sad, but does make it expected.

After my first post here for a long time I'm piqued to make another.

 

I must confess to hating scanning. Its dull, repetitive, and utterly boring. The only debate I have with the gentleman above who referred to it as a task for the eighth day of the week is that for me it might be the ninth.

 

I've never been attracted to the palaver of buying and setting up the ability to use a DSLR as a scanner . This isn't because it won't work- its because I have never, ever, considered seriously the possibility of scanning my entire slide collection. My decision has always been to scan only those slides or negs for which I absolutely need the scan- like stock agency acceptances or because I want to make a print for me or others. If I don't have a clear and present use for a scan, I don't make it, or have it made. That means that scanning for me is something I do one, two, a few at a time, especially nowadays.

 

And I really can't imagine buying the bits or setting up the rig you need to "scan" with a dslr to do one or two. Now I know ( since I've been around here a good few years) there are folk that set themselves the task of scanning entire collections of their photos or family photos, and spend weeks, months or years of what could have been spare time getting that done. Sorry, for me, not a chance. Edward Ingold referred to Dslr scanning as being "for enthusiasts". I could not bring any enthusiasm whatsoever to the task of scanning my 50 000 approx MF slides, or even to the mammoth task of sorting the pile down to the 5 000 that might actually be worth a light and scanning

 

So for me the demise of quality scanners and scanning businesses is more of a big deal , even if its not something that keeps me awake or affects my every day.

I'm not sure of the protocol for self-promotion, but in my Oscans business in Australia we are still using big old Kodak HR500 Plus scanners that have digital ICE cleaning for Kodachrome.

 

We were in the process of considering a Flextight, I wish I had jumped sooner. It is a better scanner in terms of technical quality, though much slower and without a cleaning process.

 

As others are saying, we will keep scanning until we no longer have functional equipment.

 

Sadly, that day will certainly arrive before everything is scanned.

As others are saying, we will keep scanning until we no longer have functional equipment.

 

Sadly, that day will certainly arrive before everything is scanned.

 

The market for film has improved, but it seems that the film processing business is still contracting which limits the market for high end scanners. Hopefully that won't ultimately lead to a shortage of processors and a pricing uptick that drives current and potential film users away.

Being sad about their demise is not going to bring high quality, mostly affordable scanners back to existence. In the context of my post, an "enthusiast" is someone who has a suitable digital camera and lens, and wants the best available quality as opposed to using a flatbed scanner. The lack of ICE is no impediment. If you clean the slides first, you don't need ICE. For the few spots that remain, Lightroom is far more facile than Photoshop, because you don't have to open each image individually, fix it, then save it again.

 

A couple of weeks ago, I "scanned" over 400 family slides with a camera, at higher resolution and better image quality than my Nikon LS-4000. It took about two hours for the lot. In other words, I scanned about 12 rolls of film in the time the Nikon would take for a single roll. You can always go back to a scenic spot, but not to a time when your children were toddlers.

The Haselblad Imacon Flextight scanners were always priced in the stratosphere, untenable for any but the most dedicated pro film photographers or labs/scanning services. The design hasn't changed in years, however, and Hasselblad has had the market all to themselves for quite awhile (after the competitive, lower priced Nikon CS-9000 was discontinued ages ago). Under normal circumstances (stable management and cash flow), Hasselblad could easily have kept these scanners going as a niche halo product for another decade. Unfortunately, Hasselblad's management and cash flow is about as stable as New York City's, so they are cutting back on any perceived product that doesn't deliver significant income. Probably the cost of warehousing the units, parts and assembly area is barely at breakeven with annual sales.

 

But I'm not that worried about scanning services dying en masse any time soon, certainly not due to a dearth of Flextights. Comparatively few services were using Imacons: most I've seen are in rent-by-the-hour local darkroom facilities. For medium and large format many dedicated scanning services are still using oldie-but-goodie Creo-Fuji-Scitex high-res flatbeds (which equal a Nikon CS-8000 but do much faster batch scans). I'm more worried about these scanning firms being able to repair/replace the ancient Apple Mac tower computers required to run those old scanners. 35mm scans are often made with repurposed high volume minilab scanners, or again high-res high-volume vintage flatbeds. And the cult of wet-mount drum scanning shows no sign of ebbing, for those willing to spend the money. Flextights were a piece of the service bureau puzzle, just like the Nikon CoolScans, but they aren't the only piece.

 

Even if every scanner were to disappear tomorrow, digital camera based systems would replace them. Already, drum scans and premium Flextight/Creo scans had begun migrating to pricey dedicated medium-format digital camera "cultural heritage" solutions sold and rented by the likes of Phase One, with huge-sensor 100MP and 150MP digital back capture. With Flextight now gone, more modestly priced MF camera setups may start appearing from other vendors (the Fuji 100MP cam would be a great basis). And of course more and more people are jumping on the DIY with your DSLR "scanning" technique. The problem there is lack of a consistent reference system and workflow: hundreds of threads on camera scanning, thousands of posts, and not one agrees with another on film holders, lighting, alignment or software.

 

Camera scanning of 35mm strips and slides has become increasingly popular, because it isn't that difficult to do with existing accessories from the old film duping era. Camera scanning of medium format is another story: all the glib posts recommending "just use a light table and stitch!" are a bit unrealistic. There's a bit more to it than that, and it isn't easy unless you spring for a dedicated accessory like the $1500 Film Toaster (which really needs more competition: get off the stick, Nikon and Sony). And lets not forget the legions of people still discovering family troves they want scanned, most of whose idea of a camera extends no further than their iPhone or Android. They wouldn't recognize a DSLR or mirrorless if you knocked them unconscious with it, much less fathom how to scan film with one. I haven't met too many Ed_Ingolds who can blithely snap their way thru 400 slides on their coffee break, and zip thru color correction and spotting as if they were playing Minecraft.

 

So the demand for film scanning service providers should continue for some years yet, even if the methods and terminology change. As more film scanners (new and used) disappear from availability, perhaps "camera scanning" will morph to a term like "film digitizing". But the goal and end product will be similar.

Edited October 17, 2019 by orsetto

Not more Chicken Little hand-wringing...Quality film labs nearly always offer quality scanning now and their ordinary dev/scan service appears to satisfy most customers who seem rarely to print anyway. Nothing "unrealistic" about DSLR scanning relative to the fussing and tedium of getting a civilian flatbed to deliver sharp scans.

Hello everyone! I am new here. An uncle of a friend is selling his Hasselblad Imacon Flextight scanners. It comes with SCCi cables so my question is if there in an adapter that can use it on my iMac Mojave 10.14 and make sure that it is recognized? 

My friend told me that it is a good working condition and the uncle is asking $3,000 US. Is that also a good price and can I get service for it in case I need it later? Thank you all. 

 

Thanks

Sue

Edited February 6, 2023 by Susie_B

There are SCSI (Small Computer System Interface, and pronounced 'scuzzy') to USB adapters available at a fairly high price, but from all reports their compatibility is variable. Then there's the issue of finding drivers and software for your Mac. 

The most reliable and economical route would be to source an old computer with a SCSI card that's about the same era as the scanner. Maybe your friend's uncle also has one for sale? 

What size film are you hoping to scan? Because a Flextight really doesn't make economic sense today for anything smaller than 6x7.

It would be massive overkill for 35mm film.

Read the posts above, and other threads, about digital camera copying as a very viable alternative to scanning. 

Edited February 7, 2023 by rodeo_joe1

17 hours ago, Susie_B said:

Hello everyone! I am new here. An uncle of a friend is selling his Hasselblad Imacon Flextight scanners. It comes with SCCi cables so my question is if there in an adapter that can use it on my iMac Mojave 10.14 and make sure that it is recognized? 

My friend told me that it is a good working condition and the uncle is asking $3,000 US. Is that also a good price and can I get service for it in case I need it later? Thank you all. 

 

Thanks

Sue

Old equipment can be more troublesome than just needing adapters, it could be worn out and a service might cost an arm and a leg. Take my advise and get a new Epson V800 or V850. I have old Microteks and a Nikon LS 8000 and they're just not what they used to be. Software and computer operating systems have changed so much, it all becomes one big headache trying to get old devices to run properly and to keep them running. Updates are non existent for old software. Go for newer equipment.

There's a few bridges you need to cross before you jump into ownership.  This is not an exhaustive list.  I would like to reassure you that the quality of the scanner is basically very good.  I've had hundreds of scans made on this machine commercially and I and my stock agencies were pretty happy with them.  But

1.  Are you technical?  And do you enjoy technical issues?   Its likely that as well as buying the scanner you'll have to use hardware & software that's pretty old .  For someone entering this arena for the first time there's a lot you'll need to learn and not a vast number of people you can learn it from.  Would be helpful if you could open a dialogue with someone who'd been though this process successfully .  There might be such a person on Photo.net but you might need to look outside.

2.  Are you clear about what you want to scan to what size , whether the Imacon  will do that and whether there's anything  - like ancillaries - that you need to get it to scan what you want it to.

3.  Is the seller prepared to underwrite that the scanner is in proper working order eg by giving some form of warranty?

4. How many scans do you think you want to make ?  p.a or in total.  This is because if you want to make a few hundred its might be as cheap to buy those in than to enter a process that has the potential to be both complex and expensive.  If you have thousands of film shots & you're thinking of scanning the lot then you should question whether you actually need to do that. Most people don't find scanning fun and have other, perhaps more exciting, calls on their time.  My own policy is to scan only when I know exactly what use I'm going to make of the scan after- like make a print, sell usage rights or whatever.  I don't ever scan simply because I might want to make a print later.  And if my purpose is to put the image onto the web, or make a self-published book, then I'll use a scanner appropriate to those tasks & it isn't going to be an Imacon.

5.  Personally I would not buy anything on this scale without first having identified a convenient route to getting service and/or repair.