Using the ICG in clean conditions you should save lots of time cloning out the dust. However as I mentioned before the ICG is a high throughput machine and really comes into its own when scanning 100+ films a day.
The quality difference is noticeable especially on punchy film like Velvia. Whether it is THAT noticeable depends on your standards.
Bob
On Wednesday, August 6, 2003, at 10:34 am, Graeme Bulcraig wrote:
That was when they cost $56,000. Secondhand they are now little more than a Flextight.
Hi Bob,
many thanks for your comments and info. The point above is why I started > the thread. If I am about to shell out �12k on a new flextight, should I > be seriously considering a second hand ICG?
Will the quality difference be THAT noticeable in editorial work? Baring in >mind the poor repro quality offered by many mags....
Also, with a Imacon 848 offering 50Mb / min realistic scanning times. Do >you think the ICG could get anywhere near that speed....with mounting times >etc. Sooooo much of our scans need to be turned around in silly times, I'm >worried that we wouldn't have time to actually use the drum scanner >effectively.
Your thoughts appreciated.
Ta Graeme
=============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
