Imacon 343 vs. Nikon 8000

[braindeadmac]

Rich,

You're unregistered... do you have email?  I need a some stuff for my Precision-II -- a new transparent cover for the reflective holder (mine's scratched), and I'd like to replace the tubes.  I'd prefer to buy parts from someone who actually uses the scanner themselves.

BTW, I understand the 848 has a peltier cooler for the CCD.  How does the noise level compare to the Flextight P-II/III?

His email address is on his web site...www.photovillage.com.  Rich has an excellent reputation--check out his feedback at photo.net.

[Andrew Richards]

I have had a Precision II for two and a half years and love it. The quality is everything that I could ask for. IMO 3200 dpi is plenty for rollfilm and sufficient also for 35mm. Mine went off focus at the 35mm settings and because it was an ex-demo unit, I did not have the focus calibration targets, so while I waited for these, I scanned my Xpan trannies at 3200. I actually find that I slightly prefer the 3200 scans over the 5760 dpi scans.
Just a couple of issues. When I first had it, there was banding on 4x5 scans. This turned out to be a problem with the light source which was easily fixed. Also, just this week, the power supply went phut. I asked for the original supplier to quote me for a replacement, 218.00GBP ex tax (ouch!), but a quick Google search revealed an electrical/IT supplier that could do the same PSU for just 43.22GBP ex tax. Only fly in the ointment is that I have to wait 4-5 weeks for the cheaper source to restock.

[Erik]

Hi there,

I'm the guy behind the Scanhancer for the Minolta Multi Pro. I felt I should jump into this discussion, because I'm reading some strange things about my work. The Scanhancer is not a descreening device, but a diffuser with different diffusing properties for different spectrality. It is placed in the light path before the image. Due to the fact that IR is untouched by it, the ICE functionality is being kept intact. It is even improved due to the diffused visible light.

The comparison between the Minolta Multi Pro and the Imacon Flextight 848 was genuine. In both cases the same negative was used (Kodak Portra 160NC), while no descreening, profiling or sharpening were applied. Both scans where done in 16 bit (as a slide) and optimised in Photoshop by using Invert, Levels and Curves only. In both cases the maximum scan resolution of the respective scanners was used: 3200 dpi for the Imacon (max. with medium format) and 4800 dpi for the Minolta, downsampled to 3200 dpi in order to be able to make a fair comparison to the Imacon. The details on the website show 100% size of these files.

Many tests with this Imacon and the Minolta + Scanhancer 5LE showed the same results over and over again. The owner of the Imacon became very sad after some time. The only advantages he really had where fast scanning times and a very cool looking scanner on his desktop. In all other fields the Imacon was beaten by the Minolta.

Suggesting that my claims are commercial blab is quite nonsensical, because I am not in this Scanhancer business for the money. It was just that I developed the Scanhancer and wanted to make it available to fellow photographers. Read the 'About' on the website.

Erik
www.scanhancer.com

[b2martin]

Does Neat Image accomplish the same results as descreen?  You can create filters for each image if necessary or for specific conditions like film, digital camers ISO, etc.

[Erik]

If this readers of this thread are interested, I'll let you know how things go in the next few weeks.

Hi Mike,

I would love to hear how things are going. It is now two weeks that you are working with the Imacon 343, so perhaps there is something you would like to share with us?

Thanks!

Erik

[Mike A.]

I am considering purchasing a film scanner (and can spend $4K - $8K).  I need to scan 35mm & 6x7 negs and transparancies.

I'm going between the Imacon 343 and the Nikon 8000 (and am also willing to listen to other suggestions).  

Anyone have opinions or experiences with these scanners or products from either of these guys?

Thanks

[chrisso]

Good to hear some clear thoughts from an impartial sounding dealer. Also good to see a retailer getting some plaudits for their work.
What, if anything, have Imacon compromised in order to produce the much more affordable 343?
I've been looking for the perfect 'budget' (LOL) scanner for my Mamiya 7 and Xpan rolls for a while.

[Wolf Z.]

Mike, you may want to check out this site: www.scanhancer.com and the Minolta Scan Multi Pro.  Certainly food for thought.

I do not know what is new in the Imacon 343 except for the 16-bit conversion.  That is only a theoretical advantage which is limited by the actual resolution of the Imacon CCD.  Seems as if nothing has changed there.  I do not think it is going to be any better than the Photo although I have not had the opportunity to compare samples.

I'd take a good hard look at the Minolta and Scanhancer before I shell out the moolah.  For the price of one Imacon 343, you can almost get TWO Minolta ScanMulti Pro with the Scanhancer.

[Quentin]

As a former Imacon Photo owner, I certainly felt it was a great scanner capable of very good results.  The resolution of the Photo and its new replacement is actually the same as the more expensive Imacon models when scanning 67 and 66 film, so you won't benefit from higher resolution from those films if you buy one of the more expensive models.

With a budget of 4-8k, you could afford a used drum scanner and mounting station.  I had to sell my Photo because I was shooting more 4x5 large format that the Photo cannot handle without a kludge.  I have to say the drum scanner, an old Howtek D4000, is a further big step forward from the Imacon.  

Even with its innovative film holders, larger medium format film is not held as flat as on a drum scanner, and this shows up as slight variable focus accross the film plane.  Also, the drum scanner salvages more shadow detail that the Photo used to.  Having used a drum scaner, I would not now go back to a CCD based unit.

Quentin

[Jan Brittenson]

The Scanhancer is not a descreening device, but a diffuser with different diffusing properties for different spectrality.

Same result.  The Imacons have variable descreen, and if you want to compare results of grain reduction you need to descreen it for the film in use.  Your diffuser has only one setting, which means there is a specific grain size it works best for.  A variable descreener allows more precise control over the tradeoff between loss of detail and grain reduction, so while your device works well for the undisclosed film you used for your marketing poof it can't be adapted to fit the grain of a different emulsion.

Comparing your diffusion device to a scanner with the same functionality software adjustable in fine steps, but not used, frankly makes you look utterly clueless.

[chrisso]

Ditto :cool:

[rich]

Hi there,

I am a dealer who sells both these scanners...but more over I have owned both an Imacon Photo (sold it when I bought my Imacon 848,) a drum scanner and a Nikon LS8000 (I sold my dealer demo as my store is too small to haved multiple medium format scanners set up!)

While the LS8000 isn't bad the Imacon really kicks its butt. The better film holders, better software and direct reading of the film lens/film plate pretty much somes up why. I also think that the Rodenstock lens in the Imacon's is superior to the ED glass in the Nikon scanner.

Give me a ring at (646) 613-1107 between 12-8pm and I'd be glad to tell you all I know about all the scanners. If you happen to live in NYC, I can show you some first hand scans too.

Of course I'd love to sell you a scanner, which ever one, in the long run and my prices on everything will be at least as good as b&h on any given day. I am a two-person shop, so please be patient if I have to call you back...

cheers,
Rich

Photo Village dot com

[gregfarber]

What, if anything, have Imacon compromised in order to produce the much more affordable 343?
I've been looking for the perfect 'budget' (LOL) scanner for my Mamiya 7 and Xpan rolls for a while.

A quick trip to the Imacon website ( http://www.imacon.dk ) gives you all the specs. Basically, the 343 lacks the speed and resolution of the higher-end units. Also, you are limited to 35mm & 120 mm film sizes on the 343. The 646 and 848 can do 35mm to 12x17mm. They are all firewire single-pass scanners. (848 has SCSI ports also)

848:  80dpi to 8000dpi (optical), 100mb per minute/16 bit per color, 20-3800% magnification, 4.8 Dmax (quoted)

646: 80 dpi to 6300dpi (optical), 40mb per minute/16 bit per color, 20-3000% magnification, 4.6 Dmax (quoted)

343: 80 dpi to 3200dpi (optical), 20mb per minute/16 bits per color, 20-1500% magnification, 4.2 Dmax (quoted)

Check out this review of the Minolta Scan Multi Pro film scanner by Ken Rockwell. It's a $3,000 scanner and he prefers it to the Imacon scanners. Bascially because the Imacons do not come with dust & scratch removal features, but they do sell a program called FLEXTOUCH which works like ICE.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/minolta/mp.htm

One very cool Imacon feature is the ability to work and save scans in their proprietary 3F format. This is basically a tagged tiff format. You make a RAW scan of the original, then you save it as a 3F original. Now (in Photoshop) you can make adjustments to the raw scan, say maybe drop it to 8 bit, do sharpening, adjust the image size, and when you're done, you do a File>SAVE AS, keeping it a type 3F. As a result, the original raw scan is kept pristine for future "repurposes", and the file sort of carries your adjustments on top of the original scan. So in the future, you can get back to the pristine state as easily as going back in a file's History in Photoshop, and you can also instantly and easily go right back to other 3f "save as"s you created from this file.

Imagine that you have a high res scan that you need to get ready for a color newspaper ad. If it's in 3f, you would open the high-res raw original, make your adjustments and save as in 3f again. Then in a month or so, if you need another copy for another color newpaper ad, you can open the original 3f, and you can go right to the last color ad version you created, without having to go through all the work.

I don't know if I'm explaining or confusing, but I think you can see that there are benefits to the Imacon beyond scan quality.

If anyone else has experience with both the Minolta AND the Imacon, I'd sure love to get your 2 cents worth.

[how786]

Well,  I guess that I am in the minority here.
 I had tested both scanners on 6X7 negs/positives at the request of a friend.
  I had no problem whatsoever using the Nikon software. It was rock-solid and very easy to use. (XP Pro)
  I could not see any differences  in the final scan results, even highly magnified except for the negative's flaws being removed by Nikon (ASF) ICE. And, I consider myself to have a rather critical eye. If anything, I was biased to believe that the Imacon would be better. I could not conclude that.
  The ICE is invaluable and is what led me to buy the Nikon 8000 over the Imacon. It is vital whjen scanning damaged negs. The GEM is pretty useful, too. I do not use the ROC.
  I have used APO Rodenstock lenses in my darkroom as well as Nikon glass and never seen a difference. Both are razor sharp.
  To each their own......
   Howard

[Alison B.]

Hi,

I know you are only considering the Imacon 343 and the Nikon 8000 but, I see others here commenting on the Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro and thought I'd add my positive experiences - just in case you might be tempted in that direction.

I'm another who looked at the Nikon and Imacon, but in the end I plumped for the Minolta Dimage Multi Pro instead. I have never regretted this decision and have received many compliments from agencies for the sharpness and exceptionally wide dynamic range of the scanned images I send them. "It's nothing to do with me", I tell them, "it's just the Minolta doing its stuff". They often assume I have had drum scans made!

Now while there's no way I would say the Minolta will equal high quality drum scans, I do think it can hold its own easily against the Imacon 343, and for a much more modest financial outlay! In my experience the Minolta's dynamic range is at least as good as the Imacon, if not better, and my Minolta images look slightly sharper than scans of the same images I've had done on the Imacon - though I have no scientific tests to back up this observation - it's just what I see with my eyes, and based on comments from stock agencies.

The scanner is equipped with Digital ICE (similar to the Nikon). It produces better scans than the Nikon with more detailed shadows, especially since the new drivers came along, and IMHO the superior carriers make it easier and quicker to work with than the Nikon, excellent though that scanner is. It's also cheaper than the Nikon - in fact, paradoxically, I think it's this low price that puts off many pros, who assume it must be just a consumer model at that price. I assure you it's not!

The only downside to the Minolta used to be the occasional pepper grain effects, caused by the hard light from the scanner emphasizing the tiny dark dots left after processing - most noticeably on Fuji negative films, but sometimes on Fuji slide and other makes too. Thanks to the (considerable) efforts of a Dutch photographer and Multi Pro owner (Erik, who I see posted earlier) these troublesome films now scan beautifully without the pepper grain problem.

With the Scanhancer diffuser in place the Minolta Multi Pro's slightly harsh light is softened (like changing from a condenser enlarger to a diffuser type) and lovely smooth scans are now the order of the day, even with the worst Fuji film offenders. No reduction in sharpness occurs and, if anything, there is a yet more shadow detail revealed.

As a busy working photographer, Erik could have been forgiven for keeping this invention to himself. Instead, he has found the time to develop his idea and has now generously passed on the solution to other photographers. So now we Minolta owners have a rediculously inexpensive but highly effective solution to the Minolta's one bugbear. This is icing on the cake!!!

I don't expect to convert you to the Minolta, but hope, you (and others about to buy a scanner) might add it to your list of contenders - if it happens to meet your needs you could buy an awful lot of film with the money saved:-)

By the way I have no affiliation whatsover with Minolta or Scanhancer.com. Just passing on my experience for what it's worth.

[Quentin]

Does Neat Image accomplish the same results as descreen?  You can create filters for each image if necessary or for specific conditions like film, digital camers ISO, etc.

Might depend on how the descreen is applied, but generally, no.  Neat subtracts noise, so it acts on noise patterns identified during a complex analysis process.  Descreen usually acts across the image as a whole, and thus does not differentiate between image data and noise.  Neat leaves non-noise data almost completely intact.

Quentin

[Mike A]

Well, half of you will think of me crazy and the other half probably are crazy 'cuz I just joined you.  I decided to go the Imacon 343 route (I will be selling my blood plasma for a while to recoup the cost.)

I had great trepidation because of the cost, but after reading many of the great responses here on another board, and talking to users of various film scanners, I lost my mind and picked one up from a local dealer.

The setup has been easy and the software seems (so far) to be very easy to use.  The scanner comes with a huge library of presets for various film stocks.

If this readers of this thread are interested, I'll let you know how things go in the next few weeks.

Thanks again for all of the great banter.  I didn't realize that a scanner decision was such an emotional, passionate and religious decision.  ;)

[Erik]

Hi all,

Unfortunately we don't hear much from Mike anymore, it seems. For those still questioning the benefits of my Scanhancer 5LE for the Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro, there is now a test online. It is done by Stefano Allari, an Italian photographer who purchased a Scanhancer 5LE for his Multi Pro. FYI: I have had nothing to do with his findings. He just notified me when the test was online already. See for yourself at:
http://www.allari-photo.com/scanhancer.html

Also, you can find some test info here:
http://kenrockwell.com/minolta/mp.htm

Happy Scanning!

Erik
www.scanhancer.com

[Jan Brittenson]

Rich,

You're unregistered... do you have email?  I need a some stuff for my Precision-II -- a new transparent cover for the reflective holder (mine's scratched), and I'd like to replace the tubes.  I'd prefer to buy parts from someone who actually uses the scanner themselves.

BTW, I understand the 848 has a peltier cooler for the CCD.  How does the noise level compare to the Flextight P-II/III?

[Jan Brittenson]

What, if anything, have Imacon compromised in order to produce the much more affordable 343?

The 343 seems to be the follow-on to the Flextight Photo.  It has a fixed head that can't be moved, and so has a fixed resolution of 3200 ppi.  Don't know if it can be focus calibrated like the ones with movable heads.

The 646 and 848 replace the Flextight Precisions, so can scan originals up to A4.  They accomplish this by moving the scan head up and down (that's what the silver tower part rising up is for).  Small originals, like 35mm, get higher resolution while larger originals, like A4 reflectives, get lower.  The main advantage IMO over the Imacon photo scanners is that they can both scan sheet film and still produce high resolution 35mm scans.  A scanner like the Sprintscan 45 Ultra is limited to 2500 ppi regardless of original, which isn't enough for 35mm and IMO insufficient for MF.

I talked to an Imacon sales rep at Calumet in SF yesterday about the 646/848/Precisions.   He said the reason the 848 has a CCD cooler is the higher scan speed, running the CCD at such high rates generates lots of heat.  In terms of quality it's about the same as the 646, and not that much different from the Precision II/III.  He said it might pull shadows a little better on some difficult and dense originals.  Plus it has slightly higher optical resolution, but mainly it's a lot faster.

You can probably buy a refurbed Precision-II for not that much more than a brand new Photo/343...