Hasselblad Flextight X5 to MFD Scanning?

[tbullock]

A few years ago I was fortunate enough to buy an X5 scanner. I'm an amateur photographer, so this was perhaps overkill, but it has been a great way to *quickly* scan most everything I shoot on film to 3F format and archive it. I don't use it much: 10-20 rolls a year currently; but I also occasionally shoot 4x5 film and thought that I'd keep this thing forever. It does everything from 35mm to LF well, including reflective stuff, and it does it quickly.

However, the X5 sensor is dated, I worry about moving it, I am unsure of future support from Hasselblad, it's expensive, and depreciating. So I've been considering a switch to a single capture system using a high res digital camera. I have looked at many solutions, including many DIY systems. In my latest round of research I came across this from Pentax: PENTAX Film Duplicator (with Mount Holder 24x36) - RICOH IMAGING EUROPE S.A.S

My thinking is that I could pair this duplicator and its seemingly well thought out holders with a CFV-50c, H1D, Fuji GFX, or a Sony for about the same or less value as my scanner, while also then having a great camera system. The resolution of the X5 on medium format film is 3000dpi, giving a file of around 8300x7000, which is very close to the 50mp Sony cropped MF sensor. Sony's sensor also has 13-14 stops, which is *close* to the claimed X5 DMax of 4.9 if I understand that correctly. I assume it's even closer to the realistic DMax.

Does this sound like it could work as well as an X5 for occasional digitizing? More specifically:

1) Will the single capture from the Sony MF sensor and a flash meet or exceed an X5 in color, DMax, and shadow noise?
2) Does anyone have experience with the Pentax Film Duplicator?
3) Is there a much cheaper DIY alternative, including holders, that's easy to put together?
4) Will I absolutely need a glass film holder instead of the ones provided? This is a main concern
5) Is the manual duplication workflow going to be time consuming and annoying coming from an X5? (This seems obvious)

Thanks!
Travis

 

[pflower]

I have wondered the same thing. My 15 yr Old Polaroid SprintScan 120 is still working - just but will no doubt fail relatively soon.

I have never tried a camera approach but have considered it. There is a long article by Mark Segal available on Luminous Landscape which addresses this. You will have to subscribe to get it but it might be worthwhile reading. Here is the link

https://luminous-landscape.com/scan...-and-processing-of-negative-film-photographs/

The Pentax contraption looks expensive for what it is. If I were going that route I would experiment with a lightbox and mounting the camera on a copy stand or enlarger column. However I only shoot 120 B&W (plus some limited colour) and have no idea how 35mm film would pan out. At the same time Colour negs or slides may well provide a challenge due to the mask on the film (which Mark Segal's article addresses).

I recently saw some very good prints at A3+ size made from 120 B&W negs scanned with whatever the top of the range Epson flat bed scanner is. They really were very good. No doubt the scanner falls way short of the X5 but might possibly be good enough depending on your personal criteria.

If you do go the Pentax route or any other for that matter, keep us posted with your experiences.

Good luck

A few years ago I was fortunate enough to buy an X5 scanner. I'm an amateur photographer, so this was perhaps overkill, but it has been a great way to *quickly* scan most everything I shoot on film to 3F format and archive it. I don't use it much: 10-20 rolls a year currently; but I also occasionally shoot 4x5 film and thought that I'd keep this thing forever. It does everything from 35mm to LF well, including reflective stuff, and it does it quickly.

However, the X5 sensor is dated, I worry about moving it, I am unsure of future support from Hasselblad, it's expensive, and depreciating. So I've been considering a switch to a single capture system using a high res digital camera. I have looked at many solutions, including many DIY systems. In my latest round of research I came across this from Pentax: PENTAX Film Duplicator (with Mount Holder 24x36) - RICOH IMAGING EUROPE S.A.S

My thinking is that I could pair this duplicator and its seemingly well thought out holders with a CFV-50c, H1D, Fuji GFX, or a Sony for about the same or less value as my scanner, while also then having a great camera system. The resolution of the X5 on medium format film is 3000dpi, giving a file of around 8300x7000, which is very close to the 50mp Sony cropped MF sensor. Sony's sensor also has 13-14 stops, which is *close* to the claimed X5 DMax of 4.9 if I understand that correctly. I assume it's even closer to the realistic DMax.

Does this sound like it could work as well as an X5 for occasional digitizing? More specifically:

1) Will the single capture from the Sony MF sensor and a flash meet or exceed an X5 in color, DMax, and shadow noise?
2) Does anyone have experience with the Pentax Film Duplicator?
3) Is there a much cheaper DIY alternative, including holders, that's easy to put together?
4) Will I absolutely need a glass film holder instead of the ones provided? This is a main concern
5) Is the manual duplication workflow going to be time consuming and annoying coming from an X5? (This seems obvious)

Thanks!
Travis

 

[dougpeterson]

Done correctly film scanning using a medium format back can supersede the quality of drum scanning and greatly exceed its speed. Done in a MacGyver fashion it can be very inconsistent, not as high of quality, and frustrating.

Here's information about our solution based on Phase One hardware, Capture One CH, and USA made copy stands and a custom film handling system:
Film Scanning Webinar Recording Now Available | DTDCH
Film Scanning Kit | DTDCH

Our system is currently in use at several dozen institutions including Disney Archives, and CCP (the entity that houses the life work of Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, etc). The Library of Congress just selected it to scan the FSA collection.

If you're looking to build your own solution you'll need to deal with the following challenges:
- Vibration (focal plane shutter, air conditioning to the floor). Even with strobe the feature sizes involved (4-15 microns) call for a system with the least possible vibration. A heavy copy stand with proper vibration insolation mounts, and a camera with either an electronic shutter or leaf shutter is ideal. It's possible you could do this with a focal plane system, but to avoid vibration you'd want to do a couple second exposure and manually fire the flash in the middle of that exposure.
- Inversion for color negatives you'll need to have software that properly inverts the image and deals with the orange base, preferably at the time of capture so you can adjust exposure accordingly
- Focus which needs to be incredibly accurate AND consistent between frames
- Planarity needs to be accurate within a small fraction of a degree or the corner will not be equally sharp
- Lens Sharpness the lens needs to be very sharp in the corner of the frame at no more than f/6 or so, where diffraction at 1:1 photography starts to obscure detail
- Flare as contrasty film can contain areas of great density and complete transparency in direct proximity. If your lens lacks excellent modern coating and the light source is not well baffled you'll lose DMax in a non linear way.

If you can deal with the above adequately you too will be able to best an X5. We have made several comparisons to drum scanners, pseudo-drum (like the X1/X5) and flat bed scanners and beat them all.

Make sure to post your results!

 

[Oren Grad]

Can't quibble with Doug's list of challenges, which I think is on target.

I've had plenty of experience with both film and digital SLRs on amateur-grade copy stands as well as extensive scanning experience with Nikon 5000 and 9000 scanners and some experience with Microtek i800 and Epson V700 flatbeds. One of the lessons I've learned is that camera-based copying is easy to do crudely but very difficult to do to a high standard. The parameter I wonder about most in any proposed camera-based setup is focus. I don't know whether the live view implementations on the latest CMOS medium format backs allow sufficient magnification to enable visualizing and focusing on the film grain. If not, I wonder how else accurate focus can be achieved, short of having a fixed-focus jig that's calibrated via iterative capture, file viewing and microadjustment, then locked very securely in place on a very rigid stand. DSLR optical viewfinders, whether medium or smaller format, certainly aren't up to the task.

 

[MartinN]

I scan a lot of film and nearly always photograph using film.

My opinion is that I would never considering reprophotographing instead of using a high quality scanner.
What a PITA to set up a such system and maintain it. No, I want my scanner that can do multiple frames
per scan and it can do its job without my supervision. Only the thought of doing colornegative inversion
and image adjustment with crippling tools feels almost impossible.

No I will always scan.

Martin

 

[tbullock]

Doug: Thanks for the links. The Digital Transitions solution is what originally got me excited about this idea. It's exactly what I'd want, just very difficult for me to justify: I'm looking for an even-ish trade that also nets me a latest-gen sensor for camera work.

pflower: Agreed that the Pentax solution is an expensive bellows. Maybe I could use their holders and a DIY copy stand or bellows setup.

Oren/Martin: I have the same reservations and think I'll probably end up keeping the X5.

 

[dougpeterson]

Doug: Thanks for the links. The [Digital Transitions] solution is what originally got me excited about this idea. It's exactly what I'd want, just very difficult for me to justify: I'm looking for an even-ish trade that also nets me a latest-gen sensor for camera work.

pflower: Agreed that the Pentax solution is an expensive bellows. Maybe I could use their holders and a DIY copy stand or bellows setup.

Oren/Martin: I have the same reservations and think I'll probably end up keeping the X5.

If you'll be doing mostly DIY then I think you're better off with the X5. We developed the film scanning kit precisely because we had customers trying to MacGyver a solution and we saw how frustrating and inconsistent that was, but we also saw the quality that, when the stars aligned, it produced.

 

[RandB]

The X5 is capable of much higher resolution than 3000dpi on medium format film by using custom setups. 645 transparencies, for example, can be scanned at 7400dpi. These are what FlexColor calls "true resolutions", meaning no interpolation.

A few years ago I was fortunate enough to buy an X5 scanner. I'm an amateur photographer, so this was perhaps overkill, but it has been a great way to *quickly* scan most everything I shoot on film to 3F format and archive it. I don't use it much: 10-20 rolls a year currently; but I also occasionally shoot 4x5 film and thought that I'd keep this thing forever. It does everything from 35mm to LF well, including reflective stuff, and it does it quickly.

However, the X5 sensor is dated, I worry about moving it, I am unsure of future support from Hasselblad, it's expensive, and depreciating. So I've been considering a switch to a single capture system using a high res digital camera. I have looked at many solutions, including many DIY systems. In my latest round of research I came across this from Pentax: PENTAX Film Duplicator (with Mount Holder 24x36) - RICOH IMAGING EUROPE S.A.S

My thinking is that I could pair this duplicator and its seemingly well thought out holders with a CFV-50c, H1D, Fuji GFX, or a Sony for about the same or less value as my scanner, while also then having a great camera system. The resolution of the X5 on medium format film is 3000dpi, giving a file of around 8300x7000, which is very close to the 50mp Sony cropped MF sensor. Sony's sensor also has 13-14 stops, which is *close* to the claimed X5 DMax of 4.9 if I understand that correctly. I assume it's even closer to the realistic DMax.

Does this sound like it could work as well as an X5 for occasional digitizing? More specifically:

1) Will the single capture from the Sony MF sensor and a flash meet or exceed an X5 in color, DMax, and shadow noise?
2) Does anyone have experience with the Pentax Film Duplicator?
3) Is there a much cheaper DIY alternative, including holders, that's easy to put together?
4) Will I absolutely need a glass film holder instead of the ones provided? This is a main concern
5) Is the manual duplication workflow going to be time consuming and annoying coming from an X5? (This seems obvious)

Thanks!
Travis

 

[Slixtiesix]

The X5 is capable of much higher resolution than 3000dpi on medium format film by using custom setups. 645 transparencies, for example, can be scanned at 7400dpi. These are what FlexColor calls "true resolutions", meaning no interpolation.

Please tell me more about that! Does it also account for 6x6?

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

The real challenge is film flatness and achieving parallelism.

Focusing is a piece of cake.

The cited DMax for the flexscan is in all probability false, just derived from a 16 bit processing pipeline. A modern CMOS sensor will easily surpass it. But, you need to eliminate all light leaks and surround reflections, that is the hard part.

A poster on Lula used some kind of distance tubes, essentially a lens hood as a stand, that solves the paralleism and light leak problem. Getting the film flat is another problem. Using glass on both sides of the film solves the flatness but will cause newtonian rings. Antinewton glass has some structure.

I did some test a couple of years ago and got results that were as good as better than the 6000PPI drum scan I compared with, but I did not handle the parallelism and flatness issue.

So, it can be done but needs a very good setup. But if you achieve a good setup, the results may be very rewarding.

Best regards
Erik

Can't quibble with Doug's list of challenges, which I think is on target.

I've had plenty of experience with both film and digital SLRs on amateur-grade copy stands as well as extensive scanning experience with Nikon 5000 and 9000 scanners and some experience with Microtek i800 and Epson V700 flatbeds. One of the lessons I've learned is that camera-based copying is easy to do crudely but very difficult to do to a high standard. The parameter I wonder about most in any proposed camera-based setup is focus. I don't know whether the live view implementations on the latest CMOS medium format backs allow sufficient magnification to enable visualizing and focusing on the film grain. If not, I wonder how else accurate focus can be achieved, short of having a fixed-focus jig that's calibrated via iterative capture, file viewing and microadjustment, then locked very securely in place on a very rigid stand. DSLR optical viewfinders, whether medium or smaller format, certainly aren't up to the task.

 

[fotografz]

I guess I do not understand your worries about the X5.

It is still currently in the Hasselblad product mix and should one supported for many years to come. A lot of institutions bought these as well as production scanning places.

Maintenance is fairly simple and I wouldn't be too concerned moving it if some care is exercised. The thing is built like a tank.

The sensor use is different from that of a camera that faces all sorts of lighting ... it is in a closed loop, sealed in, actively cooled with fixed perimeters. If it is on the film this scanner can get it. I do not believe the 4.9 D Max is exaggerated ... no other scanner I ever used exhibited such a range of tonal capture.

The virtual drum holder eliminates all the horse manure associated with glass holders and flatness. God I hated that.

I can't imagine the Rube-Goldberg set up one would need to do 35mm to 4X5 images with a camera stand set-up. Keeping everything clean, square and consistent would seem a nightmare.

Besides, I can't imagine a single shot would outperform a scanning technique.

The other things that are enviable about the X5 (and the Imacon 949 before it): simplicity, speed, and the diffusion light source that mimics the cold head enlargers prized for their end silver print results. Not until I used the 949 did I come close to the work I did in the darkroom with a Zone V1 equipped enlarger. Even the Imacon 848 didn't have this and you could see the difference (I used both).

The final point is that unlike many ... you already have the X5 ... which a lot of folks that shoot film wish they had.

I only sold my 949 after scanning all my keeper negs and I stopped shooting film. Frankly, I often question that decision.

- Marc

 

[rriley]

Could you could provide an indication of the price?

Done correctly film scanning using a medium format back can supersede the quality of drum scanning and greatly exceed its speed. Done in a MacGyver fashion it can be very inconsistent, not as high of quality, and frustrating.

Here's information about our solution based on Phase One hardware, Capture One CH, and USA made copy stands and a custom film handling system:
Film Scanning Webinar Recording Now Available | DTDCH
Film Scanning Kit | DTDCH

Our system is currently in use at several dozen institutions including Disney Archives, and CCP (the entity that houses the life work of Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, etc). The Library of Congress just selected it to scan the FSA collection.

If you're looking to build your own solution you'll need to deal with the following challenges:
- Vibration (focal plane shutter, air conditioning to the floor). Even with strobe the feature sizes involved (4-15 microns) call for a system with the least possible vibration. A heavy copy stand with proper vibration insolation mounts, and a camera with either an electronic shutter or leaf shutter is ideal. It's possible you could do this with a focal plane system, but to avoid vibration you'd want to do a couple second exposure and manually fire the flash in the middle of that exposure.
- Inversion for color negatives you'll need to have software that properly inverts the image and deals with the orange base, preferably at the time of capture so you can adjust exposure accordingly
- Focus which needs to be incredibly accurate AND consistent between frames
- Planarity needs to be accurate within a small fraction of a degree or the corner will not be equally sharp
- Lens Sharpness the lens needs to be very sharp in the corner of the frame at no more than f/6 or so, where diffraction at 1:1 photography starts to obscure detail
- Flare as contrasty film can contain areas of great density and complete transparency in direct proximity. If your lens lacks excellent modern coating and the light source is not well baffled you'll lose DMax in a non linear way.

If you can deal with the above adequately you too will be able to best an X5. We have made several comparisons to drum scanners, pseudo-drum (like the X1/X5) and flat bed scanners and beat them all.

Make sure to post your results!

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Some comments:

• It is always worth to listen to Marc (fotografz), he is a man of great wisdom.
• Doug Peterson knows everything on the issue, but he is also selling those systems.

The Imacon scanners are very good, some say that drum scanners are much better and of course not all drum scanners are alike.

Did a small test yesterday, took a Velvia that was essentially impossible to scan on my Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro. The multi pro has a specified D-max at 4.8 but as far as I know measured D-range is around 3.2 or 3.5. The D-max of Velvia is around 4.0. That means that the darkest parts transmit just 0.01% of the light. Or something like 1:10000 in luminance ratio.

A few years ago I had a 6000 PPI scan made from that slide. Yesterday I built a simple arrangement, covering a lightbox (slide sorter) with cardboard and taping over all light leaks and shot the slide with my Sony A7rII and the Sony 90/2.8G macro. Did not mess around with focusing but took a series of 20 images using my automatic focusing rail and just took the best picture. I have no illusion about my setup being paralell or so.

With you Pentax 645Z you should be able to get similar results. In my shot, I didn't use the full sensor area by mistake. So you may have higher resolution. The Sony has electronic first shutter curtain that virtually eliminates vibrations. I don't think the Pentax has that. DR should be pretty close between the Sony and the Pentax. The Pentax should have a small advantage of 0.4 EV or so in DR and that would mostly come from sensor size.

Here are links to the images:

6000 PPI drum scan

Dupe with the Sony A7rII

Screendumps:

Images side by side

Actual pixels

Both images normalise for a print of 100 cm height at 180PPI

Some comments:

I checked the raw data from the A7rII with RawDigger. It is 0.73 EV below saturation, so I could add 2/3 EV exposure without clipping highlights. The areas in blue are where signal goes below 16. This would yield something like a signal/noise ratio of 8 if there was no readout noise. So, blue areas are noisy.



Best regards
Erik

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I checked around a bit, it is find to hard real data. It is possible that the Imacons are quite a bit ahead of other CCD scanners regarding DR and they offer a pretty fast workflow.

Marc's suggestion makes a lot of sense.

Just to say, I am going in retirement in year and one thing I may do is to scan the few thousands of slides I have. Using a digital camera for efficient workflow is an attractive option.

Best regards
Erik

Hi,

The real challenge is film flatness and achieving parallelism.

Focusing is a piece of cake.

The cited DMax for the flexscan is in all probability false, just derived from a 16 bit processing pipeline. A modern CMOS sensor will easily surpass it. But, you need to eliminate all light leaks and surround reflections, that is the hard part.

A poster on Lula used some kind of distance tubes, essentially a lens hood as a stand, that solves the paralleism and light leak problem. Getting the film flat is another problem. Using glass on both sides of the film solves the flatness but will cause newtonian rings. Antinewton glass has some structure.

I did some test a couple of years ago and got results that were as good as better than the 6000PPI drum scan I compared with, but I did not handle the parallelism and flatness issue.

So, it can be done but needs a very good setup. But if you achieve a good setup, the results may be very rewarding.

Best regards
Erik

 

[robdeszan]

I've owned a bunch of scanners (flatbeds, dedicated 35mm, dedicated MF) and now an older Flextight Precision II, also tried a copy stand approach and I would carefully consider switching to a copy stand. Overall I find workflow is much more easier on a Flextight, even though there are some flaws around its design (including softness around edges if it is not setup properly > use descreen option to achieve better results or the fact that it is best to tape the top edge of the film to the holder to prevent it from sliding during scanning) I would not replace it. Also, don't forget the benefits of scanning using the 3f format. Once scanned, never need to rescan again.

@ ErikKaffehr Many thanks for uploading the Sony and drum scan samples. They pretty much go in line with my findings. I find the analogue rendering is lost with a digital camera. Perhaps it could be bettered with a higher resolution camera but, again, we face the ease of workflow issue.

Interesting discussion!

 

[tbullock]

Thanks again for everyone's responses. It's clear that the X5 eliminates an awful lot of variables that are hard to overcome with a manual setup. Still, the allure of potentially doing an even trade from an X5 to an MF digital (or maybe Sony again) is hard to resist. The Pentax Duplicator and its film holders could go a long way to eliminate many of the variables, but I still expect it to be cumbersome. If I shoot less and less film it might be worth it, so I may give it a go out of curiosity.

RandB: Can you elaborate? Do you mean custom holders?

Marc: Your points are well taken, and help me remember why I got the X5 to begin with. Maintenance is a minor worry, but the primary thought is that an even trade into MF digital is hard to resist if I don't scan that often.

Erik: Thanks very much for taking the time to test the Sony vs drum scans. I sold my A7RII in anticipation of getting an X1D or GFX but am thinking I might end up with one (or the next version) again, so that is very relevant. Like many tests, it looks like in a print the results could be similar given ideal exposure and color tweaking, but the drum scan looks better to me.

Rob: Agreed that the X5 is not foolproof and can be tricky to get ideal results with, especially when there's not much extra film outside the frame.

 

[RandB]

RandB: Can you elaborate? Do you mean custom holders?

I am referring to software and/or hardware setups with$ standard FlexColor, 949 or X-5 scanner, and holders.

Using a custom setup within FlexColor, for instance, you can achieve a 645 transparency scan of 4413ppi, for a 407.2mb file, or 32.27 X 24. 5 inches at 300ppi.

The pathway: Menu>File>Setup>RGB Standard 16-bit>Resolution>Optimize>True Resolution>New>Create New Setup>Create>Save Custom Setup. The Preview Window should read 3F Scan and Save as TIFF.

For maximum resolution 35mm transparencies must be removed from their mounts, and 24x36 HighRes selected.

General observations on the Imacon: All film, if rectangular, is best scanned in Portrait (Vertical) orientation to employ the sharpest area of the Rodenstock lens. You can simplify the workflow, and avoid confusion, by scanning only at 100% zoom and choosing the optical resolution that yields your desired file size. For ultimate image quality and flexibility in a variety of future uses, though, maximum resolution is the way to go. This flies in the face of the widespread perception that all the useful data on film is captured at 5000ppi, and the rest is mere grain, etc. Tests and comparisons using drum scans, the Digital Transitions Film Scanning Kit, and the 949 and X-5 Imacon/Hasselblad have persuaded me otherwise. True (uninterpolated) Resolutions are underlined in the drop down list, except in Yosemite 10.10 (they are underlined in 10.9).

There are other ways to boost your Imacon scan resolutions. If you only want the center of your 4 x 5 image, and want higher resolution, you can turn off Automatic Frame recognition under Preferences, insert the 4 x 5 in the 60mm holder, and select 60mm as your frame setting. Or use a 4 x 5 holder and select a 60mm or even 35mm frame. With large format film somewhat ponderous stitching is also possible.

 

[RandB]

The other things that are enviable about the X5 (and the Imacon 949 before it): simplicity, speed, and the diffusion light source that mimics the cold head enlargers prized for their end silver print results. Not until I used the 949 did I come close to the work I did in the darkroom with a Zone V1 equipped enlarger. Even the Imacon 848 didn't have this and you could see the difference (I used both).

Diffusion of the light source in the X-5 differs from the 848 and 849. HBlad claims that the X-5 is thereby less subject to collimation. Some users agree, others think the modification softens their scans, others that there is no difference whatsoever.

 

[Stuart Richardson]

If only they updated the damn software for the X5, it would be a more enjoyable experience. As far as I can tell, it has been more than ten years since they had a meaningful update. It still crashes all the time, you cannot even quit the program while the scanner is turned on or launch the program and then turn on the scanner. You cannot see the effect of adjustments in real time, as the adjustments "jump" when you move the sliders. I have been using the program since 2003, so I have gotten the hang of it and can get everything I need out of it, that said, I would much prefer if I could just use a plug in in Lightroom to operate the scanner from there. I am still upset that Hasselblad just left it behind and didn't include it in Phocus, while still selling the scanner for ever more money. It is now 26,700 dollars! I paid around 15,000 for it 7 years ago, for the same scanner and the same software...no updates since then.

SO. If I were doing it again, I would certainly look into what Digital Transitions is doing and explore camera based scanning. 26700 dollars plus whatever you might spend on an MFD for a studio will buy you a lot. As an end to end solution, I would think that an exceptionally solid copystand set up with a good digital back will likely cost more than the X5, but it can also be used for artwork reproduction, and then the back can be used on another camera in the field or for non-repro work. I have done camera based scanning for 8x10 film and artists using film in strange ways (exposing a whole 120 roll in one shot etc), and with a good copy stand, good lightbox and a good camera and lens, the results are great. I am using the S2 and the 120 macro, but a higher resolution camera and a lens that goes greater than 1 to 1 would potentially be even more useful.

Of course, doing it DIY is a pain, but there are a few things that can help. The versalab parallel will allow you to align your camera to the film in a matter of seconds. If you are going to be doing this, it is totally worth the admittedly high price. You will also be able to use it for enlargers, or for aligning a camera to flat artwork if you ever photograph that. I am not sure how high the prices are for DT's stuff, but you could also make use for the X5 acessories. You can buy film holders for the Imacons on eBay, some made in China etc. These obviously hold the film well and will make your life easier. For a diffused light source, I have a high quality light table and I bought a glass plate that I put above the box, so as to have the film sitting above the light, not directly on the acrylic. This moves the film further from the light source, evening any hotspots, and the glass surface is easier to keep clean and scratch free.

If you are scanning color negative, the program Color Perfect from Germany does a very good job at converting to a positive. I think it does a better job than FlexColor, actually. It is not very expensive and operates as a photoshop plugin. http://www.colorperfect.com/colorperfect.html?lang=en

In any case, the X5 is still the easiest option, but given how Hasselblad has supported it, I would not be surprised if they just drop support completely as soon as it stops working in the OS. Perhaps if they updated the software or *gasp* updated the sensor to take advantage of the last 15-20 years of sensor development I would be more optimistic, but given that they have never given a single indication that they intend to support it, if I were to do it again I would invest in a digital repro system instead...much more flexible and future proof I think.

 

[kdphotography]

For those of us that already have a MFDB, camera and lenses---the decision is much closer, assuming that makes the price (???) of the DT Phase MFDB film scanning method is substantially more attractive than the $25K of the Flextight X5. Ease of use is always a factor, but if the DT Phase system "locks-in" the camera and makes it fairly simple to set up (everytime!), then that flexibility becomes more attractive.

The Flextight is still listed by Hasselblad in its product line and therefore "supported" albeit as Stuart says neglected from updates.

Hasselblad lists computer compatibility with Mac and PC. Is the Flextight software compatible with Windows 10?

Ken