Microtek M1: A Review by Mac Holbert/Nash Editions

[Gary Nylander]

Hello Folks,

I want to pass along a new review of the Microtek M1 scanner by Mac Holbert from Nash Editions in Los Angeles ( www.nasheditions.com ) The review is posted online as a PDF file at the CameraArts.com site:

http://www.cameraarts.com/TheDigitalDarkroom.htm

I hope that people will find the review and observations by Mac Holbert of particular interest, I think he has some interesting things to say about the M1.

Gary

[Cesar Barreto]

Interesting, but I can't really understand how someone tests dynamic range with b&w negatives. Shouldn't be more appropriate to scan positive films?

Cesar

[venchka]

Thanks Gary. That is the first evaluation of the M1 in real use that I have read on the internet.

[Andrew ren]

is that possible to turn on Silverfast's MultiScan 4X & MultiExp.2x the same time?

Andrew

[Frank Petronio]

I'm just waiting for Lenny to comment ;-)

We need a head to head with an Epson.

I wonder if Microtek has improved their quality control? I got burned a couple years ago (two defective ones in a roll).

It is bizarre that the manufacturers don't come up with a truly professional CCD flatbed (robust construction, mechanical focusing, good software, better holders) with these specs that comes in at around a grand -- they would sell a lot.

[kilimanjaro1996]

The Microtek seems still have quality control issues. A colleague of mine bought the M1 Pro about half year back, and after 2 months it developed a grinding noise and auto focus became erratic. He returned it and got a replacement, and the new unit is working perfectly so far. He is much more meticulous than I do (I use Epson V700), but still we tend to agree that pure resolution and dynamic range are on par between these two scanners.

[Lenny Eiger]

I'm just waiting for Lenny to comment ;-)


Here you go. I wouldn't want to disappoint ;-) I think the test is flawed.

First of all, why are there so many comparisons from one mediocre scanner to another? Why not include - especially for people who at least know others that have great scanners - some of the really good scanners? Why is there no comparison to what a Premier, or an ICG 380, can do? How does it differ from what a 4500 is capable of, Scanmate, etc.? Why do photographers spend every last dollar on a great lens for our cameras, only to ask how can we get it cheaper when looking at a buying a scanner? I understand that not everyone can afford a Premier (altho it is cheaper than an Eversmart these days) - I can't even afford it. There is a certain level of quality any particular person can afford, but I think that they have a right to know what the difference is, especially if they are going to the trouble of lugging around a large camera, or developing their own film, all in the hopes of getting as much quality as possible.

A while back, Luminous Landscape compared a P45 digital, the best at the time, to a consumer flatbed and said, gee the digital back is better. Big surprise - but what about a professional scanner? Uh, we don't know.... Same foolishness. Top level scanner will blow away any digital back on a variety of levels.

Second, the way they scan makes little sense to me. They are basically scanning at 300 to the print size they want. I scan to the max, then see what happens on the print. I try and get the most out of a piece of film. I've never scanned anything as small as 100mb, or 300mb for 4x5.

This sentence:
"Dropping the output resolution of a 4" X 5" scan at 500% Excellent from 360 DPI to 287 DPI will yield a 32" X 40" print. In practice I routinely print at resolutions even lower than this. It is an image dependent judgment and proper sharpening is crucial."

- says it all. They are acting like a standard lab, trying to just get the work out the door. Small size of file makes it print faster, and the client won't know the difference anyway. I don't try and make up for deficiencies in a scan by more sharpening. I make a great deal less money than they do because I figure every print that goes out of my studio has my name on it. Its the best I can do for any given photographer, no matter how many test prints it takes. Its a very different philosophy.

If you think about a test done by someone who has expediency as their goal I think you will see the flaws. It's a "good enough for government work" strategy and if your sense of good enough matches theirs, you win. If not you lose, and if you have never seen different, you may not even know there is something more. Printing quality is not important to everyone, nor should it be. However, I prefer to go after a higher standard, on occasion I might get there... I think a lot of people here go to their best as well.

Lenny

[daverich4]

Lenny Eiger; Here you go. I wouldn't want to disappoint ;-) I think the test is flawed.

<<A while back, Luminous Landscape compared a P45 digital, the best at the time, to a consumer flatbed and said, gee the digital back is better. Big surprise - but what about a professional scanner? Uh, we don't know.... Same foolishness. Top level scanner will blow away any digital back on a variety of levels.>>

Is this the test you were thinking of? I know you don't think much of the Tango, nonetheless, it's hardly a consumer flatbed.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/back-testing.shtml

-dave-

[Lenny Eiger]

Is this the test you were thinking of? I know you don't think much of the Tango, nonetheless, it's hardly a consumer flatbed.

-dave-

Actually, it was a previous one. I think they used a Cezanne.... And just for a point of reference, the Premier has twice the resolution of a Tango, aperture control, etc. One doesn't always need it but it's the top if one is comparing, goes to my earlier point...

I also think the problem with many Tango's is that they are in a lab and some kid has been hired to run it who has very little understanding. The test you reference has people who know how to use it very well and can produce excellent results whenever they want to.

Lenny

[John Brady]

Here you go. I wouldn't want to disappoint ;-) I think the test is flawed.

Why do photographers spend every last dollar on a great lens for our cameras, only to ask how can we get it cheaper when looking at a buying a scanner?

Lenny

Lenny, thats the conclusion I came to.

I had the M1 for about 3 months when it first came out. It had serious software issues that I'm sure they have sorted out by now. I was looking for an improvement over the 1800f which it was not. These are both fine scanners for the money but as Lenny points out what is the sense of investing all this money into fine glass and film only to have a major weak link in the chain?

I broke down and bought a new Creo IQ Smart 2 after sending back the M1. It is now as strong or stronger than any other link in my chain. My 8x10 film scans are spectacular! No regrets.

jb
www.timeandlight.com

[venchka]

Many of us must be content with state of the possible.

[Kirk Gittings]

If you read it closely (unless I am missing something) It appears to agree with what Ted Harris reported on the scanner? That it could produce excellent results up to around 16x20, but beyond that fell short of pro flatbed and drum scans?

I'm curious has anyone had no problems with this scanner using Silverfast over a long period. Like Franks experience on my 1800f I had to return it 2-3 times I can't remember now how many, it was awhile ago.

[mrladewig]

Specifically on the Luminous Landscape article referenced (P45+ versus 4X5), the article stated that the 4X5 file was a 500MB file at 16bits. This should be a 1600ppi scan, which is not at the limit of the scanner nor the film. Obviously, we're all of a similar mindset here that 4X5 was hamstrung to make that test come remotely close.

It does seem to me that Camera Arts is saying the same things that everyone is saying. The M1 is a nice scanner, but it doesn't measure up to a professional scanner.

[venchka]

...

It does seem to me that Camera Arts is saying the same things that everyone is saying. The M1 is a nice scanner, but it doesn't measure up to a professional scanner.

Aye! Is it "close enough" for mere mortals on a very tight budget? Is it less than, equal to or better than an Epson V750-M? How about an Epson V750-M with Betterscanning holders?

[Don Diego]

Howdy:
Iam the new kid on the block just became a member short while back. Any way I tested both the M1 and the Epson 750 I bought the Epson. My 2-1/4 negs and slides printed on Epson 7800 on 16x20 look like made in my old darkroom. Very happy with the scanner. Just my two cents.
Don

[anchored]

Kirk asks: I'm curious has anyone had no problems with this scanner using Silverfast over a long period. Like Franks experience on my 1800f I had to return it 2-3 times I can't remember now how many, it was awhile ago.

I suppose "over a long period" can hardly be applied to the M1, but I've been using it about 7 months without problems... at least not much in the way of problems. I'm scanning 4"x5" color slides and Ilford FP4+ using Silverfast software (have never even tried the MicroTek software) and very happy with the results.

Up until recently have been scanning everything at 2400-res, but recently the machine has been producing a few random cyan or magenta thin lines at this setting... I've reduced scanning down to 1800 and this banding does not appear.

My main complaint on the machine is using the glassless 4x5 carriers. It takes a bit of finess and practice in order to get film into it and keeping it flat.

Now grant you... the scans are nowhere near as good as my Nikon 9000-
ED produces from MF film, and I sure miss not having ICE on the M1, but 16"x20" (or longer) prints turn out very nicely from the M1 scans.

[venchka]

anchored,

Howdy! We're almost neighbors. I'm up around Cypress-Copperfield. Have you tried the MultiScan & MultiExp mentioned in the article? Does it work for you? I ask because another M1 user on the Rangefinder Forum said that he couldn't get either feature to work on his M1.

[m332720]

I have had my M1 for about a month now. I am reasonably happy with the results.
I use the Silverfast software and have had no problems with the multi exposure or the multi scan..
I have done 13X19 inch prints and have been happy with the output. If I want bigger prints I would take my 4X5 negs to a lab. But for what I am doing I am happy with it.

Even with make a living from my photography I could not justify a more expensive scanner

Michael

[BarryS]

After a frustrating start due to software issues, I've been using the M1 with great results for the last 9 months. I've been heavily into using barrel lenses lately, so my negative densities can be all over the map and the M1 has been doing a very nice job scanning even some very dense negs. I like the glassless system although I agree the holders can be tricky to use. I'm not using the multi-exposure or multi-scanning options since I feel like I've been getting good results without them and the scans are time-consuming enough with the autofocus cycle. Overall, I think it's a good piece of hardware for up to 4X or 5X scans as long as you have the Silverfast software.

[mrladewig]

Aye! Is it "close enough" for mere mortals on a very tight budget? Is it less than, equal to or better than an Epson V750-M? How about an Epson V750-M with Betterscanning holders?

I'm one of those mere mortals with an Epson 4990, so I know what you're saying. But I also know where my 4990 falls short of a professional scan.

It certainly would be nice to see this comparison, but that wasn't the goal of this particular article. There isn't a great deal written on these scanners. So far what I've seen indicates that they are very similar. Neither has a dominating advantage over the other. Its like the articles comparing the V700 to the 4990 or the V750 to the V700. There are small incremental improvements at this level, but nothing that would cause a compelling reason to buy one over another, or to make an upgrade irresistible.

[venchka]

mrladewig,

I hear you. If a pristine 4990 came my way for a decent price I would be all over it. Add a set of Betterscanning holders and Bob's your uncle!

[Gary Nylander]

I have been using the M1 for the past 8 months or so and have had no problems , I am happy with the results. I scan mostly 4 x 5 black and white negatives.

[Michael Mutmansky]

Kirk,

No problems yet with mine, but it's only about 5 months old.

The review isn't worth much, IMO, as the scanner is considerably sharper when scanned on the glass, wet mounted. Even dry mounted on the glass is sharper than the trays. Wet mounting is easy; no cover mylar needed. It is a little messy, though, compared to the trays.

I haven't done any B&W scanning with mine yet, but I didn't see any mention of the procedure for selecting the sharpest channel, so I assume he didn't do that. On every scanner I've tested, there is a sharpest channel, so I am surprised that he didn't use this approach.

Multiscanning is more effective than multiexposure in my experience, but you do take a sharpness hit to do so. However it does considerably improve shadow noise (in chromes), so in my scanning procedure, I multiscan at 4x when I need a little more smoothness in the shadow zones, but that is not necessary in most of the images I have done (where the image was exposed properly in the first place). That seemed to work best in the tests I did.


---Michael

[Andrew ren]

talked to Boris @ Lasersoft imaging about this the other day.
He said the Multi exposure is more powerful than the Multi scan. seems the ME "overrides" the MS.

Andrew

[venchka]

...

The review isn't worth much, IMO, as the scanner is considerably sharper when scanned on the glass, wet mounted. Even dry mounted on the glass is sharper than the trays. Wet mounting is easy; no cover mylar needed. It is a little messy, though, compared to the trays.

---Michael

Michael,

I'm not doubting you. I am curious why this happens? All of Microtek's marketing touts "no glass in the scanning path". Yet you say the scans are sharper on the glass. Why? Better support and flatter negative? Very interesting.

[Michael Mutmansky]

Wayne,

Flatter negative I presume. It's pretty significantly better, so anyone trying to get the best out of the scanner wouldn't do it any other way if they did the comparisons.

One thing I've also noted is that occasionally the AF does not work properly, and the scans are quite soft. I presume this happens if a piece of contaminant is on the underside of the glass right at the focus target location, but I'm really not sure. Regardless, when this happens, I have adjusted the focus location and the scanner has worked properly the second time.


---Michael

[Jeremy Moore]

Michael, could you give us detail images from a scan done with the holder vs. wet mounted to the glass?

[BarryS]

I'd also love to hear your procedure for wet mounting on the M1--fluid type, protocol, etc.

[Michael Mutmansky]

Jeremy,

I'll see if I still have the scan tests I did...

Barry,

There's a few ways to do wet mounting. I tried a few approaches, and here's what I found to work best for MF and LF images...

Things needed:
Prazio mounting oil
Proper scanning tape (I use Tesa)
Film cleaner
Drum cleaner
Good cleaning wipes (I use the prazio Ultra product)

Orient the film emulsion-down on the glass. Tape one edge of the film to the glass. Lift up the film on the hinge and put down some mounting oil on the glass at the hinge side. Lay the film into the oil. If you put down the right amount, it will suck the film down and you won't need to do much to get the entire sheet convered, and there won't be any bubbles to deal with. Too little and you'll have all kinds of bubbles to deal with. Too much and you will have to do a lot of cleaning to remove the excess.

Take a wipe and push the film down onto the glass from the hinge tape out. The oil will holde the film down tight. Try to avoid introducing bubbles into the image area.

Clean the glass and film a bit and then put down tape all the way around the film. Look through the film and look for bubbles that need to be removed from the image area. If you see some, the wipe can be placed on the fim and them moved towards the edge to push a bubble out to the edge. If the bubbles are persistant, you either have some grit or other contaminants between the film and the glass, or you didn't get enough oil down. You may have to clean and then redo.

Flip the glass over and look at the film from the bottom. The bubbles are often much easier to see from that side. Remove any remaining bubbles.

Take the film cleaner on a clean wipe and clean the film surface. That should be all you need to do to prep the film on the glass. You are ready to insert it in the scanner and get it started.

To remove, you will need to be careful that you don't kink the film when you remove the tape. Don't allow the film to come up until you have the ability to pull it up by the hinge. Hold it down while you remove the first two sides.

Take the film and clean it really well with the film cleaner. May take a couple of rounds to get it 100&#37; clean.

Clean the glass with some drum cleaner first, and then finish with some film cleaner. Keep all of these chemicals off of the plastic surrounding the glass. I don't know how druable it is to solvents. I haven't had any problems... Clean the bottom of the glass as well.

I finish up with a light spray of foaming no-ammonia glass cleaner, and then buff the glass dry and streak-free.

Ready for another mount. I mount two 4x5's at a time. Not really room for more to be done easily. 2-5x7's would probbaly work well. An 8x10 at a time, but I doubt you really need to wet-mount one of those unless you are planning to go really, really large.

For smaller film (smaller than 6x6), I would probably consider using the Prazio montage gel. It' much thicker, and would hold down the film a little easier for really small pieces.

I think Prazio still has a starter kit to try out the products. It's well worth getting to see what this is all about before buying a lot of cans of chemicals.

I use a large bottle of film cleaner from Aztek. Prazio has a really, really great aerosol film cleaner, but I can't justify it for large volume cleaning. It just seems wasteful to me to be using cans like that. The problem is Aztek requires ordering a case of this stuff, unless things have changed. I'm not sure where to get a good large bottle of film cleaner otherwise; haven't looked for any recently.


--Michael

[Gordon Moat]

I can highly recommend the Prazio starter kit. It really does have a good selection of products, and will enable one to perform many scans. After that, it becomes easier to know what to buy to continue wet scanning.

I found that using the tape on the edges of the flatbed creates a nice dam for any excess oil, or cleaning residue. Once the tape starts to look bad, then replace around the edges again. This avoids any accidents or spills getting into the scanner, or on the plastic parts.

I have been using clear sheets to sandwich the film to the glass, rather than the tape method. One issue is that the layout base scratches a bit too easily when wiping. I think I will try the direct tape method next.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[Michael Mutmansky]

Gordon,

One benefit to the direct mentod is that you don't have to deal with bubbles between the overlay material and the film, so it simplifys that a bit, and it reduces the number of layers/interfaces that need to be clean, etc.

I don't use a dam. It doesn't take much liquid to do the mounting or cleaning, so I don't have any problems with the liquids flowing around. There just isn't any to get out of hand as long as you use an appropriate amount.

The Prazio kit and the other Prazio products come with nice squeeze bottles that put out a nice controlled amount of liquid. Highly recommended for this use. No chance of spills.


---Michael


---Michael

[BarryS]

Michael (and Gordon)- Thanks so much for taking the time to explain your technique. I honestly didn't know where to start with trying fluid mounting with the M1. I've had some problems with Newton's rings on 8x10 negatives, so there really isn't another option than doing a fluid mount. Ted Harris also recommended the Prazio starter kit, so I need to give them a call.

[venchka]

Let me add my thanks as well.

[Michael Mutmansky]

Barry,

Try the anti-newton spray that Prazio makes. That's how I scanned large negs on the drum scanner, and it made no substantial difference up to about 800-1200spi. Above that, you'd probably want to wet mount.

---Michael

[Rakesh Malik]

Shees, they appear to be more interested in writing an article rather then determining proper test procedures.



Unfortunately, I think that their primary motivation is actually to justify the amount of money that they've spent on digital backs and such, rather than to make an honest comparison between digital and film.

"See, if we put large weights on the legs of our competitor's horses, ours are faster. Therefore ours are the best!"

Sigh.