No,

I am comparing it to consumer scanners. Drums simply blow it away and aren't really a fair comparison.

The newer models might be better, but the unit I tested (this was a few years ago) really performed only slightly better than the consumer scanners of today, and was no better in terms of DMAX, and in general was worse in shadow noise.


---Michael

You may have got a bad sample.

I have used a couple different Flextights as well as a variety of other scanners including: Microtek 1800f, Creo Eversmart, Epson Perfections and expressions, and Nikon coolscans. The Imacon was better than all in all areas. The only exceptions are that the Eversmart's resolution on 4x5 film, its ability to scan 11x14 (or larger) and ability to scan more film unattended. I never used the mounting fluid available for the Eversmart, and I suspect it would have helped. The imacon's had lower noise, better dmax, and were sharper especially edge to edge sharpness.

The flextights have been replaced and by all accounts the new scanners are even better. The earliest imacon's may have been inferior; I don't know.

you might try this 'great' service from Kodak:

http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Kodak-ScanVan-to-Digitize-Photos-on-the-Go.htm

Don't expect a good quality :D

Another cheapie from a hot air marketing department...

Our goals are often very different, as are our criteria for evaluation of image quality. I found the following information interesting.

http://www.flatbed-scanner-review.org/flatbed_scanner_reviews_links/recommended_scanner_list.html


Sandy

Interesting link. Seeing that it was published in 2004, it would be nice if they updated it. Is Flaar only selling their information these days? It seems all the public Flaar reviews are years out of date -- especially their wide format printer reviews. For my self, I never found the eversmart to be a good solution for smaller formats if a dedicated 35mm or mf film scanner was available.

FLAAR is a self important, for profit, only say good things about free (to them) stuff and trash the rest, company. Don't even bother looking for their opinion.

years ago I seemed to get good information from them, but it seems that they haven't posted anything relevent or new in years.

Interesting link. Seeing that it was published in 2004, it would be nice if they updated it. Is Flaar only selling their information these days? It seems all the public Flaar reviews are years out of date -- especially their wide format printer reviews. For my self, I never found the eversmart to be a good solution for smaller formats if a dedicated 35mm or mf film scanner was available.

From their website.

"Most of our updates for November 2004 onward are in FLAAR Reports in Adobe Acrobat PDF format. It is more efficient for us to make new information available in PDF format. So if the web page itself is not updated, check out www.wide-format-printers.NET to see if the printer, RIP, or other subject is covered in an update in a PDF download."

Sandy

Sandy,
I saw the link and followed it to find the same website I once used years ago. Upon further investigation I also found that, except for a handful of articles, the reviews were for sale. Which is why I stoped going to the site years ago, and the reason for the inquiry:Is Flaar only selling their information these days?

Sandy,
I saw the link and followed it to find the same website I once used years ago. Upon further investigation I also found that, except for a handful of articles, the reviews were for sale. Which is why I stoped going to the site years ago, and the reason for the inquiry:Is Flaar only selling their information these days?

Many of the reviews are for sale. However, there are quite a number of new reviews (post 2004) in the free section. I don't know anything about the history of FLAAR, but it would appear to be working similar to the model of many contemporary subscription based magazines. You don't get the full monty (on either past or current issues) unless you pay for it.

Sandy

Regarding FLAAR, while I agree that they are frustrating because they don't/won't review anything they don't get for free, I'm not sure it is fair to categorize them as a profit making company. AFAIK, they are associated with Bowling Green University and are non profit.

Regarding the Imacon and Michael's comments. When he and I were doing our testing we were concentrating solely on 4x5 transparancies and his references are to performance with thataht film size. Remember, the Imacon's resolution goes down significantly for 4x5. DMax/DRange testing was all done with Stouffer Step Wede tablets.

BTW, there should be significant increases in capability from the Eversmart to the Eversmart Pro to the Pro II. Finally, I will soon be testing an IQ Smart3 and will report summary results here.

" Okay, I know that the gold standard for digitizing sheet film in 5x7 ... (snip) "

Hi Clay

I think the diversity of interest and ambition here precludes a 'gold standard'.

It's well demonstrated that perfectly glorious and succesful work can be done from an inexpensive scanner ( like an Epson 4990 ). True, our enlargements are limited, but how much of a handicap is it to make no larger than a 16x20 platinum print ? For a photographer more interested in form and volume than in extreme detail, there is no limitation at all.

On the other hand, if one is shooting LF chromes to make 30 x 40 inkjets,
one needs a different scanner. OR, if we are scanning many images at a time, a big flatbed can be useful.

I think the only standards we have in photography are those which are helpful for the individual craftsman to produce good work.