Epson 4990 vs Imacon 646

This is a very encouraging comparison, although I am not rushing out to buy either machine right away. Maybe they are not getting the most from their Imacon, but it is at least possible that the new Epson is better than we all thought it was. I would love to do a hands-on test with some 6x9cm or 4x5 in. film.

"... it is at least possible that the new Epson is better than we all thought it was. I would love to do a hands-on test with some 6x9cm or 4x5 in. film."

The 4990's faintly better than the 4870 according to some people who have compared and that I trust. In fact, with 6X6 and up, even the old 3200, which is distinctly less than the 4870, does beautifully in common wall-hanger sizes (my experience to 13X18). I use a Nikon V for 35, and it's far better than the 3200, but even some 35shots do credibly with the flatbed, particularly B&W.

The Imacon sample looks pretty bad. I'm afraid they have done something wrong, because I have been doing quite some tests with Imacons and never found such poor results. (I don't own an Imacon myself and do not particularly promote the brand, but this sample is simply not doing justice to it.)

Heresy David, pure heresy! Smile

I own the 646's little brother, the 343. My previous scanner was a Canoscan FS4000. The increased image detail wrought by the Imacon over the Canon surprised me. The Canon made what I thought were beautiful scans from 35mm for prints to 12"x18". Re-scanned 35mm on the Imacon are quite a bit better; printing beautifully to 16"x24". 6x6, the reason for the 343, results in scans that will print to 40"x40".

My expectation would be for much better scans from the 646 than from the Epson. Based on my experience, I have to agree that the Imacon scan shown is faulty but not the fault of the machine if it is working properly.

Cheers, Jim

Hey,

I'm just thrilled that my new epson is up to par with an ill functioning imacon. Or maybe and ill functioning imacon operator.

You're absolutely right. Please tell your lab I will provide them with a spanking new 4990 and relieve them of that crappy Imacon... for free!

Having tested numerous film only scanners (only the Epson 4870 todate) I can say that of all the mid-range brands of professional scanners the Imacon 646 is far superior to almost all scanners under $10,000. The Nikon 9000ED comes close as does the Minolta of the same price range, but the distinction between the Nikon 9000ED and the 646 is still evident- Imacon remains a superlative film only scanner.

The subtle separation of hues and the numerous color variations of the surface of a single color object (such as a wall) is so far advanced when compared to any Epson multi use scanner (such as the 4870 and now, most likely, the 4990).

When using other scanners (Umax, Polacolor Sprintscan 120, Nikon 9000ED, Minolta, Epson 4870) the results of these scanners pales in comparison to the noiseless delicate beauty of the color variations the Imacon 646 is able to produce.

Even when making a traditional 100mb scan from a 4"x5" negative to produce a 16"x20" print. The output far exceeds anything I have used to date.

I have found that it is typically the user and and the type of software being used that makes many of the comparisons between scanners so different. The Imacon, particularly when scanning color negatives, produces such fine detail in the highlights and shadows (with a D Max of 4.6 and a maximum of 6300 dpi for 35mm) that I find it similar to the delicate separations I obtain when developoing my silver gelatin negatives using Gordon Hutching's PMK Pyro developer.

Remember "Its all in the scan" yes: but it is "also in the scanner's capabilities and the software selected" - Imacon will not disappoint. Its elegant simplicity of design and internal workings are brilliant. But it is the output of the print that truly shows the brilliance both of the color output and the variation of a single hue that displays the Imacon 646's capabilities.

If you are truly a professional and require extremely high quality (to prints up to 40"x60" at a mid-range price ($10,000) then the Imacon 646 has no competitors.

Well, my 4990 can't do a scan which would be adequate in my eyes for a 3x enlargement. The Imacon scans I've gotten from my lab are far more detailed. Perhaps there are operator and sample variability issues here. My experience is that the relative prices of the Epsons and the Imacons are justified, though I'd much rather pay less for scans.