For anyone interested, there is a new M1 review posted at Nature Photographers. It is a very well done review.
http://www.naturephotographers.net/a.../gt0308-1.html
For anyone interested, there is a new M1 review posted at Nature Photographers. It is a very well done review.
http://www.naturephotographers.net/a.../gt0308-1.html
Harley
Thank you very much for your hint .
I have just upgraded SILVERFAST AI to 6.5.5r4b , which is the newest level .
I am working with ARTIXSCAN F1 .
Jürgen
Jürgen,
How are you finding your F1? Almost nothing has appeared on the internet so far about it - particularly the differences between the F1 and M1. What sort of results are you getting?
Thanks
Gareth
Gareth
You have been posting here :
http://www.hasselbladinfo.com/forum/...ad.php?p=26571
I can not report anything new , but can tell you , the results are very good .
In the meantime , I have upgraded to the newest software level for SILVERFAST Ai .
why is the dum scanner at 2000dpi sharper than the M1 at 2000dpi? does this mean that the M1's optical resolution is lower than 2000dpi?
There are wide variations in "sharpness" across scanners all scanning at 2000 dpi (more approriately spi or samples per inch). The reasons and factors are way too detailed for one post but you will find many threads on the subject. Briefly quality of the optics is a biggie, how the optics focus, how the light is projected and the accuracy of the mechanics are all key factors.
Add to that the fact that resolution is only one of the important factors in a good scan. Tonal range, Dmax and color fringing are also very important.
Thanks! At least one user worked his way through the teething problems and came out the other side happy.
Wayne
Deep in the darkest heart of the North Carolina rainforest.
Wayne's Blog
FlickrMyBookFaceTwitSpacei
Just an aside, I love the way the Artixscan website - http://www.artixscanm1.com - is full of exciting and useful information. Hints on how to use, information on the latest software issues, how to get the best out of your machine, in depth information. It great to see the site so enthusiastically updated every day with new and impressive scans. I can hardly wait to read it each evening.
Well,...
Deep subject...
I read just about every review I could get ahold of on the M1/ M1 Pro.
I'm wanting to believe the flat-bed technology and format flexibility is good enough to outweigh the purchase of a scanner like the Nikon Coolscan 9000.
Not so easy a thing this gadget...
My impression is everyone has a different angle and method by which to judge the performance and also how to make comparisons. The Whitespider.org review by Mendes was especially helpful. This user appears to be able to use the software and hardware at a very high degree of performance. Scans at 48 bit, HDR were pretty darned good from what I could tell.
Conversely, it's confuses me when you get information as posted on the scanner collaborative (link in the forums). I'll caveat that comment by admitting I'm glad someone is doing the comparisons and expanding the infomation base.
Sure there are a bunch of comparisons for a bunch of different scanners. But, if you examine all of the photos you will find inconsistencies within the results for a given scanner. Example the M1.
Concerning the collaborative scanner comparison...
The effort is good, and the method of setting the playing field at 2000 dpi probably appears logical?
However, I'd argue that it's not what it appears to be. First off, I'm not sure we have enough information or insight into how the images were scanned/ pre-processed. The best result, however obtained, before post-processing is a valid use case for comparison. It represents the entitlement. Multi-sampled, 8 bit, 48 bit, HDR, whatever the case... Most people don't know what really happens inside the box. We tend to think we are getting RAW information, but the truth is... there is strategy inside. It's not a linear formula for perfomance. Some scanners are not optimized at lower resolution and some scanners actually appear sharper at lower resolution.
Hopefully, in the near future, someone that does frequent hardware reviews and analysis will be able to go head to head with the top film flat-beds and the mainstream dedicated multi-format film scanners. And hopefully they will have the latest versions of software so that the bugs don't hang up the review process and make the hardware appear ineffetcive.
If you build it, they will come.
Rugenius,
Interests here are in scanners that handle LF film, that is 4x5 and up. None of the multiformat dedicated film scanners for under $12K handle anything larger than MF. For medium format the dedicated film scanners do an excellent job. OTOH, the performance of the consumer flatbeds falls off sharply when scanning film smaller than 4x5. Unless you are considering a 12K or higher investment then there is no single scanner that can meet all needs for all films.
Once you get into the high end flatbeds and drum scanners in the $12K to $100K range the performance is dramatically better than the consumer scanners, both dedicated film and flatbed. Having said that, the differences are subtle unless you are printing larger than 11x14 from 4x5 and proportionally smaller from smaller film sizes.
Bookmarks