Microtek M1 Scanner

[harrykauf]

>
(Unless money is not an object, in which case you should find someone you trust to do the scans, and see if you can work out a bulk deal to get through those first few hundred sheets. There are good deals to be had in India I am told.)

People really send their negatives to India to get scanned? wow...

[coops]

> Am I missing something?

No, not at all. I was asking, and I got some good responses. Thanks

[Jay Thirsty]

I found the source for what I had read about the M1 having Digital ICE:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1161706453.html

"Parker said the company was working with Kodak to develop the film version of Digital ICE. Microtek partnered with ASF (subsequently bought by Kodak) to develop the reflective version of Digital ICE, using opposing lamps to map defects in the surface of a print. The film version will use infrared LEDs focused on a different plane to do the same thing but it's still in development."

I was intrigued by not having to scan film through the glass, and by the possibility that they might offer better film holders and/or software than the Epsons, but if they have still failed to include ICE then I'm not going to buy one.

[Gene McCluney]

I was intrigued by not having to scan film through the glass, and by the possibility that they might offer better film holders and/or software than the Epsons, but if they have still failed to include ICE then I'm not going to buy one.

I have been scanning for years, I have 4 scanners, I never use Digital Ice. If your process your own film, and handle it carefully, there is only a minimum of spotting to do on the scan. "Ice" only works with color film anyway.

The Microtek Artixscan style of flatbed scanners (of which the M-1 is the newest version) does have advantages over the Epson style. It has a sliding drawer with glassless film inserts just for film, and a glass plate for odd sizes, and 8x10. Consider a 2x enlargement from 8x10 negative is 16x20. In other words scan an 8x10 negative at 600 ppi and you get a 16x20 print at 300 dpi.

On an Epson style flatbed, you are always scanning thru glass. On the Microtek, you only scan thru glass for film larger than 4x5. The glass insert on the Microtek is user friendly, it comes out and you can easily clean each side.

[Kirk Gittings]

On an Epson style flatbed, you are always scanning thru glass. On the Microtek, you only scan thru glass for film larger than 4x5.

In the real world I'm not sure that this really means very much. For along time I owned both the 750 and 1800f and tested them extensively. The 1800f had a very very slight resolution advantage over the 750, but this was probably more to do with the superior sensor array in the 1800f, rather than the glassless scanning. Microtek's most expensive prepress flatbed scanners scan through the glass.

[Ted Harris]

Microtek's most expensive prepress flatbed scanners scan through the glass.

As do all of the other high-end flatbed scanners. I agree with Kirk that it is likely more a factor of the larger sensor in the 1800f.

As for ICE, I also agree with the latter comments regarding its use. It works by softening the image ... do you really want that on a scan from a prosumer scanner? I have experimented with ICE enough to know how to use it and never do when using scanners that have it available. I'd rather do the necessary spotting in PS and get the sharpest scan possible to start my workflow.

[Kirk Gittings]

Here is one place I will disagree with Ted. Not all ICE is created equal and it's improving. It is somewhat algorithm dependent as some software runs it better than others with less detail loss. ICE has its place. I did some testing about a year and a half ago. I found SF on the quality setting outperformed both the Epson software, Vuescan (either setting) and the Nikon software for the 8000 in terms of dust removal and minimal loss of fine detail. But it takes much longer, which means it is doing some serious number crunching. These ratings may have change with new software releases.

What do I use it for? Virtually all scans that do not have a large final product or are my art pieces. Hence I use it for web images, proofs for clients, mock ups, magazine work all the time (particularly stock sales from old transparencies which have seen heavy use and are showing some wear). It is not perfect, but It is a real time saver on less than top notch critical work.

[Stefan]

Hi Ted!
I would love to take part of one or several of your test scans mad with the Microtek M1
Can you put some on the web so that I can download them?

I use a free online storage [ http://www.4shared.com/ ] for storing large down-loadable files for my Canon 8800F review it allows you to upload 100mb large files for sharing!
That would be sufficient to store a 24bit tiff file

Regards/ Stefan

[pango]

What about those fancy film holders? Microtek claims that these film holder would stretch the film for flatness. Any observations?

[Rob Landry]

So Ted, now that you've had a few days with the M1, have you had a chance to do any further testing?