Should I get a Microtek 1800f?

[Harley Goldman]

I have gotten some very nice 16x20's from my 4870 from 4x5 trannies. Some images work at that size, some are still decent, but don't work quite as well. I think in general, you will be happy with the results from 8x10 film. For those few tougher images, take the dough you would have spent on the 1800f and get a drum scan. Another take on it, anyway.

[Chris Strobel]

I guess I'll give the 4990 a shot.It is still factory sealed so thats why I've been hesitant to crack it open thinking it would bring a little more with Jim at Midwest or others.I guess
if worse comes to worse I could give the 4990 back to my wife to use for document scanning and get the 1800f.I've really wanted a 4800 printer and thats what I've been saving for, but now the guys at my local Calumet are saying I might want to wait and check out the new Canon printer coming this fall.Man all this technology just makes your head spin.I miss the darkroom in a way.Thanks Ted and Brian

Chris

[Ted Harris]

With due respect for theguy at Calumet if you keep waiting for the next new tchnology then you will wait forever. With respect specifically to the new generation of wide format Canon printer their performance appears to be very nice but they are also very limited. It is extremely unclear whether or not they will get much in the way of support (RIPs, paper profile, etc.). If i wanted a new printer now or inthe next few months I'd buy an Epson 4800/7800/9800 ... two years from now it may be a different story.

[Chris Strobel]

Actually I'm VERY pleased with the prints I get with my old Epson 1160 and MIS Eboni cart in BO mode.I just want to go wider.When I told the guy at Calumet what I was using He pretty much put me down telling me how much better my prints would look with K3 inks.Well I brought a file file down there, some paper, and had him run off a couple prints.They had the Colorbyte RIP program loaded and He did a couple prints for me.They came out nice, but not better than what I've printed, just different.I definately take them down there with a grain of salt.I do think I'll stick with Epson wide format for my next printer.Thanks again Ted

b

With due respect for theguy at Calumet if you keep waiting for the next new tchnology then you will wait forever. With respect specifically to the new generation of wide format Canon printer their performance appears to be very nice but they are also very limited. It is extremely unclear whether or not they will get much in the way of support (RIPs, paper profile, etc.). If i wanted a new printer now or inthe next few months I'd buy an Epson 4800/7800/9800 ... two years from now it may be a different story.

[Lars Åke Vinberg]

The 1800f has a few design flaws that you will only notice with 8x10. The CCD performs best WRT dynamic range in the middle, so for 4x5 it is much better than for 8x10. With an 8x10 you never get true blacks along the sides of the scan. Also, like all (relatively) cheap scanners it has problems with heat buildup over a long scan. If you scan several 8x10's, or use multisampling to scan an 8x10, then the dynamic range degrades severely towards the end of the scan. This does not seem to be a problem with 4x5, for several reasons: 1. Smaller area means faster scan. 2. Some of the Dmax problem seems to be related to location on the scan bed, so a 4x5 can be positioned away from that area. 3. With 8x10 the internal data buffer is saturated so the scanner has to move the CCD sled back and forth every few seeconds to reposition it correctly. This leads to scan times 3-4x as long as with a more narrow scan area. With 4x5 the scanner scans in one sweep, leading to much quicker scans, thus much less heat buildup which in turn means better Dmax.

I think a good idea for scanning 8x10 on a cheap flatbed is to get an 11x17 scanner and wetmount.

[Chris Strobel]

Well, I decided to keep the 4990, and have since been wet mounting all my 4x5 and 8x10 negs with Scan Science mounting frames/transscan overlays, and Lumina super fluid.I also used their shims to get my focus at the optimum plane.So far have only printed up to 12x16 in size (saving for an Epson 4800) but so far am VERY pleased with the output.Mind blowing to me.I use Epson Scan and am still toying with the Silverfast that came in the box so I haven't done any multi sampling.Scan times are very long, but maybe the fluid helps keep the heat in check?I don't know as I'm still new to this, but again for the size I'm printing I don't know how much better things could get.

The 1800f has a few design flaws that you will only notice with 8x10. The CCD performs best WRT dynamic range in the middle, so for 4x5 it is much better than for 8x10. With an 8x10 you never get true blacks along the sides of the scan. Also, like all (relatively) cheap scanners it has problems with heat buildup over a long scan. If you scan several 8x10's, or use multisampling to scan an 8x10, then the dynamic range degrades severely towards the end of the scan. This does not seem to be a problem with 4x5, for several reasons: 1. Smaller area means faster scan. 2. Some of the Dmax problem seems to be related to location on the scan bed, so a 4x5 can be positioned away from that area. 3. With 8x10 the internal data buffer is saturated so the scanner has to move the CCD sled back and forth every few seeconds to reposition it correctly. This leads to scan times 3-4x as long as with a more narrow scan area. With 4x5 the scanner scans in one sweep, leading to much quicker scans, thus much less heat buildup which in turn means better Dmax.

I think a good idea for scanning 8x10 on a cheap flatbed is to get an 11x17 scanner and wetmount.

[Ted Harris]

Lars, is right on in his comments .... in fact the problemof decreased Dmax and resolution in the 1800f is somewhat less severe than it is with even lower priced scanners. The problem is inherent in the design of scanners that scan n one direction only (a single axis pass) as opposed to the x-y double axis scanning of the high end flatbeds. The 1800f somewhat reduces the problem by using a different sort of array than that used by the i800, i900, 4990 and V series scanners.

The heat issue is addressed with built-in cooling systems in the high end scanners (in fact is even present int he 3K 2500f).

An 11x17 scanner for scanning 8x10 is a good idea but remember that you will pay nearly 3,000 for one of the consumer class 11x17's from Epson or Microtek.

[Rider]

Actually, if I'm not mistaken, a brand new Epson 4990 is $249.

Another considration with 8x10's is that they arae easier to mount on the glass tray of the 1800f han they are on the glass of the 4990. It is a bit of a tight it on the 4990 and just a hair less so on the 1800f. Problem is that the 4990 isn't going to bring you that much although you can probably get a decent rade in on it from Jim at Midwest. If it were me, much as I recommend the 1800f, I'd try what I already have first unless I could get 300 or so for it in trade.

[Bruce Watson]

I need a little swaying here, is the extra 900.00 for the 1800f going to be worth it over what I already have?

Probably not.

I own an Epson 7600. I used to scan 5x4 film on an Epson 2450. It did fine for me up to around 4-5x enlargement. Your 4990 is a couple of generations newer. It should be able to give you very good results in a 2x enlargement. And with an enlargement that small, I really doubt you'll see the difference between the two scanners in real prints.

Try it and see for yourself.

[Ted Harris]

Chris,

I'm going back to your original post where you said you shoot mostly 8x10. If you are shooting mostly 8x10 and not enlarging past 16x20 then the 4990 should do ok for you but there are the issues mentioned above. BTW, 8x10 is a tight fit on the 4990 if that is something else to consider. From a straightforward financial point of view you are not laying out another $900 but rather $900 less whatever you get for the 4990. Have you actually called Jim to see what he will give you for it in trade considering it is basically a new machine?

I really don't think the quality issues here are the driving factor but rather the cost considerations are. I agree with Bruce tht you won't see the difference between the two machines for 2x enlargements but you will if you are going to do 4x enlargements of 4x5's .... Your needs and your pocketbook drive the decision.