Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: ICG 380 Drum Scanner or Hasselblad Flextight X5?  (Read 23874 times)

Caracalla

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 156
    • http://
ICG 380 Drum Scanner or Hasselblad Flextight X5?
« on: October 30, 2006, 01:05:36 pm »

ICG 380 Drum Scanner or  Hasselblad Flextight X5?

We are looking in to scanning 8x10, 4x5, 6x17 etc. negatives and therefore seriously considering the purchase of » ICG 380 Drum Scanner.

Now, is there any alternative to ICG 380? personally because of the 8x10 Negative scanning ability, if not,  how do you feel about Hasselblad Flextight X5? since the price difference is substantial + we are limited to 4x5, 6x17 etc. .

Advice only on current models please.

To purchase or not to purchase, that is the question?  

Is it worth it?
Your effort is highly valued and appreciated

REGARDS
« Last Edit: October 30, 2006, 01:06:47 pm by Caracalla »
Logged

Caracalla

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 156
    • http://
ICG 380 Drum Scanner or Hasselblad Flextight X5?
« Reply #1 on: November 01, 2006, 09:51:12 pm »

Is my topic in the wrong section? If so,
your assistance would be greatly appreciated.

Regards
« Last Edit: November 01, 2006, 09:51:44 pm by Caracalla »
Logged

rainer_v

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1194
    • http://www.tangential.de
ICG 380 Drum Scanner or Hasselblad Flextight X5?
« Reply #2 on: November 04, 2006, 04:50:21 am »

some years ago i had to make the same decision.... and bought a scanmate 5000 drumscanner, together with nearly all perts as spare parts. this was a very good decision.
Logged
rainer viertlböck
architecture photograp

Stephen Best

  • Guest
ICG 380 Drum Scanner or Hasselblad Flextight X5?
« Reply #3 on: November 04, 2006, 07:14:56 pm »

Quote
Is my topic in the wrong section? If so,
your assistance would be greatly appreciated.

Regards
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83322\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

More the wrong forum. This question is really only something you can resolve by evaluating each scanner first hand and in-depth. I wouldn't buy any four or five figure item based solely on what someone on the net says. That said, the high-end FlexTight scanners (those with "Active Cooling") give great results and are pretty easy to use. I use my 848 for 4x5/6x17 (mainly transparencies) and the file sizes are adequate for most anything you'd want to use them for. The X5 I haven't seen but should be even better. Contact your local dealer and make an appointment.
Logged

pfigen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 534
    • http://www.peterfigen.com
ICG 380 Drum Scanner or Hasselblad Flextight X5?
« Reply #4 on: November 07, 2006, 06:47:45 pm »

The ICG and the Aztek are, as far as I know, the last two drum scanners left standing. The ICG has the reputation of being the finest drum scanner available. The difference you'll see between the ICG and the Imacon is about two full stops of usable shadow detail and about half a stop of usable highlight detail. In addition, the ICG can scan at full resolution across the entire drum, and comes a lot closer to its claimed resolutiion than anything from Imacon ever did. Don Hutcheson (www.hutchcolor.com) calls the ICG the finest scanner he's used in over thirty years of scanning experience. There's a reason for that. If you've got a lot of film to scan and need the finest scans available, there is no substitute for a PMT based drum scanner. CCD simply can not record the complete density range of a color transparency, regardless of what the manufacturer claims.
Logged

RicAgu

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 267
ICG 380 Drum Scanner or Hasselblad Flextight X5?
« Reply #5 on: November 07, 2006, 07:43:06 pm »

I have no knowledge of drum scanners, but know the Imacon/hasselblad scanners inside and out.  The 848 can go as high as 5x7.  THey made a rare SCSI flatbed with no glass for up a3 scanning that was quite amazing.  Only problem it is SCSI only.  If you're on a MAC get a SCSI cable from Granite Digital (www.granitedigital.com)  The card if you are on a intel machine is about $300 + bucks.

There was just one on eBay about a month ago.  This unit sells for about 4 to 5k, but is worth a lot more.  A lot of the poeple who sell it are banks that repo leased equipment and they don't know what they have.  But for the money there is no better scanner especially if you need 8x10.  I have the Precision III and recently went to the 848 and they are amazing machines. I never go above 4x5 anyway.

Best of luck with your hunt.  if you get an Imacon make sure you get your hands on 3.6.6 as it is much better on film files.  They also make different versions of 4 but I prefer 3.6.6 on SCSI devices.
Logged

pfigen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 534
    • http://www.peterfigen.com
ICG 380 Drum Scanner or Hasselblad Flextight X5?
« Reply #6 on: November 07, 2006, 10:00:32 pm »

For the money, the best 8X10 scans will come from a Howtek 4500, which are getting pretty inexpensive these days. So far superior to Imacon that it's not even worth discussing. A bit of a learning curve to fluid mount to the drum, but far less dust to take care of and perfect focus everywhere. Hey, everyone's got different standards. I demoed Imacon and bought a Howtek. Never regretted it.
Logged

Gabe

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 146
ICG 380 Drum Scanner or Hasselblad Flextight X5?
« Reply #7 on: November 08, 2006, 01:11:15 am »

Quote
THey made a rare SCSI flatbed with no glass for up a3 scanning that was quite amazing.  Only problem it is SCSI only.  If you're on a MAC get a SCSI cable from Granite Digital (www.granitedigital.com)  The card if you are on a intel machine is about $300 + bucks.

There was just one on eBay about a month ago.  This unit sells for about 4 to 5k, but is worth a lot more.  A lot of the poeple who sell it are banks that repo leased equipment and they don't know what they have.  But for the money there is no better scanner especially if you need 8x10. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=84051\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If the unit you are referring to is the 2848, then it is rare indeed, having been discontinued very shortly after it went into production. But it is - in fact - available as a FireWire device as well (secretly, the FireWire version is still SCSI internally, but has a built-in converter, so for all intents and purposes it's just a FW scanner). It runs quite happily on the latest Intel Macs under the new version of FlexColor as well.

It really is an amazing machine, and the glass-free electrostatic flatbed works as advertised as long as your original is willing to co-operate with it. This basically means reasonably flexible materials without curl, otherwise they will tend to fight the charge and break free from the bed during the scan, at which point you would have been better off with glass   Resin papers work really well with it though, and the results are truly fantastic when everything is behaving properly..

That said, the machine does also provide the option of placing originals up to 10mm in thickness under glass for more traditional scans (accomplished by removing the electrostatic mat). This also allows one to scan transparencies up to A3 size at true optical 650DPI across the entire width of the bed, which is quite a nice feature. 8x10 originals could be scanned at 960DPI (optical).

The glass bed is also spring-loaded so that curly originals can be scanned this way so as to avoid the problem I mentioned earlier. This is good, because the scanner has two annoying and fairly serious design flaws that I know of..

One is that the clearance between the electrostatic mat, and the housing that the scanner bed travels into is quite small, and originals which have peeled themselves away from the mat can get caught on this lip and become horribly mangled as the bed moves in or out of the machine. Not good, but easy to avoid by not scanning anything 'risky' on the mat.

The other is that the action of the bed moving in and out of the scanner has a tendency to disconnect the cable which connects the electrostatic mat to the scanner's motherboard loose, causing the mat to stop working completely.. plugging it in would be a simple matter except that the design of the machine requires it to be completely disassembled in order to access the socket, meaning the unit needs to be shipped for service when this happens. The second time this happened to ours, the plug worked itself into the return path of the flatbed, making it impossible to pack properly for shipping.   Not good. Glue would fix this.

Otherwise a fantastic machine though. Not a drum scanner, so I'm not sure why people always insist on comparing them (though I suppose part of the blame for that could rest on the shoulders of Imacon's marketing dept), but still fantastic. Finding one used on ebay for a few $K would be a great option.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2006, 05:36:17 pm by Gabe »
Logged

neil snape

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1447
    • http://www.neilsnape.com
ICG 380 Drum Scanner or Hasselblad Flextight X5?
« Reply #8 on: November 14, 2006, 10:41:13 pm »

My old , getting older ICG doesn't get used much at all any longer.
I could or should be able to scan 2 8x10's at a time or 8 4x5's. Or 50 2 1/4 films, or 80 35mm. The old mounting station roller is just a little too hard to sandwhich the clear sheet over the film though so keeping the film flat and wrinkle free sheets requires a new roller.
When I was desperately seeking the best in scanning some well known speakers of digital equipment said theImacon was great.
After time flaws showed that they had seeded many with these scanners. Agreed they are very good, but they are just good CCD scanners. Nothing will ever be better than a PMT scan. The ICG is one of the best PMT scanners too. They are a pain to use, but no spotting makes up for any time gained on a CCD scanner.
Basically you could scan every film once and put them in cold dark storage forever. There will never be better scanners than the PMT drums. If you scanned on an Imacon there will always be that wanting in the scan that should have been scanned on a better scanner in the first place.

My take on old technology that few want to be concerned with.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up