Thought you might find this interesting:
http://www.hasselbladinfo.com/cgi-bi...w.cgi?10/38651
Thought you might find this interesting:
http://www.hasselbladinfo.com/cgi-bi...w.cgi?10/38651
Coops, thanks for that link. The scans sure look close to the 848. The histogram on the M1 is quite a bit flatter though. Not sure what that means...less contrast?
After reading the interesting discussion in Hasselbladinfo, I will have to revise my statement!Originally Posted by Maretzo
F1 vs M1
About the difference in price, I find many sources saying the F1 has ICE while the M1 does not. E.g. in the thread suggested by 'coops' above, you will find the statement "...Digital ICE is a purely hardware function of a scanner . The ARTIXSCAN F1 has that function . It must be activated in the scanner software ..."
Lino
There is some eroneous information in that linked thread:Digital ICE is a purely hardware function of a scanner
Ice has a hardware and software component. This is a Kodak technology patent licensed to manufacturers and software companies. That is why you get better results with some software than others, Silverfast in particular.
Also the thing about the 848 and the FI have the same optical resolution, but the FI "needs more sharpening"??????? What does that say? At least per those scans, the F1 needs more sharpening because it doesn't resolve as well as the Imacon. But whether either the Imacon or the F1 scans are optimum is another question and what was the actual sharpening setting on the Imacon? Who knows.
I guess my point is, that unless you have money to burn, I would wait for some better tests. I have wasted allot of money on flatbeds myself. Ted and I will be doing a comparison with the Epson 750 soon.
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"
His alignment or the auto-alignment does not look good on that F1. Sharpening...Flatbeds can take tons of sharpening whereas the Imacon will get grainy when you start sharpening it. Take a scan with the 750 and use no sharpening and compare it to one that has been sharpened as much as it can be. Take a look at Vincent's review on the 750 and how much sharpening it took to start to compare to the Nikon 9000..when the Nikon 9000 used sharpening, it became grainy and ugly. That's no different than what the Imacon will do.
IMHO...person doesn't know how to operate that F1 and I don't think auto-alignment is working as those scans do not look sharp by comparison to even old Epson machine scans I have seen.
A 750 will take a ton of sharpening, but it also needs a ton of sharpening, I don't think that is a good thing. A 750 won't resolve grain any where close to an Imacon, so the sharpening won't accentuate the grain in a 750. You just get a king of grain clumping with oversharpening. The 9000 is a different question, it is widely believed that that there may be some sharpening hidden in the 9000 processing workflow, which is the kind of thing that Vincent's test don't account for. I am not a big fan of Vincents tests. I have never found his glowing results for Epsons repeatable after years of testing and using them.
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"
I am finding the marketing of this scanner very confusing. The M1 comes in two versions, the Pro and the standard. The main difference between the two is that the M1 Pro has Silverfast AI studio software. Am I right so far? If so, both versions are not specified on the US Microtek website.
The F1 comes in only one version, the plain F1, there does not appear to be a F1 Pro. Is that right? On the European website it specifies that the F1 has Digital Ice, and my local retailer garantees that the F1 has Digital Ice. But there is a suggestion that the M1, Pro or standard, does not have Digital Ice. Can someone clear this up?
Why does not Microtek give exact specfications on their websites, of the M1, the M1 Pro, the F1, and the F1 Pro if it exists? Then I would know exactly what I am buying.
If the M1 does in fact have Digital Ice, and the F1 is not bundled with Silverfast AI, then that makes the F1 exactly equivalent to the standard M1, which in the States sells for about $650US, whereas the F1, sells for around $1450US anywhere else in the world. This price disparity is just ridiculous.
Well considering that the scans in that link are bot at 1600ppi, it looks like either there was a focus error, or the Microtek is not very good. I'll wait for Ted to get the 35mm scans done before I decide yes or no, and it will be interesting to see the comparison that Ted and Kirk are going to do with the Epson.
I have just spent some time on the internet researching the Microtek M1/F1, and I have answered some of my questions? There appears to be an F1 Pro, which is equivalent to the M1 Pro which is only logical and obvious, but this is not stated anywhere on Microtek websites, only by retailers. So I presume the F1 is exactly the same as the M1, but I would like to see Microtek confirm this.
But the one question I would like answered is about Digital Ice. When I look at any specification for the M1 the words Digital Ice are never mentioned as far as I can see. When I look at F1 specifications they state it is 'powered by Digital Ice Photo technology', whatever that means. Anyone else care to speculate what these words actually mean and if the M1 also has Digital Ice?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks