Recommend a Good Flatbed Scanner?

[BarryS]

I have a Microtek Artixscan M1 and recommend you stick with your V750. The F2/M2 is an upgraded faster version of the the M1, but essentially the same scanner. The big advantages if the Microtek are autofocus and the 4x5 glassless carriers. The autofocus works, but slows down the scanning process. I think this has been improved with the F2/M2. The glassless carriers are great when they work, but they're finicky as far as getting the film to seat properly. For 8x10 film, you really need to wet mount because there is no glassless carrier. The quality of these prosumer flatbeds is maxed out for now, so I don't see that a switch would help as far as quality or usability.

[Ben Hopson]

I totally agree with Lenny that there are some very good scanners out there in your price range. Great deals do come along from time to time as well. A few years ago I picked up a Scitex Eversmart Supreme in perfect condition with fluid mounting assembly, transparency and fluid mounting masks, oXygen Scan software, calibration slide and some spare lamps at a local auction for $1000 and since then have not used my Epson except for a few document scans.

[jb7]

No offense to you Zak, but I wouldn't trust this info as far as I could throw it. Not anymore than info on Luminous or Gigapixel. It's all slanted and not very competent. (I'm being polite.)

If you increase from 1K to 2K you can pick up a nice Howtek 4500. You can wet mount and have a blast.... It does wonders with a med format, 4x5 or 8x10 piece of film... nice and sharp....

There has been rather a lot of research done here too, which would corroborate the findings in the posts you find to be slanted and not very competent. It's all been documented in the DIY forum, with shortcomings listed alongside successes. Perhaps you've missed it?

[DennisD]

Over the years, I've owned several Microtek Scanners largely used for graphics work and some negative scans. They are excellent scanners and we've been pleased with their performance. However, with Microtek, it may now be a question of how much aggravation you're willing to put up with when things go wrong.

Several years ago Microtek announced discontinuing tech support by phone - email only !
I believe the policy still stands. They promise a 24-48 hour response! For working professionals who need a responsive support, this is unacceptable - at best. And whether you are a professional or not, slow or unresponsive support is a killer, especially when you've spent hundreds of $$$ on a product you can't put to work..

There is a "customer service department" phone number, basically an answering service for repairs and non technical matters, but you will not receive LIVE tech support (no matter how hard you plead).

We experienced a problem several years ago when we purchased the M1 Pro to replace our Artixscan 1800F. (Microtek did not offer repair service on the old unit - i think there was a swap out at a high price, regardless of the problem. If you just need a replacement part, it can be an issue).

As luck would have it, when installing the software for the new scanner, the Microtek ICC profiler and Color Matching System repeatedly failed to install after numerous attempts on several different computers. This was an issue because the ScanWizard software couldn't be properly calibrated without the others being installed.

We attempted to contact Microtek support only to learn that phone support was a thing of the PAST and that TS was "email only".

Communicating with Microtek support was slow and took one week for 2 back and forth exchanges. They were not kidding about a possible 48 hour turnaround! Our problem stumped Microtek and the problem was never fully resolved. They claimed our networking software must have been interfering with the installation. We ultimately used the alternate Silverfast software. The scanner works fine, we just can't depend on Microtek.

Generally speaking, Tech Support by email can be a miserable way to go, especially if the support staff is weak. Email does not provide the responsiveness of a real person. Further, nuances and fine points about configuring software and equipment are much easier in real time discussion. Time lapses, as in our case, can be a terrible issue.

Although our situation arose several years ago, when Microtek seemed to be shrinking its US product line, Maybe it's better now. However, their website still indicates email only support and a phone number for limited (non-technical) customer service.

[Light Guru]

No offense to you Zak, but I wouldn't trust this info as far as I could throw it. Not anymore than info on Luminous or Gigapixel. It's all slanted and not very competent. (I'm being polite.)

If you increase from 1K to 2K you can pick up a nice Howtek 4500. You can wet mount and have a blast.... It does wonders with a med format, 4x5 or 8x10 piece of film... nice and sharp....

There are several threads on this forum abut people using DSLRs to digitize large format film. The clarity differences in the examples in the article are proof enough that photographing negatives can give really good results.

[jcoldslabs]

My primary issue with my Microtek i900 is that it produces terrible banding in shadow areas. Not just noise, but light and dark striations that appear to be different tonalities from each pass of the scanning head. Noise and dust are inherent to the scanning process, but you would think the out-of-the-box hardware could at least produce consistently even tonality. Maybe I got a lemon. The glassless carriers are easy to use, it's true, and the glass flatbed has worked well for large negatives.

Jonathan

[LF_rookie_to_be]

PFU (=Fujitsu) DL2400. Aka Qubyx Lynx A3 aka... drum roll... Heidelberg/Linotype Linoscan 2400XL. Same scanner. One I witnessed a few months ago in perfect condition working properly cost the guy a staggering $80. The scans looked fantastic and the machine is definitely built better than all Microteks I've used, half of which were lemons. He won't be selling it any time soon.
On the other end of the scale, a complete iQSmart3/Onyx/G4/Trinitron package from the original owner has been on sale for over two years in my neck of the woods - for a mere $4700. I guess it must be better than PFU.

[sanking]

One can find great bargains on used drum scanners and high end flatbeds with a bit of patience and willingness to travel to the location and check out and pick up the equipment.

No question but that scans from this type of equipment, if in good operating condition, are superior in absolute terms to those from an Epson V700/V750. Whether or not you will get better print quality depends on print size, and your skill in preparing the file for printing. But for less than $1k new the Epson V700/750 is the best out there for negatives of 4X5 to 8X10 IMO.

Bear in mind, however, that these type of professional scanners are very heavy and large, 130 lbs and up, and some won't work with contemporary operating systems. So don't buy something like this sight unseen and without knowing for sure that it works, and/or how much you will have to spend for a computer and software to run the scanner.

Sandy

[Lenny Eiger]

There has been rather a lot of research done here too, which would corroborate the findings in the posts you find to be slanted and not very competent. It's all been documented in the DIY forum, with shortcomings listed alongside successes. Perhaps you've missed it?

I don't really want to get into this. There are a lot of things one can do to compare to, or outdo, a consumer-level scanner (even things on a consumer-level scanner). However, I run a top-end drum scanner and those things are not in the running. I could go on an one about different tests done that were done incorrectly. Thankfully, we have Tim Parkin around to set some things straight in engineering-eze when it comes to Luminous Landscape. They have been the worst. I have nothing ill to suggest about anyone here to is trying to piece together a solution for themselves. I think its great they are trying to make something happen.

Lenny

[Light Guru]

I don't really want to get into this. There are a lot of things one can do to compare to, or outdo, a consumer-level scanner (even things on a consumer-level scanner). However, I run a top-end drum scanner and those things are not in the running. I could go on an one about different tests done that were done incorrectly. Thankfully, we have Tim Parkin around to set some things straight in engineering-eze when it comes to Luminous Landscape. They have been the worst. I have nothing ill to suggest about anyone here to is trying to piece together a solution for themselves. I think its great they are trying to make something happen.

Lenny

Nobody was clamming it would beet your drum scan. It was proposed as a alternative to a flatbed scanner.