>>>Bill Hilton <bhilton665aol.comedy> writes
>>>I use the Nikon LS-8000 and get very good results with it.
>>>If you have a lot of money for this look at the $10,000 Imacon Flextight.
>>From: nobody nowhere [email]nobodyjwhite.demon.co.uk[/email]
>>Having used the Nikon 8000 for a short time ... I simply cannot see why
>>would anybody go for the Flextight and all the complications associated
>>with it ...
>The Imacon 646 costs about $14,000 (instead of $10,000 ... must have gone up
>when I wasn't looking) and offers pretty much drum scan quality, meaning
>another 5-10% or so resolution improvement over the 8000, with better shadow
>The two guys I know who bought one both shoot large format (4x5") and panoramic
>medium format (6x17 cm) and the 646 accepts films up to 12 x 17 cm, so it does
>both of these odd formats well.
>>(eg. I understand that one has to put a
>>certain oil on the film/slide before scanning, etc. etc.). Is this all a
>>matter of size, or what?
>You need mounting fluid for a drum scanner too, so at the high end it's not a
>The 646 scans at 6,300 dpi (if you happen to need it :) and true 16 bit,
>instead of 14 bit. You'll get better shadow detail than with the 8000. A
>couple of the problems people mention about the 8000, like banding in normal
>mode and problems with films not laying flat, are non-existent with the 646.
>You're right, it's a bit more trouble to use, especially if you need to unmount
>35 mm slides, but for those willing to pay about 5x more for the extra bit of
>quality, and for those who need high quality large format or 6x17 cm pano scans
>it's worth it. That's why I said he should "look at" it. But I bought the
>8000 too :)