Tango Et Scan

[Hilary Laite]

Forgetthose wimpy flatbed scanners and slooooow scan times. Welcome to a new scanning reality on the Macintosh. Use rugged, high speed scanners engineered specifically to make conversion of paper to PDF a breeze. With one touch of a button, scan even complex double-sided documents and distribute them automatically using E-mail, Print, Fax, Save to Disk, and FTP. Watch your document problems go bye-bye at the rate of seconds per page.

I've tried iMac, iPad, iPhone (and Android) but each time the device reports it does not have scan capability. I've tried HP support, but they want remote access to my Mac (not possible in my business.)

The other part of the equation is the scanner operator. No matter which piece of equipment is better, if you have a lazy or unskilled operator with the best equipment you could easily get a scan that is of lower quality than one from a skilled operator using a piece of equipment that isn't rated as the absolute best.

Doug, operator skill can likely make up for minor hardware differences, which is why i'm hoping to find a recommendation of a lab that has both excellent hardware and skilled operators! if you know of a place that you can recommend, please let me know.

Hi Scott, I do a lot of large prints for my gallery work and have used both drum and Imacon scans. Of the different brands of drum scanners I'm not sure which lab uses which scanners for the most part but all the scans are wonderful. I agree with Doug that the scanner operator plays a large role in the quality of a scan.

I'd suggest searching for the best scanner operator and not worry about the hardware they use. Ditto when it comes to printers. It's a bit like saying the quality of a photograph is a function of the camera you use.

Having looked at the instructional video of an operator carefully taping a transparency to the outside of a drum and working to get the fluid even on a non ICG scanner it's interesting to see that the negs sit on the inside of the ICG drum with a little fluid applied and more fluid flows in as the drum start spinning.

The text below is part of a previous post that indicates to me that the smaller aperture on the ICG scanners may produce sharper results. There was a similar post on another site which supports this same claim but I cannot find it again.

"First, the major factor in determining the sharpness of a drum scanner is its minimum aperture. The Tango's minimum aperture, IIRC, is 11 microns. This, IMHO, is inadequate to get the most detail from most films. Many other drum scanners, from the Howteks and Optronics to the ICGs, are capable of 6 micron apertures. The Aztek Premier and ICG 380 are good for 3 microns, IIRC. Since film grain sizes range down into the 4, 5, and 6 micron range, you need an aperture of at least 6 microns to get close to film grain size, which you need to do if you want to capture all you can from the film (think enlargements of 8x and higher).

Of course, getting the most from a film was never the Tango's mission. The Tango was aimed squarely at the advertising and pre-press markets. They have two basic sizes of output - magazine size, and billboards. Neither of these put much of a premium on sharpness. For input, the Tango and Linocolor software are heavily optimized for chromes, since that's all an art director would use (why do the color reversal and mask removal in your head when chromes offer WYSIWYG on the light table?). There's nothing wrong with this, BTW. I'm just pointing out that the Tango wasn't aimed at the fine art market."

Given that so many photgraphers are so happy with the results from WCI and Calypso I'm not yet convinced that there may be a substantial or noticable increase in sharpness in the final print for the average viewer and of course many feel the skill of the scanner operator is a big consideration as well.

I am willing to take some time to research this further though and if it's a waste of my time that's OK. I appologise to anyone that feels that I am wasting their time with these questions as it may just be overkill anyway.

The scanner comparison done by Leigh Perry was excellent and I wonder if he, or others, could notice any meaningful increase of sharpness of the ICG scan vs. the Tango scan that is not apparent on the web page?

It's been hard to find a lot of definitive information and I agree that there are a lot of variables involved along the process of a print being made and ultimately how much final resolution is really important anyway.

Since well regarded high end Tango scans are readily available from West Coast Imaging, Colorfolio, Calypso, and several others with fine art credentials, and since there seems to be a relative lack of services that offer ICG drum scans (please post them here if you know of them) you might get a Tango scan done just for evaluation and comparison to the ICG. Cost is modest for one chrome. Be sure to let us know of your results if you do this.

I was hoping someone on this list may have had the chance to compare Tango scans vs. ICG and Aztek scans and provide some feedback. Again if the quality of the final print is not any better then it really doesn't matter.

I've also read that the highest printer resolution needed at this point is 360 dpi, and some would call that overkill. Now that Canon and HP have decided to challenge Epson's previous dominance in the printer market in a big way one might expect a breakthrough in print quality in the near future. Chromira printers may also improve? As I only want to pay to have my chromes scanned once I am researching the best possible technology to future proof the quality of the scans.

ICG scanners are very expensive. Aztek scanners are newer versions of Howtek scanners which historically were not very robust compared to the Tangos, so there are a couple of very valid reasons for scanning companies to buy Tangos given the present output quality of printers.

"The Tango's minimum aperture, IIRC, is 11 microns. This, IMHO, is inadequate to get the most detail from most films. Many other drum scanners, from the Howteks and Optronics to the ICGs, are capable of 6 micron apertures. The Aztek Premier and ICG 380 are good for 3 microns, IIRC. Since film grain sizes range down into the 4, 5, and 6 micron range, you need an aperture of at least 6 microns to get close to film grain size, which you need to do if you want to capture all you can from the film (think enlargements of 8x and higher). "

I was blown away the first time I saw one of my chromes drum scanned on a Tango. I have now had about 50 Kodachrome 25 and 64 and Astia 100 chromes scanned on a Tango at three different labs. All with very similar outstanding results. If I win the lottery, I will have all by chromes scanned!

The 380 may be the finest drum scanner currently made and yet the U.S. sales rep might be living on canned Alpo. I think I made it to the end of the internet looking for a scanning service that had one.

The Azteks are more cost effective and can be maintained properly so an owner / operator can likely afford to wet mount a lot of chromes on drums for the difference in price. There are some Aztek scanners available that do have the smaller aperture which should produce the same results.

I'm hoping someone will chime in and correct me regarding the ICG 380's. Can you imagine the board meetings across the pond if there aren't any commercial 380's in the U.S.? There is one private owner apparently.

Sorry to resurrect this thread, but did anyone find resources for Aztek Premier or the ICG scanning services? I can find about 100 Tango ones, and found that robyn color in SF has an Aztek, but the guy that answered didnt' know the model.

I've been scanning my 4x5 negatives on a friend's Heidelberg Tango drum scanner for 10 years. I wanted to maybe get something comparable to that for my own studio? (at a more affordable price)... and was wondering if the Epson V850 comes close?

I do have an Epson 4990 that I use to view my negs before the final scans on the Tango. However, the detail of the 4990 does not compare to the Tango, but I don't know if the newer models have improved?

A consumer level flatbed won't compare to a drum scan. The resolution is not there. Besides the drum scanner, there is a Scitex flatbed scanner, which is the size of a small refrigerator. Hasselblad makes Flextite X1 and X5 scanners, which are closer to drum scan quality and handle 4x film. If you have something worthy of a mural-sized print, you would probably be better off paying for a drum scan as needed.

I have had some success with flatbed scanners, placing the film emulsion side down on the glass, inside a mask cut from black cardboard, with a cover glass to hold it flat. The cover glass can be non-reflective picture frame glass, which has a texture to prevent Newton's Rings, but won't affect the scan since it is on the backside of the film. This is contingent on the best focal plane being at the surface. Some scanners change the focus in transparency mode to about 2 mm above the glass. In that case, you need a holder.

As you know, there is very little border on the long side of 4x5 (or cut film) negatives.There is more border at the ends. The Flextite clamps the ends and pulls the film tight on a curved base. A drum scanner uses tape to hold a cover sheet to the drum, with scanning fluid trapped underneath. You can do that (wet scanning) with a flatbed too, but besides removing scratches, I'm not sure it's worth the effort.

3a8082e126