Upgrading a Nikon Coolscan V to an Imacon Flextight Photo : worth it ?

[frédéric]

Hi all,

 

I currently scan my Velvia 24x36 transparencies with a Nikon Coolscan V which

I am reasonnably happy. Except for a few things :

 

- the image is not that sharp, as transparacy cannot be 100% flat and probably

due to the optical quality of the Nikon lens.

- there is a loss of density (especially in the hightlights)

- Colors are not as vivid as the original and sometime not faithfull (for my

Iceland photos for example)

 

I have been proposed a second hand Imacon Flextight Photo for 2500 euros

($3200).

 

- Do you think it is worth it (I mean, is the price right for what it is ?) :

the definition of the imacon is supposed to be 3200 "real "ppi. How does that

compare with the 4000 "not so real" ppi of the Nikon ? Also Dmax is 4.2

(Nikion) vs 4.1 (Imacon)...

 

- is it a significant upgrade compared to the Nikon Coolscan V ?

 

- Is there not alternative (and cheaper) options to consider if I want to

upgrade my current scanner ? Using glass mounted frame will solve the flatness

of the film but does this affect sharpness ? What about higher end Nikon

scanners (5000 or 9000) ?

 

Thanks for your answers,

 

Frederic

www.northernlandscapephotography.com

[gene_e._mccluney]

It has been said that the Nikon scanners have "razor-thin" focus, and to achieve optimum

results one has to use the glass carrier. I have a Nikon 9000ed, and I have to agree...I was

never able to get edge-to-edge sharpness until I got the glass carrier. The glass carrier

does not degrade sharpness in any way. It is the only way to go. While a Imacon scanner

is indeed a step-up from the Nikon, the Nikon is possibly the best line of tabletop film

scanners, other than the Imacon line, and considerably cheaper to purchase.

 

McCluney Photo

[ellis_vener_photography]

I think your money will be better spent on a Nikon Coolscan 9000 and a fluid mounting

tray. better scanning software helps: SilverFast Ai7, and you might learn a lot from going

to http://www.josephholmes.com/profiles.html and reading everything there about color

spaces and scanning workflows.

 

Wet mounting not only holds the film flatter but increases what I call micro contrast -

seperation of details, esecially in the denser areas of my film. This has a side effect of

cleanign up the noise a scanner can introduce into the electronic file as well.

 

How color managed is your system? The Monitor, printer and (maybe) scanner all benefit

from accurate calibration and profiling. I say "maybe" about the scanner as MacHolbert at

http://www.nasheditions.com seemahas come to the conclusion that profiling a scanner

doesn't necessaruily pay off in the end but big color spaces (like the ones Holmes has

designed) and a 16 bit per channel workflow do too. The other problem with IT-8 targets

is that the results from using a 35mm sized target doesn't yield as accurate of results as

usign a larger target.

 

A deeoeper understanding of the sharpening process than most people have is also

extremely valuable. See "Real World Iamge Sharpening wit hAdobe Photoshop CS2" by

Bruce Fraser is invaluable. I have used the sharpening tool set Fraser designed --Photokit

Sharpener from http://www.pixelgenius.com -- for years but since reading Fraser's book

wearlier this month I now get visibly better resultsas I have amuch better understanding

of what I'm looking for and how to produce results tailored to a specific image.

 

I also use Noise Ninja to reduce noise i nall of my scans, and do any major global tonal

changes before doing the capture sharpening pass.

 

And sad to say, I've stopped using Digital ICE as I decided that for my purposes, it

degraded the image just a little too much for my liking. But God do I hate "dust-busting"!

[anthony_r]

I'm not sure what model the Imacon Photo is. I have used the 858 I believe pretty extensively

and have loads of time on the Nikon 9000. The Imacon is fast, I'll five it that. I however find a

big issue in separation between subject and background, etc. with the Imacon however. I also

don't believe they have a reliable Ice like option and the Imacon for me was a dust magnet.

The price seems reasonable, but I'm not sure you are going to be that much if at all happier

with the scans. The imacon has some canned film settings that work ok most of the time, but

I was never super hot on the color that came right out either. Good scanner, depending on

the model, and quite fast but...perhaps you can try it out first?

[custom film holders for fl]

I think you really need to make a test scan using each of the scanners using the same film frame. Then go through your post processing routine with them both and see which scan allows you to get to most from your film. When comparing these two scanners, it is said you really need to compare the end results after post-processing - at least in terms of sharpness. You can find multiple threads on the internet that make the claim the Imacon does a lot of sharpening behind the scenes.

<p> Doug<p>

<a href="http://www.betterscanning.com">BetterScanning.com</a>

[frédéric]

Thank you for your sound answers.

I have indeed asked the owner to do some scans for me.

As the Flextight Photo is the entry level of the Imacon scanner, I might look for a higher spec Imacon which I could find for the same price, if not less.

Frederic ---- <a href="http://www.northernlandscapephotography.com">my web site</a>

[jtk]

That Nikon is grain sharp.

 

Flatter film isn't really important with Nikon V (unless the original film is really bad, curve-wise) as it does actually have decent depth of focus.

 

Standard practice, as mentioned in documentation, is to focus half way between center and edge with curved film.

 

The accessory strip film carrier is a hassle and with "normal" film only contributes flatness at ends of strips and frameline positioning ease with silver film...actually, it's nearly manditory with silver film, IMO.

 

One might find a slight Dmax improvement with a vastly more expensive scanner, but it sounds to me like skills issue are involved, especially re sharpness.

 

Glass mounting has been exhaustively explored on P.N. Yes, one can build a glass carrier, but will lose Ice and won't gain anything.

 

There's also Vuescan. Its Infared is more subtle than Ice, and it offers finer grain control than Nikonscan.