Scanner comparison: 5 scanners added

[Leigh Perry]

More scanners have been added to the comparison page (http://largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/scanner-comparison.html). They are:

Cezanne
Imacon 949
Imacon 848
Creo Eversmart Supreme
Microtek ArtixScan M1

Thanks to Ted Harris, David Rogers, Leon Strembitsky.

[Michael Heald]

Hello! I have a 4990. The M1 looks to have much better shadow detail and less shadow noise, but the 4990 seems better in overall sharpness. I could read the text easier with the 4990 scan and the highlight scan of the white wall seems sharper with the 4990.
Am I interpreting this correctly? Could the difference in color between the 4990 and M1 account for this? Or does the 4990 perform better for highlights and the M1 better for shadows?
Best regards.

Michael A. Heald

[Nathan Potter]

Leigh, thanks for this comparison. Given some limitations and variations by individual users the comparisons are still very useful as a guide to the uninitiated - like me. It gives some perspective as to what to expect from various scanners when operated by presumably experienced scan people.

Nate Potter

[Steven Barall]

That scanner test is really well done and extremely useful. I appreciate it very much so thank you to whoever participates in keeping it up and running. Thanks again.

-Steven

[neil poulsen]

These are helpful comparisons. It's nice seeing the 848 included, since it's a well-known benchmark.

Does it matter that the M1 doesn't have the saturation in color of some of the other scanners?

Is it me, or do the comparisons for the newsprint appear to be different from those of some of the other images? For example, they don't appear to agree with the comparisons of the round thingies in the second image.

There sure appears to be a substantial improvement in the M1 over the 4870 that I own. Hmm. When I upgrade, it'll be either the 750 or the M1 I suspect.

[Cesar Barreto]

Well, to my eyes color fringing is quite evident on Microtek scanners, just as I observed on my i900 wich makes it almost useless for any serious work. Maybe with b&w negatives it may be a minor issue since one can always select the best channel, but on color work it looks like a clear invitation to trouble.

[jetcode]

to be honest the Cezanne images appear to have a yellow cast which means either I am hallucinating, the bulbs are not producing 5500 degrees, the white reference is missing or off, or a calibration is required

I would have assumed the Cezanne to be somewhat close to IQ3 and others. For what it's worth I don't experience dramatic color casts on my machine

[Leigh Perry]

Yes, the Cezanne colour was a bit odd. The file was not tagged with any colour profile information, so I left in un-colour-managed. Setting colour balance by clicking on the Sekonic lightmeter cover and the grey cap didn't help much.

The Cezanne scan also needed to be flipped, which suggests that it was scanned with the emulsion on the wrong side. Ted might be able to shed more light on the scan.

[Leigh Perry]

Regarding the 848 scan, I wonder if that machine is a little out of calibration. There is a major difference in scan sharpness from the 949 (which Dave said was serviced very recently). Both scans were done with sharpening completely off -- I think the required sharpening amount setting is "-120".

[Ted Harris]

I'll check the color tomorrow but I don't think it was the bulbs.