Hi all, Yesterday I had a very interesting demo on an ICG 355 drum. We scanned some originals that we have also scanned on flextight precision II (at exact same res) and compared.
Definitely the drum is better,.....but not by a lot (in my view). Much nicer shadow detail (no noise) and smoother tones throughout. I guess this was what I expected. Prob. is that 355 ICG will not do 16bit scans. The higher models do, but may be out of our price range (inc. extra drums, software, loading unit). Software seemed very good, and loading wasn't quite as much a pain as I thought it might be. So if we need 16bit scans (and I think we do often, due to huge tonal changes requested at retouch stage), will a 16bit Imacon scan beat an 8bit drum? If we are going to have to pull the ranges around so much surely all that nice smooth drum info will get mashed up anyway? Also, a new Imacon 848 is going to be better than our current 5year old mk.II operating in PRETTY hot weather last week!. Oh, decisions, decisions decisions. Graeme -------------------------------------------------------- Touch Digital Limited http://www.touchdigital.co.uk t. 020 7684 7500 f. 020 7684 7499 -----Original Message----- From: Neil Barstow I still prefer a drum, although the Imacon can come VERY close when used right. Regards, NeilB. =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
