Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 90

Thread: Update - microtek 1800f vs. epson 4990

  1. #1
    Kirk Gittings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Albuquerque, Nuevo Mexico
    Posts
    9,864

    Update - microtek 1800f vs. epson 4990

    Continuing the older thread......After a great deal of testing, (because the first Microtek 1800f that I got developed alot of problems very quickly. It must have been dropped. It was out of alignment etc. so I returned it for a new one), I must say that I am very pleased with this new scanner. It is much closer in quality to an 848 Imacon than to an Epson 4990.

    Some of my initial observations comparing Imacon 848 scans (done last summer), my trusty two year old Epson 4990 (with Silverfast AI 6 Studio) and my new Microtek 1800f (with Silverfast AI 6 Studio).

    Though I did not have an Air Force target to test things at a more scientific level, I agree with all of Paul Butzi’s observations in his article on his website. My tests did not contardict any of his tests. Read his for more detailed information.

    http://www.butzi.net/articles/scannersoft.htm

    A summary of my observations to date with B&W scan are:

    The sharpest 4x5 scans are with film holders by scanning emulsion up RGB and saving the green channel, in glass carrier emulsion down RGB green channel, but the holder scans were ever so slightly sharper than those from the glass carrier (film taped down).

    There is no advantage to using the glass bed vs. the film holder for 4x5 and one big disadvantage. The calibration slot in the glass holder is also glass and collects dust, a big problem here in Albuquerque. The dust particles create holes in the calibration data and streaks in the scan. This is not an issue with the film holder as the calibration slot is open.

    Some gain in sharpness by down sampling (3600 to 1800 which is optical res.) but absolutely no less noise. The sharpening is because bicubic sharper does in fact do some sharpening obviously.

    The MT is much much faster than 4990 and closer to speed of Imacon.

    MT has much less noise than the 4990 and the Imacon (I find the Imacons very noise)

    Shadow separation is dramatically better with the MT than I could do with either 4990 or Imacon.

    The MT has much less ghosting than 4990 and does not have this odd stretching on a pixel level (gear slop?) that the 4990 does at the edges of film sometimes.

    If you scan your B&W RGB and pull the Green channel for B&W, the MT is significantly sharper than 4990 closer to the Imacon.

    The noise level is extremely low to begin with and doesn’t need any help from multisampling.

    There is no advantage with the MT in terms of sharpness by doing a dummy scan to heat the negative prior to the real scan as in the 4990.

    4x5 film Film holder had a slight bow to it requiring it be taped into the main drawer holder. This taping of the 4x5 holder into the main holder slightly increased sharpness.

    For me it is ultimately all in the prints. I can tell the difference in my work at 16x20 when I start with a 4990 scan vs. an Imacon scan. I only have free access to an Imacon in the summers so I am trying to approach that Imacon 16x20 level with the MT.

    For me the MT 1800F with Silverfast AI Studio does indeed break the 16x20 sharpness limitatation of the 4990 plus it has allot less noise and dimensional accuracy (higher quality gearing or belts). If you don't need Digital Ice (I need it for volume commercial scans so I will keep the 4990 running for that purpose) and you want to print exhibition quality 16x20 I think this scanner is worth the extra expense over an Epson 4990. These are very personal judgements of course.

    A friend of mine just bought the new Imacon 949...................
    Thanks,
    Kirk

    at age 73:
    "The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
    But I have promises to keep,
    And miles to go before I sleep,
    And miles to go before I sleep"

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Knoxville, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,789

    Update - microtek 1800f vs. epson 4990

    Thank you Kirk for a very nice and informative post. BTW, I haven't noticed any bow to the 4x5 carrier on my 1800f.

    Steve

  3. #3

    Update - microtek 1800f vs. epson 4990

    Thanks, Kirk, for sharing your results.

    Could you write a bit more about noise levels? I've got just the 1800f, with nothing but some Imacon scans done by the local Imacon folks to compare to.

    This means I've spent a lot of time trying to find ways to eke better performance out of th 1800f. One of the things I've noticed is that I see pretty dramatic improvements in noise if I do multisampling (at a big cost in time).

    Have you done this comparison (single sample scanning versus, say, 8x sampling in Silverfast) to see what sort of noise reduction you get?

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Posts
    2,428

    Update - microtek 1800f vs. epson 4990

    What are you doing with sharpening to make the comparison? You once mentioned that you thought the Imacon was still sharpening when you turned sharpening off. I have since seen a technical post somewhere about their needing a special negative setting to tell the machine to really turn off sharpening. Does a little usm to the 1800 wipe out the difference?

  5. #5

    Update - microtek 1800f vs. epson 4990

    Kirk,

    Your comments coincide with the results that we have found in the tests we ran for the article back in the june/July issue. The Imacon especially had a high noise floor that suprised me, because If I recall correctly, it appeared to be worse than the consumer Epson and Microtek scanners.

    As we discussed privately, I suspect the multisampling will probably only be of benefit for chromes with this scanner, as it's noise floor and DMAX capabilities are both very good on it's own, and well above the normal B&W negative range.

    I don't want to encourage any GAS here, but the new i800 from Microtek is available, and my initial impression of it is that it has the absolute best negative carrier that any LF flatbed scanner has ever had. It has some little cams in the carrier mechanism that stretch the negative tight when it is locked into position. I can't speak for performance, but I suspect that it will be at least the equal of the i900 and the 4990. If that's the case, it will be a real nice scanner...

    Ted and I discussed whether the carrier from the i800 could be used in the 1800f because it was that nice.

    ---Michael

  6. #6
    Kirk Gittings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Albuquerque, Nuevo Mexico
    Posts
    9,864

    Update - microtek 1800f vs. epson 4990

    Paul,

    I find very very little noise in the 1800f compared to the 4990 or 848. So mutlisampling has very little effect compared to the noise reduction in the 4990. The 4990 achieves its dmax by interpolation and inherently creates allot of noise and multisampling (8X seems optimum with a dummy scan first to warm up the negative) can have a major effect there. If I go and create allot of shadow noise in the 1800F by applying a very steep curve in the scanner software, the multisampling does some reduction, but technically that appears to be a horse of a different color and it seems less effective in that circumstance with the 1800F.

    Ed,

    I only have access to the Imacon 848 in the summers so I can't play with it at all right now. I do know this (as I am very proficient with Silverfast), that I am applying no sharpening with the 1800F and it is still in the ball park of the Imacon, what ever the Imacon is really doing. Let me say this, Imacons need regular maintenace to opperate effectively and focus critically. Allot of complaints about Imacons are due to poor maintenance. At the School of the Art Institute of Chicago, where I teach in the summers, they do regular maintenance, and the 848 I use is not one of the machines that is heavily used by all the students. It is fairly new, well maintained, and should represent them well.

    With the Imacon I found that it was sharpest scanning in grayscale unlike most other scanners I have tested.

    Michael,

    Thanks for the feedback. Maybe you guys could bring one of those holders to the VC conference. I would like to check it out.
    Thanks,
    Kirk

    at age 73:
    "The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
    But I have promises to keep,
    And miles to go before I sleep,
    And miles to go before I sleep"

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    St. Simons Island, Georgia
    Posts
    879

    Update - microtek 1800f vs. epson 4990

    FWIW, Clyde Butcher says he uses the 1800f and that he likes it very much. I've seen his latest prints and think they are better than his silver prints were.

    juan

  8. #8
    tim atherton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1998
    Posts
    3,697

    Update - microtek 1800f vs. epson 4990

    The Imacon Flexcolor software does a number of things to the data, including sharpening.

    True zero for the Unsharp Mask in the settings is actually –60 for example (so if you set it to O it is still sharpening.

    And to sharpen, it "automatically converts the RGB colourspace to a LAB equivalent space then sharpens the Lightness channel then converts back to RGB". which you can also prevent by tweakign the settigns

    There are a number of tips and hints here (mainy undocumented inthe manual):

    http://home.ripway.com/2005-10/480178/Flexcolor4softwaretips.doc

    But there is quite a bit going on with the software, which may (or may not..) account for the noise Kirk sees.
    You'd be amazed how small the demand is for pictures of trees... - Fred Astaire to Audrey Hepburn

    www.photo-muse.blogspot.com blog

  9. #9
    Kirk Gittings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Albuquerque, Nuevo Mexico
    Posts
    9,864

    Update - microtek 1800f vs. epson 4990

    Juan,

    " Clyde Butcher says he uses the 1800f and that he likes it very much. I've seen his latest prints and think they are better than his silver prints were."

    A couple of things interest me here. How large is he printing the ink prints from the 1800F and in what way would you say his ink prints are better?
    Thanks,
    Kirk

    at age 73:
    "The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
    But I have promises to keep,
    And miles to go before I sleep,
    And miles to go before I sleep"

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    St. Simons Island, Georgia
    Posts
    879

    Update - microtek 1800f vs. epson 4990

    The Clyde Butcher prints I've seen are along the lines of 16x20 - 20x24 or so - I didn't measure them. They are not the huge, wall sized prints that he has made in the past.

    I think he gets better control of the highlights with ink than he does in his silver printing. The shadows are still frequently empty, but they don't bother me so much - perhaps he burns them in Photoshop (I got the impression from our conversation that he uses the burn and dodge tools and doesn't do much with levels and curves). The highlights have some tone in them that the silver prints lack. I shoot in Florida, too, and know that in the swamp there can be a very high SBR. Clyde says he just decides what he wants on Zone V, takes a meter reading and shoots without worrying about the shadows and highlights (TMax-100). He doesn't seem to make any attempt to scale his negatives to paper BTZS style. Perhaps the scanner is able to handle his negatives better than paper does.

    Up close, the prints seem as sharp and detailed as his silver prints. I didn't notice anything I would consider a noise problem. I was impressed with the range of tones (I usually print on Azo) and I thought the print color was good. He was not very clear about just what ink he uses. I came away with the impression that he has a technical expert he relies on for equipment recommendations, and that he just uses what is recommended without paying a lot of attention to specifics.

    juan

Similar Threads

  1. Microtek 1800f
    By Kirk Gittings in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 30-Dec-2005, 19:08
  2. which scanner - microtek 1800f or epson 4990
    By robc in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 31-Oct-2005, 09:15
  3. Microtek 900 or Epson 4990 or Microtek 1800
    By Ron Marshall in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 3-Apr-2005, 11:37
  4. Epson 4990 or Microtek i900?
    By paul stimac in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 14-Mar-2005, 17:50

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •