Microtek Scanmaker i900 Review

[Jeffrey Zweig]

Hi Everyone,

I've gotten quite a few emails inquiring about the i900 and how I like it so I've decided to post the review of the scanner that I submitted to Amazon to hopefully answer some questions on it! I am somewhat biased as I've had a history of great products with Microtek but I try to be independent in my reasoning on why I like it!

Sandra

-------

I've been waiting for this scanner for months and months but it has been worth the wait. I had it on pre-order and have finally got the opportunity to get it. I was eyeing the Microtek 6800 for quite some time but decided to hold out for a legal sized scanner that also had positive and negative capabilities. I was also impressed with the price point of $599 MSRP. I was expecting it to push $799 or more based on the speculated features but was pleasantly surprised when the vendor told me.

With that being said I received the scanner yesterday and immediately torn into it. I am impressed with the physical construction of the unit. The scanner has metal railings inside and is quite solid. Nothing appears cheap or thrown together and I appreciate knowing that its not just plastic that was formed together last week. The scanner is both firewire and USB 2.0 so I chose to hook it up via firewire as most of my USB ports were tied up with PDA, Printer, Mouse/Keyboard, Smart Card Reader, etc. Installed the ScanWizard Pro software, restarted the computer and turned on the scanner. Windows XP picked it up and I was able to do a Scanner Test to verify it was working within a few seconds.

Once the scanner was up and running I launched Photoshop CS and then ScanWizard Pro through the File menu. Once it was up I imported my ICM profiles for my monitor and printer. This allows for accurate color reproduction but is not necessary depending on what you are doing with the output. I was very impressed with the time it takes to actually scan. About 10 seconds or less for a preview.

As for the actual scans I was pleasantly surprised. I have a dedicated slide scanner but it doesn't do large format items. I bought a piece of anti-newton ring glass and used it to flatten my items between the 8x10 glass plate that is included. This insures that the image is completely flat while maintaining the benefits of the i900's glassless positive and negative scanning. Scanning at a modest 1200 PPI I was surprised at the quality that I got. Reflective scans of course came out even better. I for one am very impressed with the optics of this unit.

As for the main feature, Digital ICE I can honestly say that this too is superb. I've read online how Digital ICE used to take almost half an hour to accomplish, this scanner does it in roughly a fourth of that time. The images that Microtek has online appear close to what I am getting with the i900. It saves me a considerable amount of time inside Photoshop and on the three photos I've tried they required little to no cleanup work beyond Digital ICE.

All in all I'm very pleased with my purchase. This will compliment my Artixscan 4000 quite nicely. I couldn't have asked for more and it delivers on everything it promises!

[Jeffrey Zweig]

Forgot to add this but if you're reading this Raul I wanted to check and see how you're doing with your i900. Sandra and I constantly try different programs such as Silverfast, Vuescan, ScanWizard Pro, etc. on our different scanners to try to see which gives the best possible scans. I forgot to mention that in the email as well.

[Ken Lee]

Jeffrey -

It would be great if you could post some sample scans, or place them somewhere on the web.

[Ken Lee]

Oh - Forget that request.. I just read your comments in "Microtek i900 for scanning 4X5?"

[QT Luong]

My understanding was that ICE is only for reflective, not transparency scanning on the i900, correct ?

[MattO]

Call me a doubting Thomas, but I am VERY skeptical of all these claims about $500 scanners being incredibly wonderful - particularly these DMax numbers and trumped up resolution claims.

3200 , 4800, interpolation that sound like astronomical distances between planetary bodies.. I just don't buy it.

Why are scanners like the Epson 1680 Pro still selling (quite well, as a matter of fact) for $1200 if these econo-wonders are so good?

Meet me in Missouri........

[Todd Caudle]

Yeah, MattO, and I think the moon is made out of cheese, because I haven't been there to see for myself. Why don't you find someone who has one of these lesser machines set up properly and try it out? They're not drum scanners, but they're not 30K, either. They do a remarkable job for the money. Comparatively, they'd be worth it at twice the price. (Shhh, don't tell Epson/Microtek/Canon, et al.!)

[MattO]

Such a witty response! I notice that you poke, but do not say that you have experience of their capabilities, nor that you have ever used one.

Go back to photo.net and troll there.

[Graeme Hird]

Well I had better defend Todd here.

I use the Epson 2450 to scan 5x4 Velvia trannies. The files are resampled down to print at around 30 inches on the long side (though I do have a few that are 35 inches). Prints are from a lightjet printer on Kodak Endura Metallic paper.

I'm very happy with them. My customers are very happy with them - they've managed to buy 330 of them since September last year. They've paid for my scanner 100 times over.

Would you like any more information from a person who uses a cheap scanner regularly?

Cheers, Graeme

[Edward (Halifax,NS)]

How long until I can buy one for $100 on eBay? ;)

[Steve Hamley]

I'll have to defend Todd also. Check out the "Final Thoughts" section of this drum scanner review. There's a comparison to lower-end scanners.

http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/scanners/drum_scans.shtml

Steve

[QT Luong]

The Epson 1680 pro is better build and scans 8x10, which justifies the price. However, it might not produce superior scans for 4x5 compared to the recent consumer-grade Epsons.

[Jeffrey Zweig]

You need to look at the price point of the scanner to truly understand its capabilities. You can buy a 6400 PPI/DPI scanner for $80, offering 2-3X the resolution that a $3k scanner might offer. What then are you getting for so much more? Better features but more importantly better optics. I would have loved to get an Artixscan 2500f but the price is roughly 6X what the i900 is. It's not a perfect scanner by any means but for $500 its the best scanner I've used. By putting it in context you see that you get a product that offers Digital ICE as well as glassless scanning of slides and negatives while offering an affordable price. This is not to be used in pre-press applications but for the home / small business user it works fantastic.

The i900 offers Digital ICE for reflective prints only, but an upcoming product will offer Digital ICE for both positive and negative scanning applications. Hopefully it doesn't take as long to be released as the i900!

I'll try to take some scans with it and post them online as soon as possible! I'll post here when I get them up!

[Martin_4417]

Jeffery --

I'm very interested in your experience and that of others with i900. I had an Epson 3200, which I used for scanning 4x5 transparencies but sold it a few months ago thinking that I would buy the 4870 when it became available. I thought the ICE feature and the stated higher resolution would be useful. I had problems with Newton rings with the 3200 and was a little uncertain that the resolution I was getting was up to the mark. But, since I was making relatively small enlargements from my 4x5s, it seemed satisfactory. I was hoping that the 4870 would resolve both issues, but I'm not so sure now from reading numerous posts, some very positive, some tepid, and few fairly negative. The Microtek glassless tray feature would eliminate the Newton rings issue, but I don't know about the rest. I have seen nearly nothing about this scanner in the media or on the forums I follow. If you or anyone else reading this can shed light on how the i900 performs overall and particularly how it compares with the Epson 4870, I for one would be very interested.

Thanks

[Nature Photo]

OK guys, which are then the 4"x5" scanners capable of digital ICE dust removal from the film? Whether they do dust removal of the reflective image or not is of little use for large format photographers. Thank you

[Graeme Hird]

I can only speak of the Epson 4870 - it does have ICE for trannies. Somebody else can answer for the others.

[Nature Photo]

Thank you, Graeme.
I have scanned hundreds of 35 mm slides on a non-ICE dedicated slide scanner and definitely do not want to clean dust from 4"x5" scans in Photoshop. And why should anyone, if ICE and similar dust/scratch removal technologies are available?

Based on this alone, it seems that the Microtek i900 is out, regardless of how wonderful it otherwise is.

Also, it appears that the least bad option so far is the Epson 4870 (and yes, I know it' s not going to perform like a drum scanner). Graeme, what is your experience with the 4870? Many thanks,

[QT Luong]

ICE on the 4870 is better than nothing, however I was disappointed. (a) I have found it not to be as effective as on my Nikon LS 4000. I need to do much more cleaning by hand. Could be the fact that 5x7 film has 25x the surface of 35mm means it catches 25x more dust. (b) it cannot be used above a certain resolution, or the driver will crash. (c) it requires two passes of scanning and is very slow.

[Graeme Hird]

Nature,

My only experience with the 4870 is reading about it on the net. I own the 2450 and love it, but I keep abreast of the developments so that I'm not lost when the time comes to replace it. I'd follow QTL's recommendations if I were you.

Cheers,

[Nature Photo]

QTL and Graeme:
Thank you both for your replies. I am considering buying a 4"x5" flatbed. Dust removal is a must; the second criterion is to have a "good" image "quality" (allowing for wide ranges of subjective definition/interpretation). Resolution (ie. dpi's) is not as important. Will use Vuescan and PS, so software packages don't matter much .

So far the only two scanners I have found in the under-$800 range are the Epson 4870 and the Canon Canoscan 9900F (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=272446&is=REG).
1. Have I left anything out?
2. How does Canon's FARE compare to Digital ICE?

[Jeffrey Zweig]

Hi Martin,

I just made another post about the anti-newton ring issue but I'll recap...

To solve the newton ring problem and to keep your image completely flat we use a piece of anti-newton ring glass also from Focal Point. The 8x10 piece of glass fits perfectly between the glass tray and the transparency, sandwhiching it between the two. This is helpful because it avoids having to use tape or a chemical spray to keep the transparency perfectly flat.

As for the Digital ICE you need to take everything with a grain of salt. Is it a miracle cure and going to put Adobe out of business? No. Is it a good starting point for working with an image? Yes. I haven't used Digital ICE and its varients on all the brands but from what I have seen some just make the image appear soft or smudged. The 6800 was the first scanner to come out with Digital ICE and did a pretty good job but was extremely slow. The i900 is what I would call the second generation of Digital ICE. Microtek saw what needed to be improved and made substantial changes.

The images look good with Digital ICE but still require touch up, just depending on each image. Just like a car, the 2004 model has a few mre features and gismos then my 1998 model does. I would see if you have any local dealers that you can check it out at and try it for yourself. I know a few users posted a link to some sample images that they scanned with it.

Gary, on this board wrote, "I think for the price ( $800 in Canada ), it's a very good deal, and if anyone is interested , you can check out my website at: http://www.garynylander.com and look under 'New Images' there is a photograph of Spotted Lake that I made recently with my 8 x 10 and scanned in with this scanner, I know its only a website image but at least it will give you an idea of what it can do, also check under 'Techincal Info'."

Hope that helps

Jeffrey Zweig

[Ted Fullerton]

I've been following the i900 comments with interest as I've just started shooting color transparencies again and after a week of trying many techniques, I've to get any decent scans from Velvia with deep shadow areas on my Microtek 5900 (which has worked great from B&W), I'm realizing that I might be buying a new scanner soon.

I do have a couple questions regarding the i900, though:

1. How does one keep the transparency flat with a glassless system. I understand that there are holders, but how does the mechanism of the holder keep the film taut? Is it difficult to set the transparency in the holder without "waves" in the transparency which would affect the sharpness of the scan?

2. I love deep shadows, and expect that 70% of my transparencies will have large deep shadow areas. Specifically to scanning contrasty Velvia, how does the i900 perform? Outside of the numbers and marketing, what has anyone's experience been in pulling detail from shadow with the i900. My purpose would be primarily for creating images for posting on the web, but would like to be able to proof-print as well.

Thanks,

-Ted Fullerton

[Gary Nylander]

Hi Ted,

I am an owner of the i900 but using it mostly scan black and white negatives I will though try to answer some of your questions , the holders are very good, made of durable plastic with a "slider" that holds the film taut, I can see no "waves" in my 4 x 5 negatives when its in the holder, usually with this size of film the negatives are pretty flat to start out with but with some 120 films I have noticed that the emulsion can be thin and "wavy".

I have only scanned a few transparencies using the Silverfast Ai software ( bundled as an extra with the machine) and they look fine, as for trannies that have large deep shadows or are contrasty I can't say how the i900 will perform in this regard, I believe the 1800f has a better dmax and might be the better choice but its also twice the money.

Gary

[Ken Hales]

I have not purchased a scanner yet. I am considering the i900.

I have thousands of slides that I want to scan and produce digital images that will look fine being projected using a digital projector or an HDTV. If I want to scan a slide for subseqent large printing I can use my existing Nikon CoolScan IV ED (USB1).

I have several questions: 1) Will I need the anti-aliasing Newton ring glass Jeffrey mentioned for the slides; 2) By using a pressurized air duster will I miss not having the Digital ICE; 3) Will all 12 slides maintain adequate focus when scanned in a batch (does the above glass help here at all); 4) Will the Scan Wizard software keep track of each of the 12 images and allow storage and processing of the images as separate files; 5) Will I be able to use Silverfast software for this project; 6) For a batch of 12 slides using 8 bit depth, Firewire, 1600 dpi, Scan Wizard with some processing enhancements turned on (don't know about this yet), how long will it take to scan the batch (I have a Pentium 4, 2.4 GHz machine); 7) If I used Silverfast instead of Scan Wizard in 6) what would that do the quality and the time

I asked all of these questions to Microtek's tech support and customer support and got no real information from them

Thanks for your advise and input.

Thanks for your help

[Anthony_4576]

I am also in the market for a scanner, mainly for 6x6 and 6x17cm trannie.

I am only looking for a scanner suitable for screen / web resolution. The i900 looked good, but I am now looking at the i700, as it is less $$$ and I don't want to spend the extra $1k if I will not get any benefits for web/screen res scans (and has ICE for trans.) Does anybody think there would be a big difference between these two (and I guess the 4870 / Cannon 9950) for low res scans?

Previously I have only used flextight and drum scans, and just re-sampled them for web use, so I have not had any experience with flat beds for trannie (but would like to look at it now to do web scans in-house for speed).

Does anybody have experience regarding flex / drum scans when re-sampled and whether they are actually any different from "consumer" level flat bed scans when only used for the web? (I have had a few different answers on this but no-body seems to have done it themselves).

I will try to do a test myself, and then post the results.

Thanks for your input

[Jeremy Holmes]

The i700 is the first scanner Microtek has offered that does Digital ICE on both reflective and film based images. The scanner is selling in Australia currently for about $900 AU or about $620 US. The added benefit of Digital ICE for film will probably push me into buying a i700 simply for this added benefit at roughly the same price as the current i900. When I acquire one I will be sure to post a review of my findings.

[Anthony_4576]

I tried out an i700 last week and I was not so impressed. I found it very difficult to use the supplied film gates for 6x4.5 and even 6x6, especially if the film was slightly bent. Focus seemed a little soft even using the film holder. The supplied software was terrible, and I don't think VueScan is compatible yet, so I used silverfast and it seemed a little better. I only had two nights to play with it, but as far as I could see, for my purposes, it was going to require a lot of mucking around to get a good scan. I have since returned the unit (a demo unit) and I am picking up an Epson 4870 to try this week. I think the i700 could be good for reflective, as ICE would be a great help, and I only used the scanner for 120 transparencies. I also think the scanner could likely produce ok results with the right degree of mucking around in the software, but for me at this stage, I am going to check out the 4870 and then make a comparison for my needs.

Anthony

[Anthony_4576]

ok, the 4870 wins hands down. I have had it for 5 minutes and it is already 1000 times better than the results which I got from the i700. I have not played much in the software, but on the auto settings it is far better than my experience with the i700, plus the film holders are much better, no newton rings, it's speed is ok, and it works - just need to clean the underside of the glass (though I can't see the results on the scans so maybe its not worth it but it's pretty foggy)

Jeremy, if you have any luck with the i700, let me know as I would be interested if you have some time to play around with it if you can get better results than I was able to in the short time i had it.

Finally satisfied, Anthony