From: Eric Neilsen (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: 11/09/02-08:40:57 PM Z
John, Imacon Flextight II is , what I consider, quite slow. The latest
Imacons, 8??? are quite a bit faster. This could be why there are so
many Flextight II scanners on the used market. Dealers will sometimes
run offers to current owners to upgrade to the new units. The software
is solid but could use a kick in the pants. They are introducing "dust
and scratches" finally.
Make sure you have enough processing power to run the scanner. We had
an older G3 that did screw things up a bit due to its limited processing
power, not a RAM issue but ability to process the scan. A 4x5 16 bit
Grayscale scan at 1800 dpi takes about 20 minutes.
Eric Neilsen Photography
4101 Commerce Street
Dallas, TX 75226
From: John Campbell [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 6:07 PM
Subject: Other Scanners, MF--Imacon. . . ?
Lacking Judy's aplomb and sensibility of preference for 35mm film, I've
shooting medium format almost exclusively of late. And I've noticed
unexpected effects while scanning MF negs with my Epson 1640 SU: 1)
have formed under my arms and around my ears, 2) my children have all
graduated from college and moved away, and 3) my wife has taken up with
young gypsy named Guido. . . .
I dunno. Maybe I should think of getting a faster scanner. . .
Farber seems big on the Imacon series, and there appear to be quite a
available out there in the refurb market. The Flextight Photo model
particularly promising in cost-to-production terms (20 Mb/minute, 3200
Any comments, advise, or experiences (er, with Imacon, I mean) would be
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 12/17/02-04:47:04 PM Z CST