Any flatbed scanners avail for 8 x 10

[jesskramer]

Can any of the existing flatbed scanners by microtek or epson be used for 8x10 scanning.

My output image size is 24 x 30

[David A. Goldfarb]

The old Agfa Duoscans (Duoscan Solo, T1200, T2400, and Hi-D) handle 8x10" and are fairly cheap on the used market, but require a SCSI interface (also not too expensive to add, if you don't already have one). The Hi-D has the highest Dmax, if you can find one.

[Ken Lee]

The Microtek Artixscan 2500 f (http://www.microtekusa.com/as2500f.html" target="_blank) can scan 8x10 at up to 1250 ppi. I often use mine to proof 4 4x5's at a time, like a contact sheet, at 300 ppi. It saves a lot of time when dealing with negatives.



At 1250 ppi, you should be able to get really excellent quality in a 24x30 print from an 8x10 transparency or negative.



At that size, it scans through the glass, which requires a little more care naturally, to avoid dust, and to make sure the film lies flat. For 4x5 and below, it scans without glass, and holds the images flat in dedicated holders.



I strongly recommend VueScan (http://www.hamrick.com" target="_blank) software, to get the most from the scanner. As I have pointed out many times, the Microtek and SilverFast drivers are strangely limited, with regards to tonal range and resolution, respectively.

[Henry Ambrose]

The Epson 1680 is excellent and a good bit less expensive than the 2500s mentioned above.

[Ken Lee]

Another Microtek is the 1800 f (http://www.microtekusa.com/as1800f.html" target="_blank) which they claim gives 1800 ppi.



I got the 2500 model because they claim it delivers 2500 ppi. I'm not sure about that. I suspect it gets somewhere around 60% of that.



The 1800 probably delivers 1250. Just a guess, of course. But as I mentioned, for 8x10, that's enough to get you the print size you are seeking. Just make sure you have a calibrated monitor and a profiled printer/ink/paper combination and you're good to go. Factor that into your cost equation. The final prints should look awesome !

[tim atherton]

and the microtek 1800f which will scan (their figures) at 1800ppi for 8x10

http://www.microtekusa.com/as1800f.html

I've compared it to the similarish Epson 1680 and it seems a much better machine. For a flatbed, very very nice scans from 8x10

[Ted Harris]

Additionally, if you want slightly older and thus less expensive technology, look at the UMax Powerlook Series. Especially the PowerLook III which, if still available, will cost you around 650 with the transparancy lid. For this as for the Microteck scanners you will need a SCSI interface.

[Doug Dolde]

Re the Atrixscan 2500, Microtek says it's a 10,000 pixel CCD. Seems that the 4" wide high resolution strip would then be a true 2500 pixels per inch.

[Brian Ellis]

I scan 8x10 negatives with a Linoscan 1400. They are no longer made but appear on the used market from time to time. Mine cost around $1,000 new, I don't know what the used price is but it must be a lot less.

[Ken Lee]

Doug - thanks for the info, which i s encouraging. I guess I ought to do another test. Last time, I compared a 1250 ppi scan against a 2500ppi scan, and it seemed that when I simply up-sized the 1250 to 2500, the two were virtually indistinguishable. This time I will can try a different negative.



Perhaps this (http://www.kenleegallery.com/KitsBarn.jpg" target="_blank) image and this (http://www.kenleegallery.com/rodenstock150detail.jpg" target="_blank) detail section would make a good test.

[paul stimac]

Microtek has a new one out called the i900. 8x10 trans. bed, 4.2 dmax, 3200 dpi, Sounds like a good scanner but I haven't heard/read any independant reviews or have seen a sample scan.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=318953&is=REG

[Ken Lee]

Thanks for the info. Here is a link (http://www.microtek.nl/Product.php?ThisPage=&Product=Detail&P_Id=107" target="_blank) to the description on Microtek's own site. If it's a nice improvement, and really gives 3200 ppi, I might consider getting one. It probably gives 2/3 of that number, but who knows..

[Joerg Krusche]

8x10 full format can be scanned with up to 3200 ppi ? File size would then be around a little over 2 GB, ... very impressive .. but how to handle ?

Joerg

[evan clarke]

HI, I recently bought the Artixscan 1800f and find it to be terrific with my 8x10s. I have the Epson 4870 and when scanning 4x5 and medium format, the 1800 beats the Epson. Much better detail especially in shadows ...Evan

[Ken Lee]

Evan - May I ask: which software do you use to drive the 1800 ? Thanks !

[Jim Galli]

Epson 1640 XL has 11X17 transparency capacity. Below is a scan of an 8X10 at 360 dpi which yeilds a 29mb file. 1600 would yeild 574 mb. 720 would be 116mb etc. downsizing to web sized .jpg is a challenge but even at the 29mb size the print would be full of detail.

[jesskramer]

Evan,

Are you putting the 8x10 media in the glass carrier??

Please expand on how you use this scanner for your workflow

Thanks, Jesse

[evan clarke]

Hi Jesse and Ken, I am scanning with Silverfast AI on all my scanners. I scan in 48 bit HDR color or in 16 bit grayscale to a file and then open the image in Silverfast HDR. HDR is faster than AI and you preserve a raw image to use over and over for different manipulations or corrections. I am using the glass carrier with some little strips which are furnished with the scanner. I have seen no Newton Ring problems. I shoot a Canon 1Ds for a digital and the images are really good. The 4x5 and 8x10 images from this scanner are exceptional, blowing the output from the Canon completely away. The 8x10 scans are completely remarkable in the small detail they show. The scanner is a large, professional unit and comes with all the scanning and color profiling software you should need. A Kodak 4x5 transparency for the IT8 in Silverfast is included ( these are expensive to buy). I am unable to have a wet darkroom at home right now and this scanner has made my 8x10 a practical endeavor..Evan

[Doug Dolde]

Has anyone tried wet mounting 8x10 or 4x5 on an Artixcan glass ? Seems like Kami drum scanner mounting fluid would work if you placed another piece of glass on top (fluid on both sides of the film). Kami evaporates leaving no residue.

[David A. Goldfarb]

I've used two sheets of glass on my Duoscan. The results are impressively sharp--much better than with the glassless filmholders--but I've had problems with Newton's rings, and I haven't had a chance to order an appropriately sized sheet of anti-newton glass for the tray. The Kami fluid sounds like a good idea.

[Steve Hoffmann]

I had a demo of the Microtek 2500 and 1800f last week. The opening in the 4X5 holder for the 2500f was so large that Velvia from Quickloads would fall through it. The 1800 they brought out to demo was defective and produced posterized looking blocky areas in the shadows. I'd appreciate a little feedback from 1800f owners. Does this scanner produce clean shadow areas without multi-sample scanning? Does the film holder work with film from Quickloads without having to tape them in place? - Thanks!

[evan clarke]

My 1800f does a good job with the shadows, I use it over my 4870 for everything. The scan times are also reasonably fast compared to the 4870. All the 4x5s I have scanned have been Fuji Quickloads, Acros and Provia, the holder seems just fine and holds them very flat. I have considered using fluid mount on this scanner because the glass holder is removable and could be cleaned without doing any damage to the scanner. I would be afraid to try fluid on a normal flatbed glass. As I said in the above post, I have seen no Newton ring problems and the film lays quite flat with the non adhesive mounting strips provided...Evan

[Jeff_1630]

What do you want to spend?

You can get refurbished umax powerlook 1000 for $269 (email umax outlet store on ebay). You can buy Linotype Jade 2 from MPG for $200. You can find old UMAX's on eBay for anywhere between $100 and 350. I just bought a UMAX mirage II tabloid size for $245 (11x14 scan area, 700dpi full bed, 1400 down the middle 6 inches).

I'll post some samples when I get the scanner set up.

[Ken Lee]

"Re the Atrixscan 2500, Microtek says it's a 10,000 pixel CCD. Seems that the 4" wide high resolution strip would then be a true 2500 pixels per inch."



Doug, You are right !

I re-did my old test, comparing 1250 to 2500 ppi, and there is a pretty noticeable difference. See www.kenleegallery.com/scantest.htm (http://www.kenleegallery.com/scantest.htm" target="_blank) Once you add some sharpening, the difference is fairly substantial.



Thanks again !

[Doug Dolde]

The detail is certainly there for such a small crop. Ken did you have the same problem with your 4x5 film falling through the film holder?

[Steve Hoffmann]

This seems to be an issue with the Microtek 2500f and 4X5 from Quickloads only. Seems they are about 1/8 shorter than actual cut sheet film. I got this report from another 2500f user.

[Ken Lee]

No problem with ordinary 4x5 sheets. I only wish that the holders didn't perform a little cropping of the image. They cut just a hair off.

Nevertheless, it's nice to be able to scan without any intervening glass to clean, scratch, or otherwise worry over.

[Barrie Smith]

I have the Agfa T-2500 and have used it to scan both B&W and chrome 8X10s. The scans are certainly good enough to print 40 or 50 inch prints on my Roland printer, but I often encounter Newton Rings.

Until this grouping of posts I had not thought of replacing the glass in the carrier with anti-Newton glass, nor had I considered placing glass on the top of the material. I've been taping the negs or chromes down.

Has anyone here replaced the glass in the carrier? Would you like to share details?

TIA, Barrie Smith Missoula, Montana