Microtek M1 user experiences [Archive] - Large Format Photography Forum

BarryS

1-Feb-2008, 09:10

Since there isn't much in the way of information on the M1, I thought I'd share my initial experiences. I've had the scanner for about two weeks and at this point I'm very close to returning it and getting an Epson. I purchased the M1 with the Silverfast AI software and am experiencing some major problems. Microtek's Scanwizard Pro software has been difficult to get up and running and after a week of uninstalling/reinstalling, tweaking, testing--it's still very unstable and crashes fairly often. Running Silverfast AI, I've had no problems with stability, but at many resolutions the 16 bit grayscale scans are unacceptable due to prominent horizontal lines hat run across the scan. I'm a very experienced PC user, but the Microtek software is reminds me of the kludgy unstable applications available 15 years ago. Is it the hardware, the software? Who knows, and Microtek isn't providing much in the way of support.

When I am able to get a good scan, the quality is very good for a prosumer flatbed, but the scans don't seem significantly better than the ones I've seen from the V700/750.

Microtek technical support is very poor. The documentation is bad and the knowledge base is riddled with mistakes and incorrect information. I have been forced to use excruciatingly long mail exchanges to troubleshoot and the responses are slow, and incomplete. There is no technical support phone number, but maybe they'll give me one before I return this thing.

Overall, this has been an extremely disappointing experience and I recommend purchasing another scanner with an established track record and better customer support. I haven't completely given up and I'll continue to post my experiences, but Microtek is making it hard to resolve my problems.

Gene McCluney

1-Feb-2008, 10:22

Without seeing a sample, I would have to say that the "line" you are experiencing could be a tiny speck of dirt on the scanning light source for your negative/transparency scans, which resides inside the scanner, below the film drawer. (I have a 2500f which is similar). I have had this problem before, and since the scanner shell or case cannot be dustproof, due to the sliding drawer design where you put your film, it is just practical that you would have to dust off this light once in a while.

Here is what I do on my 2500f, and your scanner will probably fall into the same category. Slide the drawer out, and remove all negative carriers. With the scanner on (that is with the light on, so you can see it), I partially slide the film drawer back in, and thru the opening I use a can of dust-off type air, and I bend the plastic hose/nozzel on the can downward (it usually retains the shape), and gently blow out the whole strip light. There is a depression in the light, a groove, and dust can collect in this groove, and this creates a "line" or "streak" on the negative at this point when scanning. I hope this helps.

I have never been able to get the current version of the Microtek scanner software to work on my G5 Macintosh, however Silverfast works just fine.

You can also use one of those mirrors on a bent stick as used by dentists to inspect teeth, as an inspection tool to view your light. A dust speck too small for you to see will create a line on the scan, though.

Ken Lee

1-Feb-2008, 11:28

I had similar experiences with a Microtek 2500f, on both Mac and PC. The best software I found, was VueScan, and even with that, the scanner software just hangs after a few scans. In addition, the scanner itself works very slowly.

I replaced mine with a much cheaper Epson 4990, and aside from a small loss in resolution, I haven't looked back. It is smaller, lighter, faster, quieter, and the Epson software is fine.

I don't want to be judgmental. Perhaps only the very biggest companies have the deep pockets to follow through with all aspects of development, when it comes to products like this.

BarryS

1-Feb-2008, 12:46

@ Gene-- Thanks, but I don't think the problem is dust on the sensor. The lines move around and the number of them varies. They're also parallel to the scanning edge and when I've had dust issues before, the lines were perpendicular to the scanning edge because a pixel or two on the array gets blocked. I have a feeling it's an issue with the stepper motor or control of the stepper motor. I will try some canned air to see if that helps.

@Ken-- I forgot to mention the M1 is dog slow and sounds like it's going to grind its plastic gears to pieces. :) I could live with those issues if the everything was working properly. The lack of support is really maddening. At this point, I can't get any response and I'm trying everything I can think of before sending a query.

Ken Lee

1-Feb-2008, 13:54

I remember that sound: Clicking, snapping, and clanking. It makes you wonder if they ever asked any consumers for their opinions or input. I wish them all good fortune and prosperity.

Ted Harris

1-Feb-2008, 14:32

The clicking, snapping, clanking and whirring noises that are, when first heard, very frightening, are the autofocus at work.

Barry -- post an image with the lines and maybe we can help troubleshoot the problem.

BarryS

1-Feb-2008, 15:46

Sure. Here are a few scans. The first at 2200 ppi and the second at 2400 ppi.

http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/783/balustrade4x5m12200ls1.jpg

http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/1162/balustrade4x5m124002kk7.jpg

Harley Goldman

1-Feb-2008, 16:35

I am not too sure an Epson is always the answer, either. I have had a 4870 die in two years and my 4990 only lasted 1-1/2 years. And I do very, very little scanning. I was hoping to have a better experience with a Microtek. It is a crapshoot.

Ted Harris

1-Feb-2008, 16:39

If those scans are done with Silverfast Ai Studio and set for multiple scans then that is the problem. There is a bug in the software that causes this sort of issue when you choose multiple sans. Try it with a single pass and as many samples as you want.

BarryS

1-Feb-2008, 16:44

Ted-- Thanks, I don't think I've got it set for multiple scans, but I'll double check. If I can get Silverfast working smoothly, I'd just forget about Scanwizard Pro.

Edit: Just confirmed that AI is not set to multiscan. Rescanned with same problems.

Colin Graham

1-Feb-2008, 20:14

Well crap, I'm getting the same lines in Silverfast... Hadn't noticed it before because I've been scanning in 5x12 and do not go above 1200 because the files get a little unwieldy...Seems like someone else was having this problem too so it's definitely not a rarity.

Not getting the problem with Scan Whizard so hopefully that means it's just a software issue and no problem with the motors or hardware?

BarryS

1-Feb-2008, 20:45

Colin-- I wonder if you could try doing a series of scans at different resolutions (1200, 1400, 1600, etc) in Silverfast to see if you're having the same problem. I can't seem to get a good scan between 1600 and 2400 ppi. It's hard to believe they'd let these packages out of the factory with such a massive problem. :(

Harley Goldman

1-Feb-2008, 22:18

I just got my M1 today. Finished setting it up a little while ago, installed everything, ran two scans with Silverfast at 2400 and guess what? Same damn lines that everyone else is getting. I made sure I was scanning single pass. That is a bit of a pisser.

Harley Goldman

1-Feb-2008, 23:05

Just for yuks, I uninstalled Silverfast, went to the Lasersoft website and downloaded the latest and greatest version of Ai Studio, reinstalled and scanned again. Still getting lines in my scans. So much for getting caught up on my scanning this rainy weekend.

Colin Graham

1-Feb-2008, 23:36

Barry, yeah everything above 1200 is buggered in Silverfast. This is the 6.5 revision 4, just came out last week or so. I wonder if they didn't give Lasersoft a decent SDK because the Scanwizard software is working fine at all resolutions.

Ken Lee

2-Feb-2008, 05:28

Have you tried VueScan (http://www.hamrick.com) ?

Colin Graham

2-Feb-2008, 07:08

Yes, but I cant even get Vue Scan to prescan a negative. Can't get beyond a 'Load Film into Scanner' dialogue box. After restarting it, it doesn't even detect the scanner. Is VueScan supporting the autofocus capability now?

Anyway, Scanwizard works. It's a little clunky, but it works fine here. Besides, I never could figure out how to get a 16 bit file with Silverfast SE anyway, even the 48>24 bit RGB option shows up in PS as a 8 bit file. Probably need the AI upgrade, but I'll definitely be waiting on that.

Ted Harris

2-Feb-2008, 08:22

Barry,

I'm out of answers at the moment. I would like to see the full rez versions of those scans and if you wouldn't mind sending them to me on a CD/DVD or uploading them I can see what else I can figure out and what info I can get from Microtek. I'd also like to hear from anyone else who is having the problem. As mentioned, I had smiilar problems using the multiple scan feature of Silverfast Ai Studio and there have been other problems with the Silverfast software.

Those lines look like something goofy is happening with the stepping motors and that could be software or hardware.

BarryS

2-Feb-2008, 08:35

Vuescan doesn't support the M1. Even if support is added, I've had some mixed experiences with Vuescan and other scanners. In every case I went back to either the manufacturer's software or Silverfast. Although Silverfast AI isn't perfect, I think it's the best scanning software out there. I bought the M1 only because they offered the Silverfast AI package. I think the M1 requires some real software development as opposed to some quick porting.

We all need to contact Microtek and Silverfast to let them know this is a major problem .

Edit: Ted-- I'll upload a full res jpeg or two to my server and shoot you the link. Thanks for your help.

John Brady

2-Feb-2008, 09:53

I posted these same problems weeks ago about my m1 pro. I thought I was the only one having this problem. I have spent hours working with microtek support trying to resolve this problem. I was originally using a dell xps dual core 3ghz with 4 gig ram. The problem showed up on scans over 1600dpi. I had been a microtek 1800f user for several years so I was experienced with silverfast and scanning 4x5 film. I scanned at 1800dpi on my old scanner without problem.

So wanting to get the new mac pro anyway, I bought one of the new 2.8 8 core machines with the basic 2 gig ram set up. Although this performed better with the m1 i was still getting bars and fine lines at high rez. I have received my new ram for my mac and I am now at 8 gig. Guess what, I think the problem is resolved. I made a 2800 dpi scan without lines.

I am convinced that these are all memory issues and that unfortunately this machine requires ridiculous amounts of ram. I am going to spend more time doing test scans and will keep you all posted. So far though I am very disappointed, the 4x5 holders are total crap.

Here are two examples of the problems, the first (creek) is the bars and the second is a 100%crop of the problem with multiscan Ted referred to.
_______________________
www.timeandlight.com

Doug Fisher

2-Feb-2008, 10:11

>>I never could figure out how to get a 16 bit file with Silverfast SE anyway, even the 48>24 bit RGB option shows up in PS as a 8 bit file. <<

48 is to 24 what 16 is to 8 bit. In other words, 48 bit is the 3 colors of R, G, and B at 16 bits each. 24 bit is the three colors of R, G, and B at 8 bits each.

The only way you can get a high-bit file out of the SE version is to choose the 48 bit HDR output option. That is similar to a raw-type of file ouput. The resulting scan will be flat but all the information will be there for you to tweak things once opened in PS versus letting the scanning software make those decisions for you.

Doug
---
www.BetterScanning.com

Ken Lee

2-Feb-2008, 13:16

"I am convinced that these are all memory issues and that unfortunately this machine requires ridiculous amounts of ram."

It's not the machine, it's the scanning software, or (more likely) the driver software.

Given that the lines are equidistant, it is possible once the driver have read in a certain amount of data (the distance between lines) it does a bad job of writing the data to cache. Something is losing track of where the old pixels leave off, and/or where the next set of pixels belong. The result is that some garbage is "inserted" every time - and it appears as a "line". After the line, the next set of good data is appended to the file. Over and over.

My guess is that if you were to scan a smaller image (exactly as small as the good areas on your images) you would avoid this problem, because you would never reach that limit, and therefore never reach that part of the code. Similarly, if you were to scan something 5x8, you'd see even more of those gaps, spaced equally.

It's just a guess, but as a software engineer, it seems logical to me.

Colin Graham

2-Feb-2008, 13:16

Ah, thanks for that Doug. Wasn't thinking about the individual channels.

John Brady

2-Feb-2008, 13:45

"It's not the machine, it's the scanning software, or (more likely) the driver software."

Thanks Ken,
Thats the best explanation I have gotten so far.

As an update, the bars are still showing up even with 8 gig. Although the performance has gotten better, after several scans they started again. I stopped them by restarting the scanner and the computer, next scan no lines. Very frustrated!

Does anyone have a used creo for sale?

BarryS

2-Feb-2008, 14:02

The problem is *not* memory related. I generally get more lines at lower resolutions and I have a 3000 ppi scan with no lines.

Harley Goldman

2-Feb-2008, 14:20

I have a question about using the 4x5 holders. Unless I am completely dense (which is a distinct possibility) and can't figure out how to use them properly, it seems that the holders provide excellent film support on 3 sides, but the 4th is unsupported and sags.

Anyone else experiencing anything similar or have any tips on getting the film into the holder correctly?

BarryS

2-Feb-2008, 14:25

I think the holders are supposed to stretch the film on two opposite sides. The two 4" long sides have rubber insets that grip and stretch the film. The holder isn't designed to hold all 4 sides from what I can tell. If the film is correctly inserted and the holder is closed correctly (which isn't always easy), the film is stretched fairly flat.

Harley Goldman

2-Feb-2008, 14:31

Gene McCluney

2-Feb-2008, 15:29

I am loading the chromes at the top of the holder, as the instructions show. I carefully close the top, then slide the top towards me. The entire mechanism does tighten down, but my film is still significantly bowed in the middle where it is not supported. I have tried it many times and I have yet to have it work.

Maybe I need that new Viagra film rinse.

I have the Microtek Artixscan 2500f It uses similar neg holders. I have no issue with film flatness with this type of holder....if you make sure when closing the holder and sliding it, that the film does not move far enough to drop off the edge. You don't have to slide the film hold-down all the way, you know. Are you correctly placing your negatives or transparencies in the holders with the emulsion up? When done correctly this way, the film holding clamp, coming down on top of the film will flatten it out, as film naturally has a slight curl towards the emulsion side.

Ken Lee

2-Feb-2008, 16:40

Looking closely, it is clear that those "lines", are really regions that should have been rendered with good data, but where there is garbage data instead.

Imagine we write a computer program, whose job is to simply write out the alphabet - and this is what it produces: abcd#fghi#klmn#....

This is a classic coding bug that any software engineer could spot and fix... if it were thoroughly tested.

My guess is that the software was rushed through the Quality Control process, given only light "touch-testing", instead of taking the time to try out all the settings.

Ted Harris

2-Feb-2008, 19:37

Ken, agreed except perhaps a difficult bug to track dow as it doesn't seem to occur universally.

Barry, if you can email me screen shot of your settings when the lines appear I will se that they get to the right place inside Microtek. They are working with several issues right now.

Addendum ... and your complete machine configuration. Also are you running from inside PS (which version).

BarryS

2-Feb-2008, 20:48

Ted--Sure, I'll get you the screen shots and a rundown of my config. Any help is appreciated. I believe that Ken is right about the Silverfast build being faulty. I hope Microtek can work quickly with Silverfast to get a new release of AI issued to address this problem. Scanwizard Pro has been stable for the last couple of times I've used it and I have no issues with the quality of the scans when they complete successfully.

Ken Lee

3-Feb-2008, 06:14

I am sorry to contribute anything negative or critical about Microtek or Silverfast. It's way too easy for me to sit back in my chair and point out apparent mistakes, after the fact. I have never tried to build a scanner, nor could I ever do so, never mind develop one as a commercial product, manufacture it, package it, market it, etc.

As consumers we often forget that companies, especially technology companies, are not easy to run. They are made up of people just like us, who try their best to get things right, in the face of uncertainty and risk. On top of that, is the high complexity of computer software, operating systems, and hardware in all their variations and versions.

I wish Silverfast and Microsoft the very best of success and prosperity in the future. I look forward to purchasing more products from them !

They ought to get someone top-shelf, like Ted, involved early in the design phase. He has no quality issues !

Ted Harris

3-Feb-2008, 07:25

Ken,

Thanks for the kind words. Another point of interest is that scanners are from from the frontlines of hot selling products for Microtek, Canon, HP, Nikon and even Epson these days. It is other technology development that dries the development and advances in low priced scanners. In Microtek's case I'm not sure that I couldn't extend my statement to their entire line of consumer products. From what I know about the company, they get a lot more of their revenue from the medial and forensic imaging industries than they do from consumer photography.

As we wrote years ago in the first of our articles on consumer scanners there are also some significant parallels to the consumer video recorders of the 1970's through 1990's v. professional. One of he largest difference in the costs was in the additional precision of the mechanical and electrnoic components of the professional machines and in the additional error correction circuitry to insure more (much more) accuracy). So, you had early VCR's selling for a few thousand and professional VCR's selling for a few hundred thousand. With scanners we've narrowed the gap by an order of magnitude but I'm not sure it will ever get any narrower than that. A long winded way of saying that, yes they could pay more attention to quality control, but that it is really amazing they are as good as they are for the price.

Harley Goldman

3-Feb-2008, 08:40

The M1 uses the autofocus in both the prescan and scanning stages (which makes it kind of slow on the prescans). Based on all the sounds it makes and the time it takes to do the autofocus, I would imagine there are a lot of moving parts being used. Given that at the $750 pricepoint they cannot be using the most expensive parts available, does it seem reasonable to wonder about the longevity of all those moving parts?

It was something I got to thinking about as l listened to the autofocus whirr and clunk away. Anyone, especially engineers, have any thoughts on it?

Colin Graham

3-Feb-2008, 09:15

You can turn the auto focus off for the prescan with the Scanwizard software. Hopefully Silverfast will also implement a way to disable it for prescan as well, as it does save a considerable amount of time and wear and tear.

marcmccalmont

4-Feb-2008, 02:10

I just got my M1 and identical lines scanning 4x5's with silverfast in Photoshop
no problems on the reflective scans?
Marc

BarryS

4-Feb-2008, 06:40

Please contact both Microtek and Silverfast to let them know about the problem.

http://support.microtek.com/emailsupport/v3.4/

http://www.silverfast.com/problemreport/en.html?topic=Usage

BarryS

4-Feb-2008, 08:12

I contacted Silverfast first thing this morning and their initial response was very fast. I've sent them sample scans and screenshots in response to their request, so I'm hoping to get a response later today.

Microtek has completely dropped the ball as far as any communication with me. Apparently they feel, a single canned response is sufficient--what a company!

John Brady

4-Feb-2008, 10:45

I would be interested if anyone has this scanner and doesn't have a problem scanning with silverfast. As I mentioned in earlier posts, I have tried scanning with the m1 pro and silverfast ai on a pc and a mac and have had the same problems with each.

It would appear that if some don't have a problem that it would be hardware related since I have the problem on two totally different platforms.

Microtek is shipping me a new scanner, I will let you all know if that resolves the problem.
___________________
www.timeandlight.com

Harley Goldman

4-Feb-2008, 11:22

I scanned up an image last night using the Microtek software. There was noticeable fringing in areas on a chrome that I would not have expected any. Using an Epson 4870 and a 4990, I have scanned many many dozens of chromes and I can't say I ever noticed fringing before.

I think I am just going to return my M1 and probably try a V750. Too bad, I had high hopes for the scanner.

BarryS

4-Feb-2008, 12:02

Microtek actually finally phoned me today and later today I'll be working with a technical support person to troubleshoot. I think the issues with Scan Wizard Pro are what they are and it's going to work for some folks and not others. I believe the software deserves a major rewrite into something simpler to install without problems and more stable. I'm pretty sure Silverfast will need to release a new build of AI Studio in order to address what seems like a widespread problem.

Has anyone else seen any fringing issues with chromes? I'm only scanning black and white now, so this is a new issue to me.

Anthony Lewis

4-Feb-2008, 14:39

I would like to hear from our European counterparts. Are they also having the same problems with the F1? What are their impressions and/or problems with the F1 so far?

AJSJones

4-Feb-2008, 17:12

The clicking, snapping, clanking and whirring noises that are, when first heard, very frightening, are the autofocus at work.

As described they sound like my AgfaDuoScan T2500 (made by Microtek a while back) - the initialization process makes sure all the mirrors and lens assemblies (associated with the two resolution modes) are in known starting positions and switching them makes the noises - it was interesting to watch it happen with the cover off, all the levers and springs required to reconfigure the optics. The M1 looks like , and by these posts, also sounds like a somewhat revamped version of the 2500f or T2500 - to keep the pricepoint down, it's reasonable to expect them to use the old parts/inventory/tooling over. Better electronics/sensor array (we hope with better signal to noise) and AF would then be the "update" - the AF would presumably have some servo noise in addition.

Rob Landry

4-Feb-2008, 19:53

Wow, this thread is enlightening. I must thank Barry, Harley, Colin and John for sharing their experiences with us. Hopefully you guys will get this sorted out soon. I know many are keeping an eye on this forum since there's quite a bit of interest in this scanner. I've been waiting since it was announced and now unfortunately it's not looking too promising.

Honestly, the more I read about this machine, the more I think I'm just gonna spring for an Epson. Personally, the lack of ICE with the Microtek is a big negative as is the poor OEM software. At least the Epson's software is decent and Vuescan and Silverfast both support the V700/750. I'm also not too inspired by Microtek's customer support record.

Initially, I was intrigued by the M1 primarily because it had the ability to focus but the more I thought about it, the more I realized that it's not really necessary. Once you find the point of optimum focus for your scanner and given a good film holder (Doug's or wet mount for example), every frame thereafter shouldn't need focusing since the lens and film are always in the same place. In this case, it seems that the focusing mechanism would only add extra moving parts that could potentially fail and leads to increased scan times.

Maretzo

4-Feb-2008, 20:21

I have been waiting more than one year to see the first review of the Microtek. Finally, tired of waiting, and one week before the product was made available, I bought the Epson V700 and upgraded to SF AI. I am quite happy, and my 1800 dpi scans look as good as the low-res scan from the shop...
Thank to the tips and hints found in the following thread: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=32178&goto=lastpost, my BW negatives scanned in 48 RGB mode make very good prints.

Rob Landry

4-Feb-2008, 20:58

BTW, have any of you guys had a chance to make any decent scans and if so, how do you feel they compare with the Epsons? I think that's what many here are waiting impatiently to find out. I know Vincent Oliver (www.photo-i.co.uk) is waiting on his review unit which is being supplied by Silverfast (Microtek Europe turned down his request) but I imagine his is being delayed due to these problems with Silverfast and the M1.

BarryS

4-Feb-2008, 21:45

Aside from my software issues, the black and white scan quality is excellent. I feel like the M1 is doing a pretty good job with sharpness and dynamic range. I have an Epson 2450 and the M1 is clearly better--something would be terribly wrong if it wasn't. It would be nice to see a head to head comparison of the M1 and V700/750 because those are the choices in the $500-$700 price range.

I had a second conversation with a very nice Microtek rep and he's trying to do anything necessary to address my problems. At this point, I feel like I have Silverfast's and Microteks' attention and I'm willing to see if the problems can be worked out.

Colin Graham

5-Feb-2008, 07:39

I couldn't be happier with the quality of the scans. The scanwizard interface is growing on me, and seems capable of the same level of scan as Silverfast; er, my level at least, I'm still pretty new at this. I'm coming from an Epson 3200 and the quality is stunningly better, but then I only have a 3200 to compare it to. I'm seeing limitations of lenses and shoddy focusing technique but I'm not really seeing softness from the scanner, other than the effect from digitization. I'm not using any filters at the scanning stage.

The only issues I'm having are with the strange bars at high rez with Silverfast, but I only have the SE edition and don't use it much because of the 8 bit ceiling. Scanwizard has been stable on my rig. Sometimes CS3 will crash if I import sections of a panorama back to back for photomerge, but I think this is more of a photoshop memory issue with the large file sizes. If I save and close the first import first before importing more there are no problems.

Anyway, I also started thinking back to the initial setup of this scanner and remember having to uninstall and reinstall things because of the picky order of setup. The first install was pretty buggy. Also I uninstalled and reinstalled for a scanwizard patch that was released post purchase...And finally, I'm not running the weird scanner server utility that loads up from the registry, I got rid of that. Maybe if you're using more than one Microtek scanner you might need it, not sure.

Steve Kefford

5-Feb-2008, 08:33

"I am convinced that these are all memory issues and that unfortunately this machine requires ridiculous amounts of ram."

It's not the machine, it's the scanning software, or (more likely) the driver software.

.....

My guess is that if you were to scan a smaller image (exactly as small as the good areas on your images) you would avoid this problem, because you would never reach that limit, and therefore never reach that part of the code.

.....

It's just a guess, but as a software engineer, it seems logical to me.

Not saying that you are wrong, but if it is the case then Microtek have got some very serious QC issues indeed.

Steve

Steve Kefford

5-Feb-2008, 08:39

For all of you guys reporting problems, not many of you have reported any other relevant details, such as OS and RAM. It might or might not be significant, but it would be useful info to have.

Steve

Harley Goldman

5-Feb-2008, 08:47

I am running XP with 2gb of ram. I had no problems on the install of the software. No issues using an Epson 4990 on the same computer. I only had the issue of the white lines using Silverfast.

John Brady

5-Feb-2008, 08:54

Steve, I have been very specific about my specs. I have tried to operate this scanner on both windows xp with dell xps 3ghz dual core and 4 gig ram. Had numerous problems with bars and noise with silverfast ai. Now tried switching to a new mac pro 2.8 8 core with 8 gig ram using leopard. Still getting bars in scans. I don't think the crappy scanwizard software supports leopard yet so thats not an option.

I have tried contacting silverfast but they don't seam to be into customer service. Microtek is willing to exchange my unit but I don't think that will really solve anything.

Lot's of people are starting to come out of the woodwork reporting the same issues.

Can you tell I'm frustrated?

So much for being an early adaptor. You can tell the pioneers by the arrows in their back.

Ken Lee

5-Feb-2008, 09:03

Not saying that you are wrong, but if it is the case then Microtek have got some very serious QC issues indeed.

Perhaps they don't test Silverfast software.

To my (albeit limited) way of thinking, it strikes me as odd, that they would not only allow Silverfast to make (better ?) software for their own product, but they even go so far as to bundle it with their product.

coops

5-Feb-2008, 09:53

and the quality is stunningly better, but then I only have a 3200 to compare it to.

Nice to hear. I have the 3200 also, and think the scans of my 4x5 are awfull, though I don't have anything to compare it to.

marcmccalmont

5-Feb-2008, 14:32

Has anyone figured out a work around?
Marc

Armin Seeholzer

5-Feb-2008, 14:58

Best work around is buy a Epson 700 or 750 works just out of the box!

Dont worry be happy, Armin

Gene McCluney

5-Feb-2008, 15:20

Best work around is buy a Epson 700 or 750 works just out of the box!

Dont worry be happy, Armin

Sure, but the REASON people are wanting to buy the M1 scanner is to get BETTER results than with an Epson. Of course the "safe" purchase would be a tried and true product, but the rewards CAN be there for people who (as early adopters) are willing to work thru the teething issues with this M1 scanner.

The M1 has the POTENTIAL to be better than the Epson. I think soon it will be.

Rob Landry

5-Feb-2008, 15:57

I couldn't be happier with the quality of the scans......I'm coming from an Epson 3200 and the quality is stunningly better

That's not surprising, the 3200 is 3 generations old and wasn't a real big improvement over the 2450.

Youssef Ismail

5-Feb-2008, 16:06

Hello,

This is my first time posting here at LF Forum. Some of you may already know from other forums.

So after reading this thread, it would seem that going in for an M1 is not a good choice.

Any other scanners out there. My Microtek 1800f is giving me problems after 4 years so I am looking for something new.

Or, has a solution for the M1 been found yet?

Rob Landry

5-Feb-2008, 16:34

Sure, but the REASON people are wanting to buy the M1 scanner is to get BETTER results than with an Epson. Of course the "safe" purchase would be a tried and true product, but the rewards CAN be there for people who (as early adopters) are willing to work thru the teething issues with this M1 scanner.

The M1 has the POTENTIAL to be better than the Epson. I think soon it will be.

Gene, I'm hoping you're right.

I'm going to wait another week, possibly two, for these issues to get sorted out and for some comparison scans to become available, but if no additional information surfaces I'll just buy an Epson and live with it. I'm leaning this way now since I really need ICE and I want Silverfast and VueScan to work since I need a good flatbed for other stuff besides just 4x5. I have a Minolta 5400 for 35mm so I'm covered there, but I'd like something to make contact sheets, web scans, scans of old family slides and negs that don't warrant the resolution of the 5400 (I'd really like to minimize the wear and tear on that machine since it's a gem and getting another one would be pretty difficult).

The thing I find strange is that there was such anticipation about the M1 when it was announced but now that it's available, there's almost no information on the web. Perhaps people got tired of waiting for it and bought something else.

Harley Goldman

5-Feb-2008, 16:49

Rob,

As John Brady, who has posted quite a bit in this thread, can attest, the problem with Ai has been around quite awhile. See his post on the Silverfast forum going back to late December. See http://tinyurl.com/285eew . Silverfast and Microtek don't seem to be jumping on it all that quickly.

Colin Graham

5-Feb-2008, 17:08

That's not surprising, the 3200 is 3 generations old and wasn't a real big improvement over the 2450.

Wasnt really trying to surprise anyone, just stating my experiences.

Ted Harris

5-Feb-2008, 17:18

I can tell you that the problems are NOT universal, at keast they don't seem to be right now. Microtek is working hard to get them fixed, not sure about Silverfast. Remember that most of the isues so far seem to be in North America and Silverfast has very very little support here. Not an excuse, just a fact.

marcmccalmont

5-Feb-2008, 17:42

BarryS

5-Feb-2008, 18:41

I have to revise my opinion of Microtek technical support. Once I got over the barrier of of slow and scripted email--a tech called me and the support situation completely changed. The tech gave me his direct number and has worked with me on my schedule to confirm the problem. I'm able to always get through to him quickly and he has been willing to spend as much time troubleshooting as I think necessary. We ran through some straightforward tests and he never asked me to do the million and one dumb and useless things that you sometimes get from tech support scripts. He tried to reproduce the problem using Silverfast AI on his M1, but hasn't been able to get the troublesome lines.

He's perfectly willing to send me a replacement unit if I want one, but I'm holding off a bit until I get a full response from Silverfast in Germany. The tech guy said that Microtek doesn't have any control over the timing of any potential AI update and I don't think he's completely ruled out a hardware issue. So I'm going to sit tight and see how Silverfast handles the situation over the next few days. Unfortunately the support is in Germany and they seem to send a single email every morning--I may try to get up at two or three and try to make some headway with the exchange.

Kirk Gittings

5-Feb-2008, 19:07

FWIW, There are people complaining of the same issues on the SF forum too without responce from SF. Could be the same people as here, but I doubt it.

Ted Harris

5-Feb-2008, 19:09

Silverfast had a pretty complete turnover of its US staff sometime late last year IIRC.

Doug Dolde

5-Feb-2008, 20:19

Amazing how much anticipation there was over this long delayed scanner. And then...another P.O.S. scanner.

Eric Brody

5-Feb-2008, 21:40

I agree with Doug. As an 1800f owner who occasionally wishes he had bought an Epson; (it's working ok now, but there were times I'd have gleefully tossed it out the window,) it is hard to believe that after all this time, Microtek seems to have managed to foul it up again. From all these posts, it is hard to tell whether it is Microtek or Silverfast that is causing the problems, but regardless, it is a shame. My 1800f's problems seemed to be with Silverfast Ai, but the Scanwizard software was so lame, I refuse to use it. Vuescan is so unintuitive, that even though I paid real money for it, I have never really used it consistently. The good news is that I shall not consider replacing the 1800f with the M1. I'll likely get an Epson if and when the 1800f finally dies.

Eric

Gene McCluney

5-Feb-2008, 23:23

Amazing how much anticipation there was over this long delayed scanner. And then...another P.O.S. scanner.

If you want a professional scanner get a professional scanner at much higher cost, however don't condemn the M1 as a P.O.S. just because some software is not working just right yet.

I myself have a Microtek Artixscan 2500f, a much more expensive ($2500.00) scanner that I have had for many years, I use silverfast with this, and I get stunning scans. The M1 is essentially an "economy" version of the 2500f, and has the potential to give near identical results, with proper software implementation.

Maretzo

5-Feb-2008, 23:53

Besides the white lines, how does the new scanner perform in terms of visible Dmax, color accuracy and sharpeness? Average or outstanding? :confused:

BarryS

6-Feb-2008, 07:49

Colin Graham

6-Feb-2008, 08:00

I've only been scanning black and white negatives, but I'm happy with the Dmax and sharpness. The M1 scans seem equal or a bit better than scans from similarly priced flatbeds, but it would still be good to see some direct comparisons done by someone who really understands flatbed scanners. The autofocus adds some time to the scanning process, but I have to admit it does a good job on optimizing sharpness. The scans are also very clean and sharpen easily without introducing artifacts.

I have ScanWizard Pro running well at this point--after some fresh installs and making sure to delete everything before reinstalling under safe mode. I'm still not that thrilled with the software, but it's working fine. I don't really like the Epson OEM software much either, so I'd like to get the Silverfast issues worked out. Silverfast, which had a quick initial response to my query, has been silent for the last couple of days.

Barry, this is the last email I got, which seems a supportesque way of saying we are working on it, be patient. Thanks btw for providing the links a few pages back for reporting the problems. I'm still confident Lasersoft will get a handle on this pretty soon and like you said, Scanwizard isn't too horrible.

Good news - testing center personnel could verify the problem.
Therefore this case has been handed over to the developing department.

As soon as I learn of version that is regarded bugfixed concerning this issue,
I shall immediately inform you about the release number so that you can
download that one.

Thank you for helping us to go one step further :)

BarryS

6-Feb-2008, 08:27

Colin-- Thanks for posting that response--very good news! That's exactly what I wanted to see--Silverfast reproducing and acknowledging the problem and committing to a new release.

audioexcels

7-Feb-2008, 01:11

John Brady

7-Feb-2008, 04:34

Not to go off-course, but what lens/format is this taken with? It looks like a wide-wide lens and a very beautiful photo aside from the lines effect.

Thank you! The camera is an ebony 45su with schneider 47xl, t-max 100, meterd at 64,
as I recall about 20 sec at f22. Taken on a rainy afternoon in Georgia. I had a problem with this lens that has since been fixed. The elements were never in proper alignment, schneider sent it back to germany and rebuilt it no charge and now its not as soft around the edges. Also on another note I have a chamonix 5x8 on the way that I plan to put my 72xl on, that should be fun!

It sounds like we are getting some good news about getting the silverfast bug fixed. Its amazing that it has taken them so many months to reproduce the problem. I wonder if the problem only shows up when scanning black and white film in color mode? That may be something they don't test.

Ted Harris

7-Feb-2008, 07:03

John, interesting question and AFAIK, no one reported the problem until early January, that is when I got the first notification that there might be a problem. It still hasn't been totally isolated and could relate to only a small set of very specific settings. Has me puzzled because I have not been able to fully replicate it. Running a MacPro 2.66 machine with 7 GB RAM ruing on OSX 10.5.x.

Harley Goldman

7-Feb-2008, 08:41

John,

I was scanning a couple of color chromes in color mode when I encountered the line issue in Silverfast. The settings were fairly generic. 2400 dpi, 48 bit, no sharpening. Nothing special.

John Brady

7-Feb-2008, 08:49

John,

I was scanning a couple of color chromes in color mode when I encountered the line issue in Silverfast. The settings were fairly generic. 2400 dpi, 48 bit, no sharpening. Nothing special.

Well, that theory goes out the window;)
I had only seen b&w examples so it got me thinking. I still don't understand why some of us get the lines while others don't. If it was a software glitch you would think it would be universal.

Harley Goldman

7-Feb-2008, 08:57

Ted,

Have you been doing additional scanning trying to replicate the Silverfast problem since you did the scanning for your VC article? If so, I would be curious to hear if you have any more comments on the scan quality of the M1 relative to the V750, 1800f, etc.

BarryS

7-Feb-2008, 09:12

@ John

The problem with Silverfast is equally present in RGB scans and B&W scans, and in both reflective and transparency modes. Good software is robust--meaning it's stable under the individual micro-environments encountered on different computers. I've seen many cases where a software quality assurance process was not thorough enough and problems crop up on differently configured computers.

I'm glad Colin posted his response from Silverfast because I can't get anything from them at all--zero help or email returned.

Rob Landry

7-Feb-2008, 19:26

Harley,

I don't know if we'll see a comparison anytime soon since Microtek doesn't seem too interested in sending out review units; we'll need to rely on users who've purchased. Of course this makes it unlikely they'll have access to the M1 and an Epson for comparison. I know Vincent at Photo-i is waiting on his to be delivered by Lasersoft since Microtek turned him down. I get the distinct impression that Microtek isn't trying very hard to push this scanner; guess they don't enjoy sales.

For now, would it be possible for you to post a 100% crop or 2 from the M1 with and without sharpening? I know it won't be a direct comparison but at least it'd be something.

Rob_5419

10-Feb-2008, 18:53

Gene McCluney

10-Feb-2008, 20:05

I myself have a Microtek Artixscan 2500f, a much more expensive ($2500.00) scanner that I have had for many years, I use silverfast with this, and I get stunning scans. The M1 is essentially an "economy" version of the 2500f, and has the potential to give near identical results, with proper software implementation.

If you don't mind, I wouldn't mind seeing some of the scans that this produces.

I've come to the same conclusion (i.e. jumping to conclusions) about the M1 being a budget option..[/QUOTE]

My gallery over at APUG has 4x5 thru 8x10 negs I scanned with this scanner only.
(The Artixscan 2500f)

http://www.apug.org/gallery/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=16830

You may have to be a subscriber to view, though.

Rob_5419

10-Feb-2008, 20:15

You do not have permission to view the images in this category.

I thought I was a subscriber although I rarely ever visit that forum.

Ted Harris

10-Feb-2008, 20:30

Gene McCluney

11-Feb-2008, 10:50

Gene and Rob, the M1 is not a scaled down version of the 2500f, it has some similarities but not many. Yes, it is a budget scanner as are all the other consumer scanners available today but the next step up will cost you over 10K.

Gene, for clarification, are your scans in the apug gallery fully processed in PS and from negs or just scans of a print as is the apug convention?

They are negative scans at 16bit, then converted in PS to 8 bit and saved as both tiff and jpg (for uploading) I do not do anything in PS that I couldn't do in the darkroom, so that means only contrast adjusting, burning or dodging and dust spotting. If I had to make darkroom prints of every image I like I would be in there for years. I do darkroom prints only with an eye towards what I want to mount and frame. I use scanning as the modern equivalent of proof sheets (although at much higher resolution than proof sheets),.

BarryS

11-Feb-2008, 13:35

UPDATE: I have some good news to report. Silverfast is in the process of testing a fixed version of AI and hopes to have the testing completed this week. So I think we should be seeing a new release within the next week or two.

Steven Hays

17-Feb-2008, 14:03

I'm another M1 owner with the same silverfast problem with lines in the scans. The scanner is otherwise a good scanner and I am suprised no other companies have utilized glassless scanning, unless the concept is locked up with a good patent.
Scanwizard either locks up on loading or the scan window is totally black and scans are totally black which is not a hardware problem since Silverfast works..... sort of. Scanwizard also has no option for b&w neg film that I could see but silverfast has a profile for tmax 100 which I use.
I hope silverfast resolves the issue soon since I bought this scanner for a contract I have to produce 112 framed b&w photos for a new condo development in Colorado!
Steve
www.haysphotography.com

Steven Hays

20-Feb-2008, 05:45

I am having the same line problem with Silverfast. Scanwizard either locks up on loading or the scan window is totally black and produces totally black scans. I know this is not a hardware problem since Silverfast will produce a scan, albeit with the lines. Any ideas what the problem might be with Scanwizard? I unloaded and reloaded the softward but the problem persists.
Steve

Colin Graham

20-Feb-2008, 07:13

Steve, have you tried the newer drivers? There are some links for different operating systems here (http://support.microtek.com/product_dtl_2.phtml?prod_id=316). I remember mine was buggy as hell with the retail software, but is very stable with the update. When I installed the update, I uninstalled everything first, scanwizard, Silverfast, the profiler, and also did a system search to make sure I got everything before I reinstalled it. Also, try turning off the 'scanner sever' utility that loads from the registry. Minor suggestions I know but they may help.

BarryS

20-Feb-2008, 07:17

Steven, if you're on a Windows machine try the following--

First uninstall EVERYTHING related to both ScanWizard and SilverFast.

Reboot in Safe Mode

Install ScanWizard, then install the other color profiling components of ScanWizard. If you're prompted to pick input/output devices, pick the generic profiles or anything--but you need to pick something for each category.

Reboot in normal mode and test ScanWizard--it should now work.

Wait until next week when SilverFast releases the new version of AI, and then install.

LSI_Noack

20-Feb-2008, 07:57

Dear SilverFast users with a Microtek M1 or F1 scanner

I am sorry to learn about the inconveniences experienced as described on this topic thread. A new release version 6.5.5r4a shall be available shortly (read: within the next 24 hours) in order to remedy the problem.
Thank you for your interest in LaserSoft Imaging's software products :)

Best regards
Sonny Noack
- Manager Technical Support, LaserSoft Imaging AG -

Colin Graham

20-Feb-2008, 08:00

Now that's great to hear. Thanks very much Sonny.

BarryS

20-Feb-2008, 08:24

Thank you for the update Sonny. I'm looking forward to problem-free scanning and getting on with the business of photography. I'll be happy to post some sample scans after I get the new AI release running smoothly.

Steven Hays

20-Feb-2008, 17:20

Barry and Colin - Thanks for the suggestions. I have loaded the latest Silverfast but did not think there was an update for Scanwizard so didn't look into that. Sounds like Silverfast will be ready to go by tomorrow though! I did not even see a profile for b&w neg film much less Tmax100 in Scanwizard, like Silverfast has, so will likely just stick with that software once it is working.
By the way, for 5x7 film, I cut the middle section out of the 4x5 holder from my older Scanmaker 8700 and was able to modify it well enough to work. It fits the M1 though without having done thorough testing it looks like the glass carrier is giving me a sharper scan than this set up.

BarryS

21-Feb-2008, 08:18

Silverfast now has release version 6.5.5r4a up on their web site. I had a chance to run a few 2400 ppi test scans this morning and I can't find any evidence of the horizontal banding problem. Unfortunately, I have a new problem with 16 bit greyscale scans. Using a B&W negative, I get a normal prescan, but my final scan is a negative image which can't just be inverted because the gamma curve is incorrect. I have the parameters set to transparency/negative, and the Negafix dialog comes up, so I don't think I've set anything incorrectly, but I suppose it's possible. If I scan the same negative as an RGB file, both the prescan and final scan are normal positive images.

I'll be investigating this in depth later tonight, but I'd like to hear from other users if they get the same problem scanning negatives in 16 bit greyscale mode.

Ted Harris

21-Feb-2008, 08:58

Stay tuned folks, I have a conference call scheduled for tomorrow morning with two of the technical people at Silverfast in Germany.

Gary Nylander

21-Feb-2008, 09:31

Barry,
I just got my M1 last week, I scan my 4 x 5 black and white negs at 16 bit gray scale HDR mode using Silverfast, no problems from my end, no scan lines and no trouble inverting the images in Photoshop CS3.

BarryS

21-Feb-2008, 09:51

Gary-- Have you downloaded and installed the latest version of Silverfast--the one released this morning? I didn't have a problem with inverted images in the prior version, and not everyone has an issue with the horizontal banding.

JulieMagura

21-Feb-2008, 10:50

Very poor. I was having major difficulty with the email tech. support and cold called Parker Plaisted, whose name I found on the web related to the scanner. He was very polite, but I am still unhappy with this scanner. Did not realize that it would not have the ICE technology, which I mistakenly thought it would.

Microtek needs to have live support particularly with a new release.

What a bummer. I was looking forward to this scanner being great with all the pre-release hype. A real disappointment. Scans are average, and Silverfast is not recognizing the scanner on my computer.

I have logged in far too many hours to get this scanner running. Wish I had bought the V750 instead.

Steven Hays

22-Feb-2008, 06:12

I installed the brand new Silverfast fix and have had no more problems - Thanks Silverfast guys! I am glad I just bought the scanner since I would have been extremely frustrated with waiting for a fix to the problem with the lines.
As for the M1, it's no drum scanner but it is a good $700 scanner. Since I bought the pro model with 2 sets of holders I am considering modifying one of the 4x5 holders to carry 5x7 film but I will have to think about it a while.

Rudy Ternbach

22-Feb-2008, 10:37

Version 6.5.5r4: (2008-01-16) is the one I have been using as a plug-in with PhotoShop CS3 and I still have white/black lines across the images--intermittent but most likely to happen on scans done at higher settings. Is there a more recent version posted for Windows XP yet?

Colin Graham

22-Feb-2008, 10:47

6.5.5r4a was posted this week. I believe it specifically addresses the lines, although I haven't installed it yet.

BarryS

22-Feb-2008, 11:19

My inverted image problems seems to have gone away on its own--hopefully for good, but I still need to do more testing. I'm very pleased with the quality of the scans and although it adds a bit of time to the scanning process, the autofocus feature looks like it does a good job.

Rudy Ternbach

22-Feb-2008, 14:06

Have tried 6.5.5r4a, newest Version of SilverFast Ai, and so far so good. No lines. And, noticeably quieter as though the M1 innards are better understood by the software engineers(?). Now it would be nice to see some objective comparisons as well as tests of the actual resolution, dmax etc.

Colin Graham

22-Feb-2008, 14:19

BarryS

22-Feb-2008, 15:14

Good to hear, one of the reasons I've been using scanwizard is because of the gentler prescan noises. Has Lasersoft implemented a way to disable the prescan autofocus in this release?

I'll install it if this scan ever finishes.. :-P

I think you can just turn the AF off before doing the prescan and turn it back on before the real scan.

Colin Graham

22-Feb-2008, 15:30

I'm sure I'll remember to do that. :-) Scanwizard has a 'quick prescan' option that is kind of nice for the absentminded sort like me.

BarryS

22-Feb-2008, 15:41

:) I agree, they should disable it for the prescan, but it's a minor issue compared with getting nice looking scans with no garbage lines. I'm sure I'll have some other issues and suggestions for SF once I get my workflow cranking.

Colin Graham

22-Feb-2008, 15:47

That's very true. I knew I was going to come off sounding like a picky bastard! Lasersoft is to be commended for getting this patch out so quickly.

Karl-Heinz Zahorsky

22-Feb-2008, 16:22

Dear Barry,

in the meantime we have identified and solved the SilverFast M1 problem. The updated releases can be downloaded from our website.

Sorry for the inconvenience!

best regards :)

Karl-Heinz Zahorsky
President & CEO
LaserSoft Imaging, Inc.

http://www.silverfast.com

Ted Harris

22-Feb-2008, 16:32

I asked Karl specifically about the problem with the lines.

It is a probelm that is related to the speed of the USB data transfer. If you scan at a resolution of 2400 or lower it shouldn't happen (perhaps even not at 3600). When you are scanning at 4800 or higher the software is sending data faster than the USB connection can handle and some of it gets "stuck" hence the line. Ken Lee noted this as a strong possibility earlier.

It has never happened to me because I never scan higher than the real optical resolution of the scanner nor do I recommend anyone else scan any higher.

Has this happened to anyone scanning at 2400 or lower? If so are you using an older slower processor and/or low RAM machine?

Colin Graham

22-Feb-2008, 16:47

I was getting the lines at 1600 and up. Last generation 2.8 pentium, 3GB ram

Ted Harris

22-Feb-2008, 17:30

Colin, has the latest software version fixed it?

BarryS

22-Feb-2008, 17:43

I had consistent problems with scans between 1600 and 2800 ppi. Interestingly, I was able to get problem free scans at 3000 dpi. Like you, I see no point in scanning above the real resolution. I'm running a on fairly recent Core 2 Duo laptop with 2 GB of RAM. I also has MORE lines at lower resolutions. In any case--no more lines.

Harley Goldman

22-Feb-2008, 17:45

Ted,

I was scanning at 2400. 2gb ram and got the lines. Can't remember which processor, but it was near the top of the line Dell about 2 years ago.

Colin Graham

22-Feb-2008, 18:01

Looks fixed here too. I've only had time to run one 4x5 at 2400 but so far so good. This is with a direct CS3 import, not standalone scan to file then import, btw. And the noises are much better.

LSI_Noack

25-Feb-2008, 09:25

Dear ArtixScan M1/F1 users

I just uploaded a further release version (6.5.5r4b) to solve remaining issues that we could only produce internally on very specific system setups.
If further problems can be observed still though, I'd be grateful if you could inform us using the problem report form on our website (in the "support" section), because I unfortunately am not able to monitor a lot of external forums.
Thanks ever so much for your kind assistance and interest in our software products :)

Best regards
Sonny Noack
- Manager Technical Support, LaserSoft Imaging AG -

Ted Harris

25-Feb-2008, 09:37

Big applause for all the folks at LaserSoft in Germany for their active participation here.....

Thanks

AJSJones

25-Feb-2008, 19:22

I'm happy to see LaserSoft's participation and response to the issue too!
With the fixes to the software, can I ask if anyone has tried multiple-pass scanning (or is the M1 capable of multisampling/single pass?) to improve shadow noise/ increase dynamic range? If the improvement is noticeable, it would be worthwhile for those wide dynamic range shots (or the ones that were operator-underexposed :( )

Thanks for any info on that aspect

Andy

BarryS

25-Feb-2008, 19:25

I'll give it a try, but the M1 already has an excellent dynamic range and very low shadow noise.

AJSJones

25-Feb-2008, 19:36

Barry, Thanks for the evaluation already and trying the multi option - pick your most troublesome shadows :)

Thanks
Andy

Ted Harris

25-Feb-2008, 19:51

Andy, you can do multiple scans or multiple samples but not both. My experience on earlier Microtek scanners has been that doing 8 samples per scan works well.

AJSJones

25-Feb-2008, 20:05

Thanks Ted, My main issue with my T2500 has been worsening shadow noise (and operator underexposure to reveal it) so a noticeable improvement with multi-sampling on the M1 may be worth the upgrade. I'll look forward, with optimism now, to when Barry has the time to try it out :D

Ted Harris

25-Feb-2008, 22:18

Your T2500 is one of the best consumer scanners ever made, it is a rebadged Microtek 2500 .... that is as long as it is working properly but it is now a bit long in the tooth and if the shadow noise is a function of aging hardware then you are ready for a new machine. Take a look at the last crop in the comparative scanner review on the LF home page .... that show shadow detail capeabiity and the M1 does very well.

Gary Nylander

25-Feb-2008, 22:21

I also concur that the M1 has excellent dynamic range and very low shadow noise, ( at least to me ) I have only used the multi exposure a couple of times and it seems to work great, I used to scan with the Microtek i900 and its a great deal of an improvement of that machine.

Steven Hays

26-Feb-2008, 19:09

This is a comment primarily for people needing to use the glass carrier. I was getting Newton Rings scanning my 5x7 Tmax negs with the glass carrier but found a pretty decent solution that is producing scans with a touch more detail. I am basically wetmounting but it is a lot faster than wet mounting with a drum scanner. This is what I did:
1. taped opaque black paper to the underside of the glass with a 5x7 window to reduce ramdom light.
2. Spray the glass with wet mount solution
3. Lay the neg down emulsion up
4. spray more solution on top of the neg then lay mylar on top.
I have been taping 2 sides of the mylar but it is possible that may not be necessary though it does help to keep the neg from sliding around when squeezing out the air bubbles.
No newton rings and better scans.

Ted Harris

26-Feb-2008, 20:24

Even easier ..... spray the film with Prazio's anti newton-ring spray and slap it on the glass.

Steve, careful with the black paper .... it can get hot inside there if you forget to turn off the scanner.

Ted Harris

26-Feb-2008, 20:24

Even easier ..... spray the film with Prazio's anti newton-ring spray and slap it on the glass.

Stevn, careful with the black paper .... it can get hot inside there if you forget to turn off the scanner.

Peter Langham

27-Feb-2008, 10:03

Ted,
Do you think I would see benifit in doing this over using the provided film holder for 4x5? I am using a Mocrotek 2500.

Thanks,
Peter

Steven Hays

27-Feb-2008, 10:53

Ted - Thanks for the caution regarding the paper. If it starts discoloring then I will know it is getting overly hot. I may have to research something else to use.

The spray would certainly be easier. I think the slightly better scan is worth the little extra work it takes to do a wet mount though.

Ted Harris

27-Feb-2008, 13:30

Peter,

Try it and see. I don't think y ou are going to see much difference but it is worth a try and the Prazio spray is relatively inexpensive. You can call and order direct from them. try their sameple kit of stuff .. it is a bargain.

Juergen Cullmann

27-Feb-2008, 14:35

Ted,
I am using a Microtek 2500 too. Do you think it´s worth upgrading to an IQsmart 2 or 3 or to a Cezanne? Or do you think I can get similiar results with my Microtek when scanning 4x5 and 8x10 film? For 35 mm an 120 film I use a Minolta Dimage Scan Multi pro.
Thanks in advance

Jürgen

retrogaz

1-Mar-2008, 13:56

The samples on the collaborative scanner comparison seem to indicate some very strong colour fringing (especially in the close-up text sample). Have M1/F1 users noticed this in their day-to-day scanning?

If so, is there a way to remove this in PP? I know that Lightroom and PS have chromatic aberration removal - does this sort of tool work with colour fringing on scans, or is there some other way?

And any news from any F1 users yet about how their units perform?

Thanks in advance
Gareth

Ted Harris

1-Mar-2008, 14:29

retrogaz - I see the color fringig in the newspaper crop but do't in the others. Also it is very slight on this monitor ... I wonder how much of this is due to monitor calibration but it is there for sure. Yes, reducng saturation in PS or LR will help.

Jurgen - the difference in scans from either the Cezane or the IQ2/3 will very significnt. me holds with the results you will get from these machines v. the Dimage. IMO, and I have both an IQ3 and a Cezanne, the IQ3 is a superior machine. If you are buying new the IQ2 will cost you a whole lot less than the others.

Andrew ren

10-Mar-2008, 05:17

Ted,
I am about to get a Canham 57 wood and a M1 pro. Based on your experience, what's the best way to scan 57 b&w on a M1? as there is no holder for such format. Just want to match the quality of the 67 from my nikon 8000ed.

BTW, didn't see your depth review of M1 on this VC issue, at least not on the site, will take several more days for me to get this issue here in Ontario.

Cheers

A
www.andrewren.com

Ted Harris

12-Mar-2008, 07:03

Andrew,

You can either tape or wet mount your film to the glass tray that slides into the scanner. IMO wet mounting doesn't gain much unless you want to eliminate scratches. Use drafting or low adhesive blue painters tape. Mount your film emulsion side up.

Andrew ren

12-Mar-2008, 07:40

Thanks Ted.
will this cause the Newton ring? or this no glass on top the emulsion side? and what will be the Max resolution of the 5x7 though? as i think the head used on glass tray will be @ a lower res setting.

Cheers

Andrew

Ted Harris

12-Mar-2008, 08:44

You should never use a resolution setting higher than 2400 (a bit above the real optical resolution of the machine and you might want to see if a bit lower work, it will keep your files a manageable size. You shouldn't get Newton's Rings since the scanning path is above the film.

Steven Hays

21-Mar-2008, 07:10

I am scanning 5x7 film and was getting Newton Rings until I started wet mounting. I did not try the spray though. It is quick and easy. Kami mounting fluid sprayed on the glass, neg emulsion up, more mounting fluid then a piece of mylar on top of the neg. I don't tape it down but 5x7 film is pretty flat so I cannot say if other formats would need taping. The Kami fluid just evaporates and I am able to use the mylar a few times. Be sure to press out any air bubbles.
I do see enough of an improvement in the scan to make it worth doing along with the elimination of newton rings.

Steven Hays

21-Mar-2008, 11:05

I just got out of an OSHA training session and started wondering about the flash point of Kamis fluid. I wonder if another wet mount fluid might be better for using in the M1 since it does get hot inside of the scanner!

Ted Harris

21-Mar-2008, 13:08

Steven, you are much better off using Prazio liquids www.prazio.com.

rugenius

21-Mar-2008, 13:14

:) I just purchased the Artixscan M1 Pro via Calumet online.
For all of the reviews placed in plain sight thus far, it appears to be a mixed bag of results... except for the initial flood of Silverfast related issues that may have been fixed to a great degree.:)

I am anxious to results from Ted Harris...

Steven Hays

25-Mar-2008, 05:17

I will take a look at Prazio. Thanks for the suggestion.

Andrew ren

26-Mar-2008, 05:40

Steve,
looking forward to your result.

Question, as Ted mentioned above, tape the 57 neg on the glass tray won't cause the NR, and you still get it?
my experience of the NR issue based on my 8000ed and 869G holder is that, it is the emulsion side of the neg and the clear glass cause the problem, and normally the matte glass(Anti NR glass) on top of the neg will fix the problem.
As there is nothing between the head and the emulsion side of the neg in the M1 per Ted's way. I don't know where the NR come from?

Correct me should i am wrong.

Cheers

Andrew

Anthony Lewis

4-Apr-2008, 03:21

I am very intrigued by the lack of reviews - and comparison shots - of the M1/F1 scanner. This scanner was a long time in the waiting. There was a lot of interest in its performance. A scanner at a very affordable price, offering glassless scanning, auto focus, and performance above other pro-sumer scanners, sparked a lot of interest.

Yet, after months on the market, still no serious technical reviews, from anybody. Nobody was expecting miraculous results to match those of a drum scanner or high end flatbeds.

No reviewer still has put a figure on its resolution, but about 2200lpi is what anyone is prepared to guess, but no lab-tested figure is produced to date - by any tester. The same with Dmax, guess work, but no lab tested result for Dmax. Where are these figures from the all reviewers that Microtek sent test units too. If I was Microtek I would be asking for better from the reviewers who were sent test units.

The White Spider is very subjective. Ted Harris did a one page spread in View Camera which said precisely nothing - not worth publishing. It said the unit was marginally better than other prosumer scanners - a line he constantly repeated ad-nauseam before this scanner was ever released.

As I have moved and have stored this issue away, I thought he said there was going to be an in depth review in the next issue. This did not eventuate - but excuse me if am wrong, as I am going by my memory (maybe too much red wine).

Anyway when and where are we going to see his in depth technical review with his measured results for resolution and Dmax as he has produced for other scanner reviews – surely it doesn’t take this long?

Where is the review from Photo-i to date - the same again? His excuse is that Microtek did not send him a test unit. You know what, it is very easy to go down to the local computer shop and just buy an M1/F1 off the shelf and do a truly independent review - that easy!

On many forums members have asked for comparison shots of the M1/F1 with higher-end scanners, i.e., the Hassy forum, this forum, and others. These comparison shots never seem to eventuate. That is what I want to see - how the scans compare with a drum or Cezanne. But after months on the market – precious little good information about this scanner has appeared to date.

Doesn’t any reviewer want to commit themselves to a serious technical review? Not just subjective comments, which is all I have seen to date.

Ted Harris

4-Apr-2008, 04:57

Correction please. The review I did included a resolution test using an AIG test target as always and the test showed a resolution of slightly under 2400. Early on I also posted some images here. Testing the DMax is still very much on my list but I have virtually incapacitated with back problems for nearly a month. I never publish pictures of scans on the web as they can be very misleading. I'll also point out that most scanner reviewers never do any independent testing of resolution or Dmax.

A serious technical review of a consumer scanner v. a highend scanner would have to either assume a huge amount of knowledge on the part of the reader or run to many any pages and take months to complete. For example, one of the key differences between any consumer flatbed and the Cezanne or any other high end flatbed is the consistancy of the stepping motors and the number of steps they take from start to finish. You're talking very sophisticated testing equipment that costs very big bucks. If you go bac to one of the ealier reviews in View Camera you will find a lengthy discussion of these difference.

Finally its the results that count. If you want to see the differences just scan a 4x5 on any of the better consumer scanners at 2400spi in 16 bit color then send the film to a good lab and have them scan to the same parameters then print both files to 16x20 or 20x24, you'll see the differences, especially at 20x24.

Ted Harris

4-Apr-2008, 04:57

Helen Bach

4-Apr-2008, 05:19

I've been using an M1 Pro to scan some 8x10 Ektachromes for a friend. That is the limit of my experience with it so far.

Re Newton's Rings
I've seen a few on the dry-scanned 8x10s taped to the glass, emulsion side up. They come from the glass/film base gap. If this was my scanner I'd buy an AN glass for the glassless carrier, and scan all sizes of film on the glass.

General
The glassless 'main carrier' was very badly warped, and is being replaced by Microtek. I had to remove the top glass to get it out on one occasion. It's easy to remove the top glass for cleaning the innards.

Green Rays
The scans had a few green bands running lengthwise. Easy to remove in Photoshop, but they shouldn't be there. I was using the latest Silverfast download, with Windows XP on a MacBook.

Performance
I've written more in another thread - I meant to post it here, but it is here (link). (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showpost.php?p=331726&postcount=24)

In practice I found that it could do a good job of recovering shadow detail from Kodachromes. That's about as much as I need to know in that respect.

I haven't yet had time to print some tests to show what degree of enlargement is acceptable to me. That's more important to me than a simple resolution figure.

I will go back and do a side-by-side with a 4x5 negative that has been scanned on an Imacon 949. I already know that the Imacon scan is going to have better 'effective resolution'* at 2040 ppi than the M1 at 2400 ppi, unsharpened. What it means in practice to a photographer other than myself is more difficult to quantify.

Best,
Helen

*ie what I can end up with on a print

Edited out of original post, but not before Ted had seen it and spent his time writing a reply: a comment about the use of spi and ppi.

Ted Harris

4-Apr-2008, 05:50

Helen,

You raise an interesting point re "spi." I have always assumed that the manufacturers of consumer scanners referred to everything in "dpi" so as not to confuse the buyer. When we talk about "spi" in regards to a high end scanner we mean the number of samples it takes per inch. Once changed to "dpi" it becomes a meaningless number and maybe that is on purpose and the claimed resolution in xxxx dpi has no relation to samples at all.

As for the multiple scan capability mentioned in your other post, I've had the same results. I imagine the step motors just don't operate with sufficient precision to make this any moe tan a hit or miss exercise.

Helen Bach

4-Apr-2008, 06:07

If I didn't know the convention, I couldn't decide whether a sample is a sample or a combination of red, green and blue samples, unless the magnitude gave an obvious answer. One pixel is made from how many samples? That's why I use ppi, because we usually know unequivocally how many pixels are produced. Lines per mm, or line pairs per mm also seems like a dangerous measure for general use, especially when some people call line pairs per mm 'lines per mm' and two different conventions are used.

Best,
Helen

Ted Harris

4-Apr-2008, 06:31

Helen, agreed. I'm almost at the point where I am ready to ignore conventions if they aren't supported by an ISO, EIA, etc. type standard.

rugenius

5-Apr-2008, 11:32

Ted,
I had subscribed to View Camera around a month or more ago but still haven't received an issue yet. Looking forward to the first issue...
Anyway I had hoped to see your review of the M1 but later realized it must be in a back issue.
Do you have general comments you could share on resolution, optical density, etc,... and how you obtained those results (IE calibration targets, etc,...)??
Perhaps you've already covered those points in various forums? Example approx 2400 dpi optical resolution, ODens 3.1...??

Also, I understand how confusing specifications can be as well as conventions used to describe those specs.

Example: Pertaining to imaging systems and resolution.
When manufacturers of electron microscopes provide spot size specs they do this at arbitrary energy, beam current, and even method used to obtain this value. In fact sometimes involving post-processed imaging to obtain specs that one would assume come from "raw" format.

Anyway, another point should be made that DPI is an ISO recognized term. How Microtek or any other manufacturer describes optical resolution is obviously arguable and frustrating as you and Helen point out.

Resolutions of output devices are still frequently specified in dpi (dots per inch), which is the reciprocal value of the pixel size multiplied with 25.4 mm.
What if, in some cases, an imaging system (Ex: scanner) could have a specification for resolution based on sensor pixel size without respect to the true optical performance.
Microtek wouldn't do that would they?

More info below on DPI for the curious...

Instead of giving a reciprocal pixel size in dpi, it would be much more convenient to specify the pixel size directly in micrometers, as it is also common practice in the semiconductor industry.

The following table shows a few commonly used typesetting resolutions in both µm and dpi:
µm 10.0 20.0 21.2 40.0 42.3 80.0 84.7 100.0 250.0 254.0
dpi 2540 1270 1200 635 600 317 300 254 102 100

Typography is an old art. Long before the introduction of the international standard system of units (“metric system”), printing equipment manufacturers all over the world have established a bewildering variety units to measure length, many of which continue to be used today:

* 1 point (Truchet) = 0.188 mm (obsolete today)
* 1 point (Didot) = 0.376 mm = 1/72 of a French royal inch (27.07 mm)
* 1 point (ATA) = 0.3514598 mm = 0.013837 inch
* 1 point (TeX) = 0.3514598035 mm = 1/72.27 inch
* 1 point (Postscript) = 0.3527777778 mm = 1/72 inch
* 1 point (l’Imprimerie nationale, IN) = 0.4 mm
* 1 pica (ATA) = 4.2175176 mm = 12 points (ATA)
* 1 pica (TeX) = 4.217517642 mm = 12 points (TeX)
* 1 pica (Postscript) = 4.233333333 mm = 12 points (Postscript)
* 1 cicero = 4.531 mm = 12 points (Didot)

The printing and publishing software market is at present dominated by manufacturers (Apple, Adobe, Microsoft, Quark, etc.) located in the United States, the last country on the planet that has yet to make significant progress towards the introduction of modern standard units. As a result, the use of standard units is far from well established in digital typography, to the significant annoyance of users all over the world.

captain carl

12-Apr-2008, 07:25

Hi. Forgive the intrusion, but I can't find such an informative discussion about the M1 in any 35mm boards, and my question isn't really relative to format size, it's about black and white film scanning. How well does the M1 perform with B&W film? 90% of what I want to archive is Tri-X and T-Max. I've read that the Epsons are rather mediocre when it comes to B&W. I'm this close to buying an M1, but I just want to be sure it can handle this task well. Thanks for your help! Carl

Colin Graham

12-Apr-2008, 10:02

Carl, I hesitate to respond because I'm far from an expert, but I don't think you'll be disappointed there. I've been scanning in many FP4+/TMY/Efke negatives developed for alt processes to a high dynamic range, and haven't had any highlight clipping or shadow noise. This is even without running the multiple pass, which seems to soften the image because of stepping motor issues.

But for 35mm, well, I haven't scanned anything smaller that 120, and that was pushing the optics of the scanner. You'd probably be better served by a dedicated film scanner. But the dmax of the M1 is definitely one of its strong points.

coops

30-Apr-2008, 10:45

It's been a while since anyone posted on this, and I am interested on opinions now that you guys have had a while to play with it. I am shooting a fair bit of MF now, as well as LF, and was thinking of getting a scanner to replace my Epson 3200. My first choice was the Nikon 9000 ( or a used 8000) but I am leaning more toward a flatbed, either the M1 or Epson v750. Seems there may not be a lot of difference in performance between the M1 and the Epson.

BarryS

30-Apr-2008, 12:48

I've been primarily using mine for scanning black and white large format negatives--4x5 (and 8x10 soon) used for printing sizes up to 16x20. For that purpose, the M1 is excellent and the scans are as good or better than any other sub $1000 flatbed. The Epson V750 is also an excellent scanner with a good track record. I've scanned some of my MF negatives and chromes and I think the results are pretty good, but definitely not up to the quality of the Coolscan 8000 or 9000. If you're only printing 11" or 12" wide, the M1 might make you happy for MF, but if you want any big prints, a sub $1000 flatbed is a real compromise in image quality.

alex_photo

1-May-2008, 03:36

I've posted a few scans of b&w medium format film to this page: http://homepage.mac.com/alex_home/artixscan_samples.html

Steven Hays

2-May-2008, 17:55

I used it for a contract I have and the scans were good but no where as good as scans I have done on with a Howtek 4000 drum scanner. If sharpening is done carefully in photoshop then the images look pretty good. I have been thinking that I am just not getting all the detail I could from my 5x7 negs. If it is all you have money for then it is a decent scanner.
I will likely be selling mine though since I just lucked out and found an Aztek 8000 drum scanner for $800 plus they threw in a Linotype Hell flatbed for free!

rugenius

2-May-2008, 18:35

I just started using the M1 Pro on some MF samples.
Calibration was incredibly easy.
Files in 48bit HDR are HUGE.

Consider film, not line art or text...
If a person could agree that the difference between 600 dpi and 1200 dpi film enlargement/ printing on a decent printer (Example HP Z3100) was unrecognizable then you should be able to get robust enlargements (using the M1) of 4 x 5 film by a factor of 4(x) easily. Having said that,... you really need to ask if 600 dpi is necessary either. I won't argue as to who needs > 300 dpi anymore,... but it's been an industry standard for photographic reproduction in fine books for a while now.
Check out what you have in the cabinet with a measuring loupe.
Enough mentioned on the 300/600 dpi saga...

A number of people that have tested the M1 have said that it's extinquishing optical resolution can decern line pairs at approx 2400 dpi although the sensor is arranged to collect at 4800 dpi.
Let's assume 2400 dpi, or approx 0.00042"/ approx 10.6 um.
Kodak + Nyquists says the resolving power of Kodachrome is about 31.7 um.
In theory, 2400 dpi is subsampling the film resolution to begin with.
Good, so at least you are sampling the film at > 2x perhaps...
If you desire to enlarge MF to greater than 4(x) you are probably entering the compromise zone assuming all the reports on optical res for the M1 are correct.
However, if you can live with 300 dpi output you can basically look at reproductions as large as 16" from 2" format.
You have to be the one to decide how it looks...

More importantly, and seldom discussed, is the hardware used to perform the printing.
As an example look at the 600 dpi to 600 dpi comparison at this site:
http://www.dpandi.com/newsreviews/reviews/z3100jd2/

Bottom line?
It's never a simple decision when cost is considered!
Sometimes the old saying applies, "you can't afford not to afford it"...
In my position, for the intended purpose, cost is considered.
When more exacting reproduction is required we will drum scan or do the Ansel Adams thing.
Dodge and burn.

Andrew ren

2-May-2008, 18:47

a question for folks here,
when you mentioned 4x, ok.. as rugenius just said: "you should be able to get robust enlargements (using the M1) of 4 x 5 film by a factor of 4(x) easily.".
what this 4x mean? for example: a 5x7 neg, what will be a 4x enlarging? 20x28; or 10x14. that confused me, as 10x14 is 4x of 5x7 squarewise.

Andrew

Colin Graham

3-May-2008, 09:04

It's my understanding that 4x is 4 times each dimension rather than the area. 5x7= 20x28, but then I've been having dyslexic tendencies lately. Hopefully someone will jump on me with both feet if I'm wrong. ;)

David A. Goldfarb

3-May-2008, 10:57

Normally in the context of photography, magnification is given in terms of linear dimensions, not area, so a 4x enlargment of a 4x5" neg is 16x20".

As to what someone meant in their post in this thread, you'll have to ask them.

rugenius

7-May-2008, 20:02

That is entirely correct.
The lineal dimension is in question, not the density. This is commensurate with digital sensor technology (EX CCD) as 2K x 2K = 4 MP, hence 2x geometric improvement in electron well dimension yields 16 MP.
Example: The M1 scanner has a sensor arranged at 4800 wells per inch, thus 4800 DPI in terms of units for sensors. Ignoring transmission, aberration, magnification factors, and any proprietary manipulation you have a sensor component every 1/4800 inches wide that collects light. Since a human cannot generally distinguish any differences in resolution beyond 600 pixels per inch resolution, the rule of 4X lineal mag factor applied to 600 PPI/DPI into 4800 PPI/DPI yields 4X. The reality is that there is a lot of fudge factor to achieve these specifications. And, as My wife and I have mentioned, it requires a critical eye to discern 300 to 600 DOTS per inch print. The only requirement for absolute critical resolution beyond 600 DOTS per inch print is for line art, type, etc,...
Long winded as usual...
Hope I have been helpful
Bill

Andrew ren

3-Jun-2008, 05:54

Finally setup my M1. did a test with both SF plus and ScanWizard Pro last night.
problem comes with ScanWizard Pro: I didn't get any image from prescan, I did overview, nothing came up in the preview window, just black, then prescaned it, still black, but I noticed there is a tiny tainy thumbnail thing on the cue-job window? other than that, no preview image. I uninstalled the software, downloaded from the M1 website, reinstalled it. still the same junk.

(I put a black mask (8 x 11) with a pre-cut 5x7 window on the glass holder. for 5x7 100tmx.)

things went fine with SF se+.

any suggestions?

Cheers

Andrew

BarryS

3-Jun-2008, 07:36

You can try uninstalling ScanWizard Pro and reinstalling under Windows safe mode. That resolved the same issue for me. However, if you've got the full version of Silverfast AI--it's far superior to ScanWizard Pro. If you don't have the full version, I'd say the upgrade is worth it--primarily because I'm able to get better quality scans with SF AI.

Andrew ren

3-Jun-2008, 08:48

Thanks BarryS.

Just did some research, seems like an upgrade from SE plus to the Ai studio through silverfast's website is waaay more expensive($400?) than the difference between the M1 and the M1 Pro($150?), the reason I didn't get the M1 pro is that I think the idea of extra set of holder is just useless for me...:confused:

Andrew

BarryS

3-Jun-2008, 09:06

Andrew-- I'm not sure what the differences are between SE Plus and Ai Studio, but maybe SE Plus will be just fine. You may not be able to use a 16-bit workflow, but that may not make a big difference for you. You might also like ScanWizard Pro more than I do. Once it's correctly installed (way harder than it should be), it works fine, although the scans were a little noisier than my AI scans. Nothing major, but it was noticeable to me.

Colin Graham

3-Jun-2008, 09:11

I like Scanwizard, but I made the same mistake- thought the only difference was the extra holders- the documentation about what came with which were pretty much whispers and rumors when I bought mine. The scanner is *really* picky about how it is installed. There is a new driver at Microtek- not sure if it is shipping with the scanner now. I thoroughly uninstalled the retail install and reinstalled only the new drivers and the calibration utility. I passed on the LAN sever thing that loads in the registry, and some other bloatware that comes with it. It's been bug free ever since- 5 months now.

Andrew ren

3-Jun-2008, 09:51

Thanks Barry. will give a try reinstalling it as I get a chance.

Thanks Colin. called SF 10 mins ago. they are willing to upgrade my se plus to a1 studio @ a discount price. less than $200.. I might end up go ahead do it. that will be perfect. almost the same price of a M1 pro, I mean M1 + upgrade(Ai studio).

Cheers

rugenius

6-Jun-2008, 23:31

Unfortunately the "pro" package for most scanners is a heck of a lot better deal than buying separately down the road.
Always seems cost effective at the time.
I had hoped to find a scrutinizing write up on the M1 Pro before I had had a chance to put it to the test with various optical standards but I have not seen anything convincing yet. That is, something to articulate the very detail of what the scanner is capable of in terms of a reference standard while convincingly pushing over, at, and under focus. Additionally, showing some proof as to what the dynamic range might be.
For the interim, I have failed to deliver this information myself. Way, way too busy at work. Haven't touched the scanner in almost 2 months since the purchase. Not too worried... as I suspect the optics most will likely deliver at least 2500 pixels per inch in each 2-D axis. Where did I arrive at that conclusion,.... just a huch.

Bill

Andrew ren

19-Jul-2008, 13:01

hey everyone,

I try to scan a 57 100tmx last night via ScanWizard Pro7, got weird shadow detail, it's 16 bit grayscale mode. any idea?

attached a cropped image.

Thanks

Andrew

Andrew ren

19-Jul-2008, 13:04

here is

Paddy McKay

19-Jul-2008, 21:06

Last weekend I rented the M1 Pro, hoping to do a whack of scans (35mm, 2 1/4, 4x5, 8x10). The rental dept. used to have Epson's 4990 which I'd never had a problem with, aside from Anti-Newton rings with 8x10 film laying on the glass.

Well, not only was the Microtek more expensive, but I was unable to produce a single usable negative (all b&w)!!! The closest I got, was a pre-scan that had this splatter of white dots overlaying the scanned image??? Weird. For three days I tried to sort out the problem, but the the "help" contents were useless. I'm a fairly tech savy guy, but I'm telling you, I've never been left feeling soooo frustrated with a piece of equipment.

I returned it on Monday morning, (without being charged $$), and immediately went and purchased a V700. It's been smooth sailing since. Of course there's still the anti-newton ring issue, but I'm hoping to take care of that with some A-N glass from Focal Point http://www.fpointinc.com/glass.htm

Paddy McKay

19-Jul-2008, 21:16

Oh,...now I've just found ScanScience's site with their fluid mount systems. Their products look very promising, and reasonably priced too. http://www.scanscience.com/

drew.saunders

20-Jul-2008, 13:07

hey everyone,

I try to scan a 57 100tmx last night via ScanWizard Pro7, got weird shadow detail, it's 16 bit grayscale mode. any idea?

attached a cropped image.

Thanks

Andrew

I have an M1 (non-Pro) and finally got good scans out of it for B&W film. If you use SW 7 and choose "negative" it will list a variety of color negative films for which they've done profiles, but no B&W negative films. I sent Microtek an email about this, and they suggested to just find the best fit from all the color negative options. I tried many different color negative profiles, but always got ugly shadows: no details and a very "digital" mushy look to them (the same unnatural "glow" I see in your shadow areas). While poking about the preferences, I saw the "invert" option so I tried scanning my film as a "positive," with invert, and finally got good scans from B&W negative film, with good shadow detail and better dynamic range than trying to use the "negative" setting (see attachment). I'm guessing all the color negative presets assume some variation on an orange mask, so mess with the shadows accordingly.

If you got the Pro, your Silverfast will do a better job of this, as it can do real B&W negative scans without jumping through any hoops. Since I didn't get the Pro (big mistake!), I can't do 16-bit scans with it (but can do 48->24 or 16->8, neither of which are good choices), so had to figure out how to get ScanWizard to work. I don't know why Microtek doesn't think anyone will ever use B&W film with their scanner, or why they can't just let you use a "filter-less" negative scan mode. The results from this scanner can be great, but the overall grief of getting it to work with their crappy software makes me think I should have gone for the Epson 750.

I checked with Ed Hamrick of Vuescan, and he doesn't have the documentation on the commands to control this scanner, so probably won't add it to his list of supported scanners.

This is the first, and will certainly be the last, Microtek product I buy. I may get many years of good use out of it, but if I upgrade, it'll be with an Epson.

Drew

drew.saunders

20-Jul-2008, 13:20

Here is a negative I re-scanned with the "positive-invert" method:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3064/2643704622_672a1daa07_b.jpg

Below are two details of the dark area in the center. On the left is the muddy one with the "negative - pick your least bad color film match" and the right is a detail from the above "positive-invert" scan. I think they illustrate the "muddy too-digital-looking" shadow problem, and a more natural look, fairly well.

Drew

BarryS

20-Jul-2008, 14:30

The M1 is an excellent scanner, but I'd strongly recommend getting the pro version with the Silverfast AI Studio software. For only $100 more, I don't think it's worth using the inferior Scan Wizard software. Plus, you get a full set of of extra holders with the pro version. Silverfast has a lot of B&W negative profiles, but you can easily make your own and the scans are much better than what you can get from ScanWizard.

Andrew ren

20-Jul-2008, 14:37

hi Paddy,

seems here we have quite a few unhappy m1 users!

Thanks for the info.

Andrew

Andrew ren

20-Jul-2008, 14:47

hi Drew,

did you mean you check the "invert" from the very beginning? I mean leave the invert option on while you are scanning?

I made the same mistake! and was thinking about to ungade to the ai studio. I mean m1 is an excellent gear, I picked it up only because it's much heavier than the epsons:)

I was playing with the little film option window friday night as well, even they don't give us the choice if b/w films, there should be something we can disable it. 　

Thanks

Andrew

BTW, BarryS,

I scanned @2400dpi with the sf, v6.6.01r, still got a single banding line in the shadow area. any idea?

BarryS

20-Jul-2008, 14:55

Andrew-- That's the same version I'm using and I haven't had any banding issues since they fixed the problems in the software. I suggest you contact Silverfast and send them some sample scans with the problem. They'll take a while to respond, but once they kick you up to a tech--they should be able to figure out your problem.

drew.saunders

20-Jul-2008, 15:15

hi Drew,

did you mean you check the "invert" from the very beginning? I mean leave the invert option on while you are scanning?

If you select "invert" from the preferences before you even do the "overview" it keeps the setting and displays a correctly inverted overview and prescan, so select "positive" and "invert" once you launch the software and go from there.

Drew

Andrew ren

21-Jul-2008, 17:02

Thanks BarryS.

Drew, I will definitely give a try. Much appreciated.

Andrew

Andrew ren

23-Jul-2008, 02:24

any 57 users here?

I was think about to build a 5x7 holder by cutting the 4x5 holder.
I did some measuring job last night, shows me it's quite possible. I need to cut the centre part of the 4x5 holder and I am glad to see those 2 4x5 windows can be opened and closed at same direction, otherwise it will damage the 5x7 film as you try to slide the slider to lock the NEG. any suggestion? before I go too far...

Also might be much easier just order a 8 1/4 x 11 x1/4 AR glass to replace the original clear one. hmm...

Andrew

Colin Graham

23-Jul-2008, 08:34

I made a 5x12 tray to sit on top of the glass tray if you decide not to modify the plastic one. I just made a low-profile cherry frame with a rabbit for the film to sit in. A piece of glass sits on top and keeps the film flat. Raises the plane of focus enough to help eliminate newton rings.

Andrew ren

23-Jul-2008, 08:59

Colin,

Thanks for the input.

wondering what the height you raised up above the clear glass? I mean the plane of 5x12 neg to the clear glass plane. I was worried about the focusing limit of the (Microtek)lens.

Myself I did a fine card board frame about 2mm high, then just use the low-residue graphic tape to tape and stretch the 57 neg to be relatively flat.

I just went over to the framing store bought a piece of anti-glare glass(true vue?) @ 6.5x8.5inch. I am going to take the homemade card board frame off, and tape this 2mm thick ag glass on top of the glass holder, see which one is flatter, which means will bring be an overall sharper image.

Andrew

BarryS

23-Jul-2008, 09:04

Andrew--Does anti-glare glass act the same as anti-newton glass?

Colin Graham

23-Jul-2008, 09:14

I went 1.5mm up, just checked it with calipers. I used a sheet of 1/16 garolite with a image-sized rectangle cut into it, countersank some holes and screwed it to the cherry frame made the size of the negative. I made a few very thin pads out of some thin UHMW film I have to keep anything from scuffing the glass.

Andrew ren

23-Jul-2008, 10:09

BarryS,

I think for our purpose and the design of the M1(E.D.I.T), all we need is a firm/flat/no reflection glass to hold the film base firmly flat, the lens still scan the film itself glassless. so I think should work the same. All I am concerning is the extra 2mm-thick ag glass will make the lens focusing even more difficult, possibly.

will load crops of final images from those 2 different setups if you guys interested.(as cardboard frame with tape stretching/ag glass on clear glass)

Colin, Thanks.

Andrew

David A. Goldfarb

23-Jul-2008, 10:16

Andrew--Does anti-glare glass act the same as anti-newton glass?

Newton's rings are interference patterns caused by reflections between the base side of the film and the glass. Anti-reflective glass will reduce those reflections without adding any texture that can show up in the scan, but might not always be as effective as textured anti-Newton glass, so it depends.

Andrew ren

23-Jul-2008, 18:00

Here is the test.

all the direct o/p from SW pro 7, the only adjustment is the minor level adj for the Anti-flare glass version, seems give me a slightly low contrast, which is not a bad thing ..

AR-- I taped a whole plate size anti-reflection glass(2mm in thickness) on top of the clear glass tray.

CB-- home-made 2mm-thick 5x7 cardboard frame.

CG--clear glass! tape the neg on the glass tray.

Andrew ren

23-Jul-2008, 18:15

and this the test shot.

canham57, 105/8 fujinon

Andrew ren

25-Jul-2008, 10:15

alright, just cannot resist it. :_)

re-modified 57 holder from the 4x5 holder:

without film

Andrew ren

25-Jul-2008, 10:15

with 57 loaded.

BarryS

25-Jul-2008, 12:28

Andrew ren

25-Jul-2008, 13:22

Interesting, but it looks like there's no longer any mechanism that stretches the film flat. Maybe that's fine, most holders just hold the film securely, but the EDIT system normally tensions the film lengthwise. So is it working for you with good center to corner sharpness?

the parts 1&2 still have there rubber feet to grab the film, same like the 45.
the longsides(5) of the 57(both sides) are all sit on top of the bar, overall, it's pretty flat.
I trimmed down the rubber feet on 3&4 about 1/2mm lower, just be able to grab the film edge, yet won't move the film as you try to close and push the secondary flipper on.

BarryS

25-Jul-2008, 13:29

Nice--that sound like it's going to work pretty well.

Matus Kalisky

5-Oct-2009, 14:50

Waking up an old dragon - I have just recently started to use a Microtek F1 with SilverFast Ai Studio version 6.6.1r2 and encountered the banding problem.

I did only a few scans up to now, but I did get some bands in few of the them. These bands (usually 1 or 2) run "along the scanner" and have different width and are lighter than the underlying image. I have seen these when scanning at 1200 and 2400 spi with 48->24 bit setting with 6x6 and 4x5 scans. No dust&scratch removal. No "filters" (like sharpening) were turned on.

I will test more - but what are the experiences of other users?

Plese find bellow an example - first a full 4x5 scan (with STRONG levels and curves adjustments to make the bands more visible) and second a 100% from a 1200 spi scan.

Concerning the image itself - it is one of my first 4x5 studio attempts. I indeed need have a lot to improve on the background (it was a black cotton fabric - not black enough)

Gene McCluney

5-Oct-2009, 16:28

I have an older, more expensive Microtek Artixscan 2500f scanner, that essentially operates the same. I have found with my scanner, the "bands" are usually caused by some microscopic dust on the light source. This light source travels with the carriage that scans the negative.

Dave Aharonian

5-Oct-2009, 19:10

I have a Microtek 1800f and have suffered through various episodes of the same banding problem. I believe it is indeed dust on the light source as Gene has said. I was going to try taking apart the lid of the scanner to clean the light source but got scared and decided to try blowing compressed air into the slot the negative tray slides into. I gave it a few good blasts and it worked! I have been band free for a while now.

SteveKarr

8-Nov-2009, 11:41

Hi Everyone,
I am coming in on the tail end of this with the SAME & somewhat fixed problem.

I updated to the newest Silverfast & cleaned the heck out of the inside and the banding reduced a lot. But they still are there.

I scanned in RGB and looked at the different color channels and the lines are different in each channel and move around when clicking the r/g/b channels.

I did try the Microtek app and the same thing happened. The Vuescan will only return static type scan. Hmmm...

Is there a ccd to clean or a chip of some kind?

Thanks for the help so far.
Steve

PS... has anyone noticed the focus plane for the glass holder is on the BACK / Bottom side ? I was fighting with the focus. Glassless holder fine, glass holder soft. I taped it to the backside/bottom side and it's sharp. Now what to do? You can't tape 810's to the underside of the glass...

Ken Lee

8-Nov-2009, 12:30

According to http://www.microtekusa.com (http://www.microtekusa.com/):

New Focus in North American Market for Microtek
Microtek, a world-leading manufacturer of digital imaging products, has changed its sales strategy for digital imaging products in North America. For the North American market, Microtek is moving from an emphasis on selling a wide portfolio of consumer and professional scanners and digital imaging products to emphasis on developing OEM relationships and vertical market opportunities.

Ken Lee

8-Nov-2009, 14:44

Please overlook my previous post - which is irrelevant. I misunderstood.

BarryS

8-Nov-2009, 16:15

Steve-- After I got over my initial problems by installing the Silverfast upgrade, I've only had occasional minor issues that have been solved by a blast of compressed air into the slot. Your problem sounds like stubborn dust on the sensor, so you may have to figure out how to open up the case. Have you done that already? It wasn't clear from your post. As far as the glass holder--was the autofocus turned on? The M1 is unique in its price (and noise) class by virtue of the autofocus. It should be able to focus on the glass carrier without a problem and has worked beautifully on my 8x10 negatives--the sharpness is equal to the glassless carriers.

SteveKarr

8-Nov-2009, 18:26

Hey BarryS,
The top was been off & air blasted everywhere!! Really, I didn't care the scans were so bad. I'm thinking the CCD (sensor) could be the last place to clean, by the way the moving color channel problem looks. Where are they (CCD) or what do they look like? In the big carriage is my guess, but now it 'sorta works I am more gentle with it.

I did have the auto focus on Auto, Auto-with-the-little-target & off. It really does seem like the focal plane is off. That's why it focuses on the back (under) side of the glass. My assistant had a great idea, flip the whole damn thing over... IT WORKS!! You can wet mount on the bottom side of the glass tray, upside down & the scanner scans as sharp are the glassless...

"kinda looks like a dead seagull thou...

Steve