Microtek M1 Scanner

[Ted Harris]

Yes, it is a 4x5 tranny and you are looking at the full frame in the first image.

The quick result looks very promising for the M1.

[ad. davies]

Ted,
Thanks for the early test, when you have a chance could you see how it handles 8x10 negatives?

Cheers.

[pango]

2400 is the highest REAL optical reolution for all of the consumer scanners; in fact none of them reach 2400. This one might be more but I won't know until I scan the AIG test target.

Much looking forward to the results. Given the hype I thought the M1 should be closer to film scanners and that would mean sharp at 2400 at least and should be much better than V700/V750.

You know, the pricing policy of Microtek in Europe puts the F1(M1) at TWICE the price tag compared to the Epsons competitors, which have an OK resolution for MF/LF. To make it worthwhile, the resolution should really approach that of film scanners.

[John Brady]

(Quote David Lutman) Probably because the 1800ppi was closer to the real value of approx 2000ppi than the 4800ppi. The real rez of the scanner is probably limited to around 2200 to 2400ppi. The scanner can sample higher, but won't obtain anything further from the film.

Hi David, bear with me because i truly don't have the technical knowledge for this one. (I couldn't even get the quote thing to work right

Microtek is claiming 4800 optical resolution for this machine. They list much higher digital resolution for this machine which I know is useless for us. They claimed considerably less optical res for the 1800f.

I am still trying to understand this one so any help would be appreciated.
Thanks, jb

[Ted Harris]

pango, my guess is that the results will surpass that of the Epson scanners. The first scans seen to indicate that to me but we will see what some more tests tell us. Remember that there is a lot more to the clarity of the scan than just the resolution number.

John, for a detailed discussion you will need to go back to the articles I did for View Camera several years ago. Simply put , there are two key points here: 1) As you know not all pixels are equal and the sensor in the 1800f is a good bit larger than those in all of the consumer scanners on the market today. 2) The resolution race started long before Microtek and Epson were the leaders in the consumer photo scanner wars. It was going on back when UMax was the major player, 6-8 years ago. What happens is they give you theoretical maximum resolution numbers which have absolutely no meaning in the real world. The same is true of the DMax numbers they give us. Real world resolution and DMax are quite different from these theoretical numbers. At the same time they don't even publish number for some other critical specifications.

[John Brady]

John, for a detailed discussion you will need to go back to the articles I did for View Camera several years ago. Simply put , there are two key points here: 1) As you know not all pixels are equal and the sensor in the 1800f is a good bit larger than those in all of the consumer scanners on the market today. 2) The resolution race started long before Microtek and Epson were the leaders in the consumer photo scanner wars. It was going on back when UMax was the major player, 6-8 years ago. What happens is they give you theoretical maximum resolution numbers which have absolutely no meaning in the real world. The same is true of the DMax numbers they give us. Real world resolution and DMax are quite different from these theoretical numbers. At the same time they don't even publish number for some other critical specifications.

Thanks Ted, that helps me get it. I will be very interested in your results. (I am making progress, I got the quote thing right this time)
jb

[celluloidprop]

The standard nomenclature calls an 8x10 a 2x and a 16x20 a 4x when in fact the area of the 16x20 is actually 16 times the area of the 8x10 .... that for another thread at another time.

Thank you for clearing that up, BTW. The various 2x/4x etc. statements were confusing me a little - feared that 2x or 3x meant that quality 8x10s were an iffy proposition from 4x5.

[audioexcels]

Thank you for clearing that up, BTW. The various 2x/4x etc. statements were confusing me a little - feared that 2x or 3x meant that quality 8x10s were an iffy proposition from 4x5.

I didn't understand this either. It sounds like one can do only a 2X for an 8X10 sheet (anything more than 2X and it's not good), whereas with 4X5, one can do a 4X (hopefully with this M1, or we can just call it 3X like Kirk was saying which is the best the Epson can achieve) with a 4X5 sheet and that's the maximum.

Geez...maybe I'm not making sense now

Basically, with 8X10, you do a 3X on Epson by Kirk's valuation of the Epson and this gives a 24X30 print.

You do the same 3X with 4X5 and it's a 12X15 print.

Because the scanner's threshold of resolution-enlarging is a 12X15 print, one can only do a 1.5X on the 8X10=12X15.

I think I'm not getting the point here, though...better explaination?

LOOKING FORWARD TO THE TRUE DPI test on this machine...and side by side comparison's of what one can expect from the Cezanne vs. the M1 would be wonderfully appreciated (i.e. at what print size one is better than the other, at what print size one can even be printed at, etc. etc.).

Cheers!

[Kirk Gittings]

I apologize, I am using a bit of personal shorthand I guess. Here is my point. IMO after having owned 11-13 prosumer flatbeds from Epson 3200 through 750 Pro, Canon 9950f, Microtek 1800f, Nikon 8000, I could never make a 16x20 wet or dry that would make a comparable 16x20 to a drum or pro flatbed scan. I call that 16x20 from a 4x5 the "4X" boundary. But I could do a decent 11x14, which in my shorthand I call a "3X", because it is in between an 8x10 (2X) and 16x20 (4X).

I currently own a Creo Eversmart and an Epson 750. Ted and I will be doing some comparisons which will be posted, but it won't be like tomorrow! Be patient. We've waited like 12 years for this scanner right?

[Gene McCluney]

I can't yet see what this new Microtek M1 scanner offers that I don't have on my Microtek Artixscan 2500f? It sounds like it has very similar resolution, separate trays for various sheet film and roll film sizes, plus a glass plate for up to 8x10, plus a place to scan reflective art. 2 lens systems, one for hi-res on 1/2 the width of the scanner, the other for 1200 dpi over the whole face. The only thing I see, is that this scanner is vastly cheaper to purchase than what I paid for my 2500f.