Microtek Scanmaker i900 Review

[Jeffrey Zweig]

Hi Martin,

I just made another post about the anti-newton ring issue but I'll recap...

To solve the newton ring problem and to keep your image completely flat we use a piece of anti-newton ring glass also from Focal Point. The 8x10 piece of glass fits perfectly between the glass tray and the transparency, sandwhiching it between the two. This is helpful because it avoids having to use tape or a chemical spray to keep the transparency perfectly flat.

As for the Digital ICE you need to take everything with a grain of salt. Is it a miracle cure and going to put Adobe out of business? No. Is it a good starting point for working with an image? Yes. I haven't used Digital ICE and its varients on all the brands but from what I have seen some just make the image appear soft or smudged. The 6800 was the first scanner to come out with Digital ICE and did a pretty good job but was extremely slow. The i900 is what I would call the second generation of Digital ICE. Microtek saw what needed to be improved and made substantial changes.

The images look good with Digital ICE but still require touch up, just depending on each image. Just like a car, the 2004 model has a few mre features and gismos then my 1998 model does. I would see if you have any local dealers that you can check it out at and try it for yourself. I know a few users posted a link to some sample images that they scanned with it.

Gary, on this board wrote, "I think for the price ( $800 in Canada ), it's a very good deal, and if anyone is interested , you can check out my website at: http://www.garynylander.com and look under 'New Images' there is a photograph of Spotted Lake that I made recently with my 8 x 10 and scanned in with this scanner, I know its only a website image but at least it will give you an idea of what it can do, also check under 'Techincal Info'."

Hope that helps

Jeffrey Zweig

[Ted Fullerton]

I've been following the i900 comments with interest as I've just started shooting color transparencies again and after a week of trying many techniques, I've to get any decent scans from Velvia with deep shadow areas on my Microtek 5900 (which has worked great from B&W), I'm realizing that I might be buying a new scanner soon.

I do have a couple questions regarding the i900, though:

1. How does one keep the transparency flat with a glassless system. I understand that there are holders, but how does the mechanism of the holder keep the film taut? Is it difficult to set the transparency in the holder without "waves" in the transparency which would affect the sharpness of the scan?

2. I love deep shadows, and expect that 70% of my transparencies will have large deep shadow areas. Specifically to scanning contrasty Velvia, how does the i900 perform? Outside of the numbers and marketing, what has anyone's experience been in pulling detail from shadow with the i900. My purpose would be primarily for creating images for posting on the web, but would like to be able to proof-print as well.

Thanks,

-Ted Fullerton

[Gary Nylander]

Hi Ted,

I am an owner of the i900 but using it mostly scan black and white negatives I will though try to answer some of your questions , the holders are very good, made of durable plastic with a "slider" that holds the film taut, I can see no "waves" in my 4 x 5 negatives when its in the holder, usually with this size of film the negatives are pretty flat to start out with but with some 120 films I have noticed that the emulsion can be thin and "wavy".

I have only scanned a few transparencies using the Silverfast Ai software ( bundled as an extra with the machine) and they look fine, as for trannies that have large deep shadows or are contrasty I can't say how the i900 will perform in this regard, I believe the 1800f has a better dmax and might be the better choice but its also twice the money.

Gary

[Ken Hales]

I have not purchased a scanner yet. I am considering the i900.

I have thousands of slides that I want to scan and produce digital images that will look fine being projected using a digital projector or an HDTV. If I want to scan a slide for subseqent large printing I can use my existing Nikon CoolScan IV ED (USB1).

I have several questions: 1) Will I need the anti-aliasing Newton ring glass Jeffrey mentioned for the slides; 2) By using a pressurized air duster will I miss not having the Digital ICE; 3) Will all 12 slides maintain adequate focus when scanned in a batch (does the above glass help here at all); 4) Will the Scan Wizard software keep track of each of the 12 images and allow storage and processing of the images as separate files; 5) Will I be able to use Silverfast software for this project; 6) For a batch of 12 slides using 8 bit depth, Firewire, 1600 dpi, Scan Wizard with some processing enhancements turned on (don't know about this yet), how long will it take to scan the batch (I have a Pentium 4, 2.4 GHz machine); 7) If I used Silverfast instead of Scan Wizard in 6) what would that do the quality and the time

I asked all of these questions to Microtek's tech support and customer support and got no real information from them

Thanks for your advise and input.

Thanks for your help

[Anthony_4576]

I am also in the market for a scanner, mainly for 6x6 and 6x17cm trannie.

I am only looking for a scanner suitable for screen / web resolution. The i900 looked good, but I am now looking at the i700, as it is less $$$ and I don't want to spend the extra $1k if I will not get any benefits for web/screen res scans (and has ICE for trans.) Does anybody think there would be a big difference between these two (and I guess the 4870 / Cannon 9950) for low res scans?

Previously I have only used flextight and drum scans, and just re-sampled them for web use, so I have not had any experience with flat beds for trannie (but would like to look at it now to do web scans in-house for speed).

Does anybody have experience regarding flex / drum scans when re-sampled and whether they are actually any different from "consumer" level flat bed scans when only used for the web? (I have had a few different answers on this but no-body seems to have done it themselves).

I will try to do a test myself, and then post the results.

Thanks for your input

[Jeremy Holmes]

The i700 is the first scanner Microtek has offered that does Digital ICE on both reflective and film based images. The scanner is selling in Australia currently for about $900 AU or about $620 US. The added benefit of Digital ICE for film will probably push me into buying a i700 simply for this added benefit at roughly the same price as the current i900. When I acquire one I will be sure to post a review of my findings.

[Anthony_4576]

I tried out an i700 last week and I was not so impressed. I found it very difficult to use the supplied film gates for 6x4.5 and even 6x6, especially if the film was slightly bent. Focus seemed a little soft even using the film holder. The supplied software was terrible, and I don't think VueScan is compatible yet, so I used silverfast and it seemed a little better. I only had two nights to play with it, but as far as I could see, for my purposes, it was going to require a lot of mucking around to get a good scan. I have since returned the unit (a demo unit) and I am picking up an Epson 4870 to try this week. I think the i700 could be good for reflective, as ICE would be a great help, and I only used the scanner for 120 transparencies. I also think the scanner could likely produce ok results with the right degree of mucking around in the software, but for me at this stage, I am going to check out the 4870 and then make a comparison for my needs.

Anthony

[Anthony_4576]

ok, the 4870 wins hands down. I have had it for 5 minutes and it is already 1000 times better than the results which I got from the i700. I have not played much in the software, but on the auto settings it is far better than my experience with the i700, plus the film holders are much better, no newton rings, it's speed is ok, and it works - just need to clean the underside of the glass (though I can't see the results on the scans so maybe its not worth it but it's pretty foggy)

Jeremy, if you have any luck with the i700, let me know as I would be interested if you have some time to play around with it if you can get better results than I was able to in the short time i had it.

Finally satisfied, Anthony