which scanner - microtek 1800f or epson 4990

[robc]

I have been reading some reviews and snippets of info about these scanners but am unsure of a couple things.

I plan to use the scanner for both 4x5 and for 6cm x 6cm format. The microtek 120 film holders seem to be designed for 6 x 9cm which appears to make scanning 6x6 difficult. Are there 6x6 holders available for this scanner.

Does scanning using the glass holder on the 1800f reduce the scan quality noticeably.

Does the 1800f actually produce scans of noticeably better quality than the epson 4990?

Is it really worth the price difference?

Has anyone done a direct comparison of the two scanners?

thanks.

[Brian Ellis]

I have the 4990. I haven't used the Microtek so I can't compare them. However, there's an article by Ted Harris in View Camera magazine a couple issues ago in which the results of testing various scanners are set out. Based on his evaluation the 1800f is better. I like my 4990 but I don't make prints larger than about 11x14.

[Eric Brody]

Fascinating. I have almost exactly the same questions. I'd love to try scanning my 4x5 and medium format black and white negatives, but feel foolish making what might be significant compromises in quality.

I'm an amateur, and financially my photography produces more out-go than in-come, so cannot easily justify something like an Imacon. There appears to be this huge hole in the marketplace for a quality scanner for 4x5.

People who use 4x5 film do so for the quality, detail, and smooth gradation. I realize that computer equipment, like scanners, changes (improves?) rapidly but fear there will be an asymptotic endpoint to scanner development if digital takes over and film becomes a niche market. At almost 60, I hope I'll have film available for the rest of my photographic career but fear for the younger set.

I'll be interested to read any answers. I have looked on the internet for the answers to these questions and the closest I've seen has been Ken Rockwell's site. He says he's preparing this comparison, but I know little about him. In 2004 he said "The 1800f is most likely the best way to scan your 4 x 5" transparencies short of a real drum scanner. "

More recently, in 2005, in preliminary comments on the Epson 4990, he says "I'm working on comparisons to the Microtek 1800f and Minolta Multi-PRO. All these scans take a lot of time to make. I'll make a dangerous guesstimate, based on only a few scans, that the 4990 is much better than the 1800f and about as good as the Multi-PRO. You can see a quick comparison between the 1800f and 4990 in 2 examples here (on the site). These make the 1800f look so bad that I need to make two new scans at the same time and see if the difference is really that great. That's why it says UNDER CONSTRUCTION at the top, so don't jump to any conclusions."

We'll see.

[Ron Marshall]

There is a scanner comparison in one area of this site. The 4990 is there and the 1800 possibly will be added:

http://largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/

[Deniz]

We have both in school.. I personally use the 1800f for my 4x5 and 8x10 negatives.. I seem too fiddle alot less in photoshop to get the density right with the 1800f.

But the 4990 looks cooler on the desk.. :)

[Roger Hein]

I use the 4990 and, compared to my old 2450, I have been more than pleased with the results. I scan 617, 4x5, 5x7, and 8x10 neg film for an end enlargement of about 3X which is well matched for my final print size, choice of papers I use (matte), and/or process (alt printing). I would have considered the 1800f despite being more than double the price but Microtek have no support in Canada so that ruled it out as an option. Whether it's truly 'twice as good' I think may be debateable. Look towards your end output and consider the equipment that best suits the job.

[Kirk Gittings]

I have been using the 4990 for 2 years now with good results, but not completely happy with scan resolution at 16x20. I just bought an 1800f and was going to test it last weekend but the software crashed my operating system and I am working getting that running again. If I get it up and running this weekend I will test it again.

I am planning to run both scanners. the 4990 for our production commercial images (because the 4990 has digital ice) and the 1800f for my art prints if it is indeed abump in quality. I will let you know.

[Stephen Willard]

Rob

I read the same article in View Camera and indeed the 1800f was noteable better. However, Microteck does not fix its scanners. If it breaks under warranty, then they will send you a new one. If breaks after the warranty, then you will have to buy a new one.

In either case, I would consider wet mounting your film on the scanner. This is exactly what they do with drums scans. The effects of doing this should improve the performance of you flat bed scanner notable. Wet mounting your film is very similar to pouring an oil finish on dry untreated wood. Detail that was not visible in the grain before all of a sudden seems to glow with detail. Wet mounting is suppose have a very similar effect. If you go to the wesite

groups.yahoo.com/group/WETMOUNTING/

you can buy conversion kits and supplies including a how-to video for wet mounting your film with flatbed scanners.

I have just order a custom kits that I intend to use with my 8x10 enlarger. My belief is that wet mounting will hide imperfections such as dust and scratches. These blemishes are very visible when I start making 20x60 and 30x40 and larger prints. With the oil, I hope most of that will go away.

[Leigh Perry]

The 1800f is next on the list for the scanner comparison here:

http://largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/

The slide is currently in Norway. When it finishes there, it will return to the USA for the 1800f and the Canon 9950f, both of which have been awaited by many, it seems.

[Ed Richards]

Leigh,

Any chance that an Air Force resolution target can be added to the mix? It is difficult to see what is going on with the scan of the chrome, other than that some scanners look better than others. It is hard to translate that into what size print the scanner will be good for.

[rob_5998]

Thanks all,

Kirk,
I will await your findings with interest.

I did look at the scanner comparisons here. How much difference between the 1800f and 900i there is would also be interesting to see. However, the snaptrans for the 6x9cm does concern me as I would like to be able to scan to two strips of 3 6x6 negs at a time. If that means using the glass holder then I doubt the quality would be any better than the epson 4990(or canon).

Either way, I realise I'm not going to get the ultimate in scan quality with either of these scanners and need to decide whether opting for the cheaper epson would be best since in a couple years there will probably be a better and cheaper option than the microtek (assuming it is better now).

I await Kirks comparison.

[Ben Diss]

I have the 1800f and have scanned 6x7 using the 6x9 carrier. It worked perfectly. One other advantage of the 1800f over the 4990 is the glass mount for 8x10 film. On this, you can scan any size by wet mounting.

-Ben

[Ted Harris]

As soon as the trannie gets to me from Norway I will do the 1800f scans. I have already done comparisons of th 1800f and the i900. The i900 performance is detailed in the View Camera article. Basically the i900 performs similarly to the 4990 ... better in some ways and worsse in others ... but basically a consumer grade entry level scanner for scanning LF film. The 1800f is a different beast and performs considerably better, it is also considerably better built than the i900. I know that Microtek simply replaces i900's and i800's when sent in for repair but I am not sure that is the case with the 1800f. I have a high resolution scan from the 1800f that I can make available to any who care (it is the high rez scan of the imge that was scanned with the 1800f for the second View Camera article) ... drop me a line if you are interested. I had intended to put it up on my website but at the moment I have a major project fro the SPCA going up there which is eating many gigabytes of space. I can make it available other ways though. IMO you will find that the 1800f performs excellently for prints up to and slightly beyond 16x20. When I intend to print larger than that I still go with a drum scan but I have asked some expert printers (John Lattimore of ejarts mainly) to evaluate some scans done on the 1800f and he believes they will print very well at larger sizes.

In answer to Ed's question regarding the Air Force resolution target. I'd be happy to post the results of same for the 1800f, we did it for the i900 for the View Camera magazine article. I suspect it would be difficult to go back and do it for all the scanners already testsed in Leigh's effort. You cannot simply download/print an image of the USAF Test Target as many comparisons do, that actually gives you close to garbage. You need to use an actual target such as those produced by AIG and they are not inexpensive unfortunately.

[Ed Richards]

Paul has posted an Air Force test slide for the 1800:

http://www.butzi.net/articles/scannersoft.htm

I think it is a test that mostly useful for the consumer scanners - we know the high end ones pretty much do what they claim on resolution.

[Teresa Valenz]

Just to clarify what Stephen said, if your scanner breaks while it is out of warranty Microtek will sell you a new scanner at a considerable discount for years 2, 3, 4, and 5. You don't have to pay full price again on the unit if it does break which is nice. It should be noted though that the Artixscan is the top of the line in Microtek scanners and is built very well. It's not a cheap all plastic unit that you could pick up at Best Buy.

Teresa

[Lenny Eiger]

I think you folks should consdier using a drum scanner. Howtek 4500's are pretty inexpensive when you consider the quality.... I have upgraded to an Aztek Premier, capable of 8,000 dpi, but only because I service a lot of folks with 35mm. The 4500 is a major upgrade from a flatbed scanner....

[sanking]

"In answer to Ed's question regarding the Air Force resolution target. I'd be happy to post the results of same for the 1800f, we did it for the i900 for the View Camera magazine article. I suspect it would be difficult to go back and do it for all the scanners already testsed in Leigh's effort. You cannot simply download/print an image of the USAF Test Target as many comparisons do, that actually gives you close to garbage. You need to use an actual target such as those produced by AIG and they are not inexpensive unfortunately."

Has anyone used or considered using the Stouffer resolution guides, #1-T for transmission or #2-0 for reflected? These guides, 1" X 3.75" in size, which allow one to check the resolution of scanners in both lpmm or lpi, are relatively inexpensive.

[robc]

My take on this is that unless you need to know the actual lpmm figures for a scanner then you don't need a calibrated step wedge or target.
I'm really only interested in the relative performance of one scanner against another and it is simple to create your own test negative which can do that but won't give you accurate numbers.
I would trust my eyes to tell me if one scan is better than another.

As someone has already suggested, you can make a print and then photograph it at a suitable distance to create a negative with the required detail in it. Make 5 A4 prints and arrange them on a board, one in each corner and one in the center then photograph it. That way you can see the resolution of your lens in each part of neg as well. No you won't get the actual lpmm numbers but my guess is that you are really more interested in being able to make a relative comparison of one lens or scanner against another.

use a USAF1951 target if you like but you can just easily draw line pairs photoshop.

free USAF target can be had here:

www.photo.net/learn/optics/USAF1951.ps (http://www.photo.net/learn/optics/USAF1951.ps)

and free windows utility to print it:

www.lerup.com/printfile/ (http://www.lerup.com/printfile/)

the above works best if you use a postscript driver to your printer(assuming it has one).
I printed to my lazer printer at 1200dpi on A4. You could use your colour printer if you like.

then mount onto a board and photograph.

However, if you are doing this then you could always generate more sophisticated target to show colour patches, distortion grids etc as well as resolution line pairs.

[Michael Mutmansky]

Sandy,

I have one of the Stouffer lpm targets. If if remember correctly, it maxes out at 500 lpm, so it is not fine enough for higher reproduction ratios that most people use their scanner for.

I did some initial scanning tests with it and it was clearly capable of giving a decent measure up to it's limits, however.

---Michael

[sanking]

"I have one of the Stouffer lpm targets. If if remember correctly, it maxes out at 500 lpm, so it is not fine enough for higher reproduction ratios that most people use their scanner for. "

Michael,

I believe the figures for the Stouffer are 20 lppm and 500 lpi.

What would be the maximum resolution one could test with the Air Force target on glass that has been mentioned.

And how does not evaluate the test? Is this done by visual examination on a monitor? If so, how is this done? Does one just blow up the magnification to the point where resolution breaks down?

I am having a hard time finding any kind of standards that should be applied to this type of testing. Can anyone direct me to a source of this type?

[Ed Richards]

The value of the real target deposited on glass is that you don't have to own all the scanners to test them. Anyone can test a scanner with the target and by getting real resolution, it can be compared with any other scanner. Paul's discussion lays out how it works, and the standard will get to more real DPI than we will get with consumer scanners.

[Michael Mutmansky]

Sandy,

You are right, I wrote lpmm when I meant lpi.

If you are actually trying to determine the ability of a scanner to resolve a detail to a certain size, you need to zoom in on the pixels in the file to determine exactly how far down the scanner can actually show distinct differences.

This is not as esy as it appears, however, because there is no line in the sand for the scanner where it suddenly starts to resolve detail. What actually happens as the scanner starts getting close to it's resolving limit is the contrast of the detail begins to decline until the dark detail and the light detail merge into a grey mass.

Just before that point, the scanner is resolving detail, but the quality that it resolves if quite poor, as is the contrast. Some people define the resolution as the point where the scanner has lost half it's ability to maintain the actual contrast of the square wave signal it is supposed to be seeing. Others define it at other locations. It's somewhat arbitrary.

For real world photography, square wave signals aren't too important, so I am inclined to go farther than the 50% contrast reduction in general, and take it to the point where the scanner actually merges the square wave pattern into the gray mass. It's a very distinct point, and is easily determined with plotting software.

Note that this is also how it is apparent that typically one channel of a consumer scanner is often sharper than the other two, and I suspect it is the one that is sitting in the optical sweetspot of the scanner lens.

The USAF charts (of which there are a number of standards) can go at least to 4000ppi and some of them can go as high as 8000ppi or more. It's nonsensical to be concerned with resolutions that high, as no current film contains detail that high. These ones are made on glass with a vaporized metal deposition method. The logical ones to be using for tests are film based, because they will simulate reasonably well the actual conditions that your scanner will do with an actual piece of film.

---Michael

[sanking]

"The USAF charts (of which there are a number of standards) can go at least to 4000ppi and some of them can go as high as 8000ppi or more. It's nonsensical to be concerned with resolutions that high, as no current film contains detail that high. These ones are made on glass with a vaporized metal deposition method. The logical ones to be using for tests are film based, because they will simulate reasonably well the actual conditions that your scanner will do with an actual piece of film. "

Michael,

First, thanks for the great explanation of the issues regarding evaluating evaluation. It really clarified a number of issues I had about the actual process of evaluation of resolution.

About the targets, can you provide me with sources for ones on film that are capable of a lot more resolution than the Stouffer at 20 lpmm/500 lpi?

[Walt Calahan]

I too am interested in the Microtek 1800F. I'm currently using an Epson Expressrion 1680 Pro scanner with SilverFast Studio software. The reviews posted on Amazon.com of how well the Microtek works are mixed.

I'd like to hear more replies about the scanner than about Air Force targets (even though I appreciate that the target is a very useful tool). Please give us more details about the scanners performance in various real world applications, included experiences with other scanners before using the 1800F too.

I'm not convinced the 1800F is worth it right now. Perhaps it would be better to what till a new generation of machine is available.

I need a great scanner for 8x10. If I shot 4x5 only I'd get an Imacon.

[Ed Richards]

> I'm not convinced the 1800F is worth it right now. Perhaps it would be better to what till a new generation of machine is available.

My bet, based on the disappearance of the 2500, is that there will not be a new generation, for exactly the reasons we have been discussing: it is not clearly better than the top consumer scanners, and costs 2x as much. We are probably the most demanding audience for low end scanners, and even if all of us bought one, it would not matter in their sales. Ironically, the 2500 is really the scanner we want at about $1000, but at $2500 it was too much for the market. It has been replaced with a new model, at 2,700:

http://www.microtekusa.com/sm1000xlpro.html

It has a 12 x 17 bed to differentiate it from the consumer scanners.

I am also not sure there is any reason for Canon or Epson to make a better consumer scanner - for 99% of what people do, their scanners are great. The only thing that might drive it is to improve the scanning of 35mm film as they try to replace film scanners.

[Mark McCarvill]

A question for the Microtek 1800f users here: Does your scanner make a loud snapping noise when you power-up or when a scan begins? Mine does and although the scans look fine I'm concerned about this noise and I can't get an answer from Microtek on this. Thanks

[Paul Butzi]

The reviews posted on Amazon.com of how well the Microtek works are mixed.
I'd like to hear more replies about the scanner than about Air Force targets (even though I appreciate that the target is a very useful tool). Please give us more details about the scanners performance in various real world applications, included experiences with other scanners before using the 1800F too.



Well, I've used an HP Scanjet 3c, an Epson 1640 SU Photo, and a Microtek Artixscan 1800f.

The HP Scanjet 3c, although a fine scanner for it's time (and adequate for reflective scanning) had various serious problems that made it worthless for scanning LF film, most of which had to do with banding, noise, and inadequate resolution. I never made a serious attempt to produce a print (or anything other than images for web display) from that scanner.

The Epson 1640 SU Photo was also inadequate. The specs listed resolution of 1600 ppi, but the actual delivered resolution was far lower. The ability to scan dense transmission materials was hopelessly weak. Noise was a problem. I used it to produce scans that were targeted to web display, and it was fine for that but fell short otherwise.

The 1800f is the scanner I use now. It's big, heavy, not particularly fast, but produces good, relatively clean scans. The actual delivered resoluiton seems to be just about 1800 ppi. My personal opinion is that it's adequate for my needs, which include some fairly large prints. All my scanning is of TMX, TMY, or Acros negatives.

Much of getting good scans is doing enough experimentation to get the best out of the scanner. For this reason, I take ANY head to head comparison of scanners with a grain of salt, or maybe a metric ton of salt. The difference between the scan you get when you just accept the default scanning software and the scan you get when you've figured out how to get the best from the scanner is huge, and it's typically larger than the difference between two competing scanners.

It's a particular frustration to me that this is so. It's hard, for instance, to compare a scanner like the Imacon 848 or 949 to the Microtek, because I now know how to get the best from the 1800f, but the salesman typically does NOT know how to get the best from the Imacon. Go figure.

[Kirk Gittings]

RE: 1800f. I would certainly have more faith in the accessments of large format professionals like Ted Harris and Paul Butzi than any "mixed Amazon reviews". But FWIW I will be testing my new 1800f this weekend against my 4990 and rescanning for comparison sake a few Imacon scans that I did personally this summer.

[Paul Butzi]

A question for the Microtek 1800f users here: Does your scanner make a loud snapping noise when you power-up or when a scan begins? Mine does and although the scans look fine I'm concerned about this noise and I can't get an answer from Microtek on this. Thanks

Yeah. Mine goes through what I think of as 'morning calisthenics' when I power it up. It takes about 45 seconds from when I hit the power switch to the 'ba-doop' noise Windows XP makes when it appears on the firewire line. That 45 seconds starts with weird zooming noises, several loud clunks, and then several more short periods of weird noises along with several periods where it sits there with blinking lights and no noise.

And when I start a scan, there's a series of loud clunks, more zooming noises, etc.

It it seems to work fine. I asked another 1800f user when I got the scanner, and his does the same stuff.

[sanking]

"A question for the Microtek 1800f users here: Does your scanner make a loud snapping noise when you power-up or when a scan begins? Mine does and although the scans look fine I'm concerned about this noise and I can't get an answer from Microtek on this. Thanks"

My Microtek 9800XL is very noisy, similar to what Paul Butzi describes. I used an Epsoin 836XL for several years before replacing it with the 9800XL, and the Epson was much quieter, just a few slight noises when first turned on and doing pre-scans, and then almost silen when actually making a scan. When I got the 9800XL I was sure something had to be wrong with it, but all of my scnas have turned out fine so far. But I have to say that the Epson 836XL, and its successor the 1640XL, are much quiter and give the impression of being much better built.

[Mark McCarvill]

“Morning calisthenics.” Well put, Paul. That’s what my machine does and I'm relieved to hear it’s “normal.”

[Andy Liakos]

>>.I think you folks should consdier using a drum scanner. Howtek 4500's are pretty inexpensive when you consider the quality.... I have upgraded to an Aztek Premier, capable of 8,000 dpi, but only because I service a lot of folks with 35mm. The 4500 is a major upgrade from a flatbed scanner....<<<

Well, I priced the Premier today from Aztek... very VERY helpful rep there... however the unit is $37,000. The 4500 is a mere $9500, which does archival quality. Both more than I can justify at this time... maybe in another 4 or 5 years an equivalent resolution flatbed will appear.

I hate the idea that I would have to develop a business (like offering archival scanning) just to be able to afford the scanner that I want...

[Ken Lee]

My 2500f makes a lot of noise also. When I tested it as part of the round-robin group of scanner testers, it delivered 2500 ppi.

[Kirk Gittings]

Some of my initial observations comparing Imacon 848 scans (done last summer), my trusty two year old Epson 4990 (with Silverfast AI 6 Studio) and my new Microtek 1800f (with Silverfast AI 6 Studio).

Though I did not have an Air Force target to test things at a more scientific level, I agree with all of Paul Butzi’s observations in his article on his website. My tests did not contardict any of his tests. Read his for more detailed information.

http://www.butzi.net/articles/scannersoft.htm

A summary of my observations to date with B&W scan are:

The sharpest 4x5 scans are with film holders by scanning emulsion up RGB and saving the green channel, in glass carrier emulsion down RGB green channel, but the holder scans were ever so slightly sharper than those from the glass carrier (film taped down).

No advantage to using the glass bed vs. the film holder for 4x5 and one big disadvantage. The calibration slot in the glass holder is also glass and collects dust, a big problem here in Albuquerque. The dust particles create holes in the calibration data and streaks in the scan. This is not an issue with the film holder as the calibration slot is open.

Some gain in sharpness by down sampling (5000 down to 2500 which is optical res.) but absolutely no less noise. The sharpening is because bicubic sharper does in fact do some sharpening I think.

The MT is much much faster than 4990 and closer to speed of Imacon.

MT has much less noise than the 4990 and the Imacon (I find the Imacons very noise)

Shadow detail is dramatically better with the MT than I could do with either 4990 or Imacon.

The Imacon was visibly sharper, but I’m not entirely convinced that you can truly turn off all the sharpening in the Imacon. I thought I did, but everything always looks a little sharpened from Imacons.

The MT has much less ghosting than 4990 and does not have this odd stretching on a pixel level (gear slop?) that the 4990 does at the edges of film sometimes.

The MT is marginally sharper than 4990. I was hoping for more from the MT.

There is no advantage to multisampling with the MT. The noise level is extremely low to begin with and doesn’t need any help.

There is no advantage with the MT in terms of sharpness by doing a dummy scan to heat the negative prior to the real scan as in the 4990.

4x5 film Film holder had a bow on the edge of it requiring it be taped into the main drawer holder. This taping of the 4x5 holder into the main holder slightly increased sharpness.

For me it is ultimately all in the prints. I can tell the difference in my work at 16x20 when I start with a 4990 scan vs. an Imacon scan. I only have free access to an Imacon in the summers so I am trying to approach that Imacon 16x20 level with the MT. Until I do some real prints from these MT scans I can’t really give an adequate appraisal that the MT1800f is worth the extra expense than the Epson 4990. I think it will be, but I need more time.

And yes this puppy is noisy!

[Kirk Gittings]

Has anyone tried wet scanning on one of these?

[robc]

Kirk,

I would be interested to hear whether you think there is an apprcreiable difference in print quality between the 4990 and 1800f when printed to 20x16 (or thereabouts).

Also whether sharpening of a 4990 scanned images provides same quality as the 1800f and lastly whether in your opinion the noise levels of the 1800f would make it a significantly better option for negative scanning.

[Kirk Gittings]

Those are exactly the issues I am trying to figure out.