Microtek M1 user experiences

[Steven Hays]

I used it for a contract I have and the scans were good but no where as good as scans I have done on with a Howtek 4000 drum scanner. If sharpening is done carefully in photoshop then the images look pretty good. I have been thinking that I am just not getting all the detail I could from my 5x7 negs. If it is all you have money for then it is a decent scanner.
I will likely be selling mine though since I just lucked out and found an Aztek 8000 drum scanner for $800 plus they threw in a Linotype Hell flatbed for free!

[rugenius]

I just started using the M1 Pro on some MF samples.
Calibration was incredibly easy.
Files in 48bit HDR are HUGE.

Consider film, not line art or text...
If a person could agree that the difference between 600 dpi and 1200 dpi film enlargement/ printing on a decent printer (Example HP Z3100) was unrecognizable then you should be able to get robust enlargements (using the M1) of 4 x 5 film by a factor of 4(x) easily. Having said that,... you really need to ask if 600 dpi is necessary either. I won't argue as to who needs > 300 dpi anymore,... but it's been an industry standard for photographic reproduction in fine books for a while now.
Check out what you have in the cabinet with a measuring loupe.
Enough mentioned on the 300/600 dpi saga...

A number of people that have tested the M1 have said that it's extinquishing optical resolution can decern line pairs at approx 2400 dpi although the sensor is arranged to collect at 4800 dpi.
Let's assume 2400 dpi, or approx 0.00042"/ approx 10.6 um.
Kodak + Nyquists says the resolving power of Kodachrome is about 31.7 um.
In theory, 2400 dpi is subsampling the film resolution to begin with.
Good, so at least you are sampling the film at > 2x perhaps...
If you desire to enlarge MF to greater than 4(x) you are probably entering the compromise zone assuming all the reports on optical res for the M1 are correct.
However, if you can live with 300 dpi output you can basically look at reproductions as large as 16" from 2" format.
You have to be the one to decide how it looks...

More importantly, and seldom discussed, is the hardware used to perform the printing.
As an example look at the 600 dpi to 600 dpi comparison at this site:
http://www.dpandi.com/newsreviews/reviews/z3100jd2/

Bottom line?
It's never a simple decision when cost is considered!
Sometimes the old saying applies, "you can't afford not to afford it"...
In my position, for the intended purpose, cost is considered.
When more exacting reproduction is required we will drum scan or do the Ansel Adams thing.
Dodge and burn.

[Andrew ren]

a question for folks here,
when you mentioned 4x, ok.. as rugenius just said: "you should be able to get robust enlargements (using the M1) of 4 x 5 film by a factor of 4(x) easily.".
what this 4x mean? for example: a 5x7 neg, what will be a 4x enlarging? 20x28; or 10x14. that confused me, as 10x14 is 4x of 5x7 squarewise.

Andrew

[Colin Graham]

It's my understanding that 4x is 4 times each dimension rather than the area. 5x7= 20x28, but then I've been having dyslexic tendencies lately. Hopefully someone will jump on me with both feet if I'm wrong.

[David A. Goldfarb]

Normally in the context of photography, magnification is given in terms of linear dimensions, not area, so a 4x enlargment of a 4x5" neg is 16x20".

As to what someone meant in their post in this thread, you'll have to ask them.

[rugenius]

That is entirely correct.
The lineal dimension is in question, not the density. This is commensurate with digital sensor technology (EX CCD) as 2K x 2K = 4 MP, hence 2x geometric improvement in electron well dimension yields 16 MP.
Example: The M1 scanner has a sensor arranged at 4800 wells per inch, thus 4800 DPI in terms of units for sensors. Ignoring transmission, aberration, magnification factors, and any proprietary manipulation you have a sensor component every 1/4800 inches wide that collects light. Since a human cannot generally distinguish any differences in resolution beyond 600 pixels per inch resolution, the rule of 4X lineal mag factor applied to 600 PPI/DPI into 4800 PPI/DPI yields 4X. The reality is that there is a lot of fudge factor to achieve these specifications. And, as My wife and I have mentioned, it requires a critical eye to discern 300 to 600 DOTS per inch print. The only requirement for absolute critical resolution beyond 600 DOTS per inch print is for line art, type, etc,...
Long winded as usual...
Hope I have been helpful
Bill

[Andrew ren]

Finally setup my M1. did a test with both SF plus and ScanWizard Pro last night.
problem comes with ScanWizard Pro: I didn't get any image from prescan, I did overview, nothing came up in the preview window, just black, then prescaned it, still black, but I noticed there is a tiny tainy thumbnail thing on the cue-job window? other than that, no preview image. I uninstalled the software, downloaded from the M1 website, reinstalled it. still the same junk.

(I put a black mask (8 x 11) with a pre-cut 5x7 window on the glass holder. for 5x7 100tmx.)

things went fine with SF se+.

any suggestions?

Cheers

Andrew

[BarryS]

You can try uninstalling ScanWizard Pro and reinstalling under Windows safe mode. That resolved the same issue for me. However, if you've got the full version of Silverfast AI--it's far superior to ScanWizard Pro. If you don't have the full version, I'd say the upgrade is worth it--primarily because I'm able to get better quality scans with SF AI.

[Andrew ren]

Thanks BarryS.

Just did some research, seems like an upgrade from SE plus to the Ai studio through silverfast's website is waaay more expensive($400?) than the difference between the M1 and the M1 Pro($150?), the reason I didn't get the M1 pro is that I think the idea of extra set of holder is just useless for me...

Andrew

[BarryS]

Andrew-- I'm not sure what the differences are between SE Plus and Ai Studio, but maybe SE Plus will be just fine. You may not be able to use a 16-bit workflow, but that may not make a big difference for you. You might also like ScanWizard Pro more than I do. Once it's correctly installed (way harder than it should be), it works fine, although the scans were a little noisier than my AI scans. Nothing major, but it was noticeable to me.