Update - microtek 1800f vs. epson 4990

[Kirk Gittings]

Welcome Lee,

I think you will find that by learning from the experiences posted here that you can shortcut some of that trial and error time.

[Frank Petronio]

I keep think back to the 30x40 Iris I made from am 8-bit greyscale Kurzweil flatbed ($3600) circa 1991. It is still hanging in my garage, hardly faded with a nice full range and detail.

For double page spreads from 4x5 for commercial work, my old Epson 3200 did just fine. And the 1640 before that was not bad. Even the old Agfa Arcus did a lot of publication work.

Since most of your requirements are way over what most commercial artists need (11x17 @ 300 dpi versus 30x40 @ 300 dpi) I bet you'll never be satisfied with any of the sub $1000 flatbeds. Wouldn't a Scitex-Creo-Kodak Smart Scanner series flatbed be the real solution for high quality, speedy production, and build quality?

[Kirk Gittings]

Are you asking me? I don't know. Have you used one?

[Frank Petronio]

No, I haven't touched one since the 90s but I believe there are still a lot of active users. Maybe another thread to get up to date info? Last I read you could get an EverSmart for $5000 or so.

[David F]

I'm wondering about the initial comparision between Epson 4990 and Microtek 1800. Seems a bit unfair and skewed since the 1800 goes for over 1,000 US and the Epson can be had for less that 400 US. Not quite apples to apples, and we'd expect the 1800 to be better at twice the price.

Comparing the Epson to the Microtek i800 seems much more reasonable, since they are closer in price and quality.

The first comparision is like comparing a VW bug to a mobile home for sleeping space -- no duh that one is going to have more room.

David.

[Kirk Gittings]

"no duh"

The two were compared because someone specifically asked for that comparison and wondered if anyone on this forum had both. I did, so I offered to do it. Just because one is more expensive does not guarantee that it is better. When this started the i800 was not even available anyway. I am not in the business of buying every scanner that comes out just to do some tests and post them here for people who could just as easily do it for themselves. It was just a coincidence that I had both and could test them for him. No good deed goes unpunished.

[robc]

"No good deed goes unpunished"

Kirk, if you are referring to me who asked the question, then I thank you for your contribution.

Exactly what you are referring to by "No good deed goes unpunished"?

[Kirk Gittings]

No I'm refering to the comments by the comments by David. Who is chiding me for not testing the i800!

[robc]

I see said the blind man.

Incidentally, I ended up buying the epson F3200. I wouldn't recommend it. The reported as "best film holders" are actually crap. The "anti newton glass" is actually "anti newton plastic" which is very easily scratchable and a scan without any film in the holder, i.e. just anti newton plastic, shows up the "frosting" in the plastic like noise. Now if I could change that plastic for a piece of clear glass then I think I would have a good scanner which is fast. But there are other problems with the holders as well.

[neil poulsen]

I see value in this comparison. I don't know, but the 4990 or 4870 (or the two combined) is (are) probably in widest use by LF scanners. That raises the question, is it worth the extra money to go for the 1800f? I know that's been my question.

This thread gives the information needed to make that choice.