Microtek ScanMaker 1000XL PRO?

[Ed Richards]

Is this the replacement for the 2500? With 3200 optical DPI, if it close to spec, as the Microtek professional scanners tend to be, it would be great:

3200 x 6400 dpi; 48-bit color; 12" x 17" tabloid size; TMA 1000XL transparent media adapter for 12" x 16" film; Hi-Speed USB & FireWire interfaces; DIGITAL ICE Photo Print Technology and ColoRescue™

It is about $2500.

[robc]

I would say not. It appears to be a completely different design. Looks like there is no EDIT drawer and no mention of 10x8.

www.microtekusa.com/sm1000xlpro_specs.html (http://www.microtekusa.com/sm1000xlpro_specs.html)

[robc]

so it does do 10x8(and bigger) but looks like it is not glassless scanning.

[Ted Harris]

It is not a replacement for the 2500f. It is sort of a replacement for the current line of tabloid scanners but not entirely as the 9800XL remains in the line. I have discussed this unit wit the Microtek engineering staff in terms of its capability for scann ULF. We will have one for use and demonstration at our scanning workshops in Columbus, OH (November 11-13 and Springfield, MA March 3-5). Michael Mutmansky and I will put it through its paces either right before or right after the Columbus Workshop for a full review in "View Camera" magazine. While the scanner is designed to mainly serve the graphics arts industry it has exciting potential for our LF community as well.

[Ed Richards]

Terrific! Please include some 4x5 black and white in your test. While I know that drum scanning is the gold standard, a scanner that could do as well as the 1800 with a little better resolution would be good enough for a lot of us.

[Ted Harris]

Ed, yes, we will do a 4x5 as well as ULF imges. However, this scanner is unlikely to give us "a little better resolution" than the 1800f. The scanner uses the same sort of stacked array of smaller ccd chips that is used in the 'class I' scanners. My guess is that real resolution will be around 1600-1800 at best. But, lets wait and see.

[neil poulsen]

I wonder why they haven't come out with a scanner that replaces the 2500. From the scanner comparison, it got quite good results.

It would be nice to have the 1800f and one of the Imacon Flexscans included in the scanner comparison. Especially a Flexscan, since it's purported to give such great scans.

[Teresa Valenz]

The 2500f is still an excellent choice. The anti vibration technology along with others put it ahead of its time when it came out a few years ago. From speaking with Microtek there seems like there is going to be a ceiling when it comes to optics for scanners. I don't know the specifics but the amount of detail that is captured by todays scanners is far far greater than any consumer or professional digital camera on the market. I would guess that until they catch up there isn't a whole lot of need to go further into R&D to upgrade it for a few PPI more.

[Ed Gurrie]

Just Bought on of these. From what I have found out it has the Creo CCD in it and is cooled. Together with Julio Fernandez' ScanMax wet mounting system it will do exactly what I want......scan all my 4x5 trannies for printing to 24 x 30.
I think Microtek has finally arrived. Any other info would be appreciated.
Ed

[Ed Richards]

> Just Bought on of these.

Which one? 1000XL PRO or 2500?

[Ted Harris]

ed -- I assume you mean you bought the 2500f. You said " From what I have found out it has the Creo CCD" Yes and no, it may use the same CCD array as some of the earilier Creo scanners; in fact,the Creo Jazz was manufctured for Creo by Microtek. I would be surprised if it use dthe same array as any of the current generation of Creo's since they all deliver optical resolution that is higher than that of the 2500f, true even of their 'entry level' iqSmart series. Both Creo scanners adn the Microtek 2500f (the 1800f too for that matter) use Kodak senor arrays and that was true before Creo became a division of Kodak.

[Ed Gurrie]

been out of town for a few days. sorry i did not respond. i just bought the 1000 xl pro. should be here in less than a week. any other info on it from the group is really appreciated especially wet, or oil, mounting.

[Ed Richards]

If you are game, I would love to run a test againt my Canon 9950f. I have a couple of good test negatives with a region that can be cropped to show the details. Once you get going, I could send you the negatives and you could scan them, then we could post the comparisons here. These are black and white negatives, so we do not have to worry about color balance - just dmax and resolution. Maybe we can get one of the drum scanning guys to do a third scan as a gold standard. I did not find the scanner test that useful - issues with the color and difficulty of sorting out the detail make it had to draw any conclusions about what the tests mean for black and white.

[Ed Gurrie]

i would like to do that. it will take me awhile to get up and get going though because i am in a "crunch time" with my engineering job.......small medical startup and not enough people.
i would also like for you to walk me thru the process with the black and white. i am strictly a provia guy. it'll take some patience on your part ed. if you are up for it so am i. it sure would be great to have the drum scanner guy do the same. as soon as i get the 1000xl i will get it going and we can proceed from here. ok? ok!!!
ed

[Julio Fernandez]

Hi: Microtek is notorious for Excellent engineering, bad marketing and service. I guess that this is a far better mix than great marketing good service and bad engineering. This time however their marketing guys have made a good step in positioning this scanner well, as it offers 2X as high a resolution as any other Epson, Epson XL or Microtek scanner and good dMax, excellent software, etc. Looking up there is the Imacon for quite a bit more money and yes, the Creos with their new high res CCDs but all at a quantum leap in price. The glassless thing is gone, good riddance. Microtek should focus on bringing to market a 9X12 scanner at around $1200 with similar features as the 1000XL and stop fooling about with mind-less glass-less features. At 3200 dpi real optical resolution that would be a clear choice against offerings from Canon and Epson whose real optical resolution is only about 1666 dpi. The 1000XL is a hefty, heavy duty commercial machine and hopefully will not need to see the service department for a long time. Add wet mounting to it and you have a great machine.

[Ted Harris]

Several comments:

1) At our scanning workshop last weekend we tested the 1000XL against the 1800f. It was an unscientific, empirical test. We scanned a 5x7 negative on each machine using basically the same settings, edited the two scans the same way in Photoshop and printed the final images at 16x20 using a QTR RIP using the exact same settings ... the prints were made on the same Epson 4800 printer. We printed on Epson Enhanced Matte paper. The group of us then looked at the two prints. The results were very very close but the print from the 1800f scan was marginally superior to that from the 1000XL. Further, these were simple test prints and we might have been able to produce equal images if we had worked at it. We were not scanning at highest optical resolution either (since we don;t really know what it is for the 1000XL) but at 1200. Stay tuned for more accurate results.

2) Michael took the 1000XL home from the workshop and is putting it through its paces with USAF test target, Stouffer wedge and real 7x17 images, etc. for an upcoming View Camera article where we will look at the big and the little ... e.g. the 1000XL and the i800 scanners. So stay tuned. There is no doubt that the 1000XL will be an excellent performer. It did a great job right out of the box for starters.

3) Julio, you said "At 3200 dpi real optical resolution that would be a clear choice against offerings from Canon and Epson whose real optical resolution is only about 1666 dpi." True enough IF it has real world 3200 dpi which is unlikely since Microtek is stating theoretical resolution based on the fact that they are using a stack of two 1600 spi ccd's, similar to what the 'consumer' level Canon, Epson and Microtek scanners use. The difference here is in (hopefully) better optics and scanning motors. The 1800f has true optical 1800 resolution with a single, larger 1800 spi chip.

[Ed Gurrie]

ted or michael,
is there any more news you can give me (either online or offline) about max resolution, dmax, better than-worse than news with the 1000lx pro. i have put alot of time into scoping the scanner out for my digital darkroom and surely do not want to buy it if you guys think the 1800f is better or eveb close!!!! i will cancel my order and wait til more data is available. any news you can share with me (quickly, i might add as the goods are on the way!!!) will be most appreciated.
thank you.

[Ted Harris]

Ed,

The most important question is how large are the negatives/trannies you are scanning? If the answer is 8x10 or smaller then the answer is almost certainlky go with the 1800f.

If, on the other hand, you have a need to scan larger than 8x10 then the answer is the 1000XL as the 1800f only goes to 8x10 or a bit longer.

[Ed Richards]

I scan 4x5, but I would think that would be a stronger case for the 1000xl - the higher resolution, if it really works, would be an improvement over the 1800.

> i will cancel my order and wait til more data is available.

We were hoping you would be the guinea pig. If you want to wait, they are going to test it at the view camera conference.

[Ed Gurrie]

i have gone back and forth with this about 150 times. i am going to get it and be happy at whatever i can get out of it with the wet mounting system etc. i like the firewire drive idea (for the mac g5) and the great software (silverfast 6.?>?). so i guess i will be the experimental sheep for the good of all lf mankind!!!! i will be doing 4x5 provia trannies mostly but am open to any more ideas you guys have.
please keep posted me with any and all info, data, results (especially that preliminary data from the view camera conference. i am a novice and hope to learn a ton from this as well as contribute something to the group.

[Michael Mutmansky]

No need for guinea pigs... I'll have some resolution, DMAX and color fringing tests done in a few days. I plan to start on that this weekend.

Since I no longer am a self-respecting writer, you can expect to see a full review of the scanner in VC magazine in a few issues, maybe even in January/Febuary, if I can make the deadline. I'd rather do it right than do it fast, though.

---Michael

[Ed Gurrie]

michael,
any info you get would help me sleep better with this decision.....lol. and if i can help you out in any way please ask.

[Ed Gurrie]

guys,
julio fernandez just emailed me with some interesting data on both scanners. i pass it on to you. any comments?
ed
from julio:

"Image Sensor:
41,300-element tri-linear CCD array

Here is the data for the Microtek 9800 XL:
Image Sensor:
21,360-element Kodak Trilinear CCD array

The CCD resolution for the Epson Expression 1680 is 1600 dpi. a similar machine to the MT 9800XL.

Epson do not give data on their CCDs other than in the above case they give the CCD resolution. For the 4990 they do not give it at all and you have to do the calculations to arrive at the number, which they have nothing to bragg about. Some people believe that the 4990 has 4900 dpi resolution! exactly why Epson does not disclose the real data. The 1000XL is not the Jazz. There are lots of things that go into making a scanner such the mechanical elements, movements, lighting, cooling of the CCDs. I would have liked the 1000XL at $1900 but the reality is that there is nothing there anywhere comparable for that price and MT knows that."

[Ted Harris]

ed,

The email address you ahve listed here doesn't work .... Michale and I both tried to email you and they bounced back ... send me a good email and I will forward my originaland Michale's response to you ...

[Ed Gurrie]

this is the right email.
edwood44@hotmail.com
it seems to be working ok from here.

[hamburg]

A german computermagzin tested the microtek 1000xl. unfortunatly the real resolution was around 1300dpi, much better was the older epson 10000xl

[Julio Fernandez]

Ted: You say the 1000XL it is not a replacement for the 9800XL because that scanner stays on the line. If Mikrotek was to say that the 9800 XL is obsolete that would automatically devalue the current inventory of 9800XLs, and cause a serious loss to their their dealers. This is marketing 101.

Before manufacturers launch products, in the ideal situation they will have depleted inventories before the new product gets out and that is when you see price reductions, or else rebates a la Nikon. However, marketers are not always in strategic control and need to get products out while older inventory sits around sometimes because it is not sellable, as may be the case withe 9800 XL. The 1000XL has a superior, denser CCD to that in the 9800XL and there is no reason once the inventory of 9800XLs is sold out, why it should not be discontinued. I arrive at contrary conclusion: If Mikrotek says that the 9800XL stays it is not because it is better than the 1000XL but becaue they can't sell it and do not want to lose their shirts if they discontinue it.



I have not seen the results from the German Magazine but if they did as all other mazazines do in such reviews, it is not a sure thing their results are right either for the simple reason that it is impossible to maintain planarity and optimum elevation of the film plane while dry scanning because of the curvature of the film adds an uncontrollable variable. All magazine evaluatinos I have yet to see are quite cavalier on this issue, although I admit to not having seen yet the German mag evaluation.

As to your evaluations of the 1000XL and the 1800f, I believe their authenticity and honest intentions, but I it is evident that those evaluations are seriously flawed. The capabilities of two products being compared can not be established with tests set at the limiting value of the lesser product (the 1800f), but at the top limit of each of each product. Only then is a proper comparison possible. Lastly if we say the same settings, that would have to mean that the film plane for both tests would be identical. This is simply not possible to ensure when dry scanning because of the variability of the film plane. The temperature and humidity variations in the film as it goes from one scanner to another results in changes in curvature and an uncontrolled variable. The "same conditions" has to mean absolutely the same. It would be interesting to see both products tested at the limit of each product's resolution under exactly the same conditions of film planarity. and at the top optical (not extrapolated) resolution of each.

The 1000XL is designed to higher standards than the nearest Epson and should be capable of higher resolution because of its denser CCD if all other things in the test are equal, i.e. each the tests are made as per the above criteria.

[Ted Harris]

Julio,

Just a quick note, if you reread my post on the 'tests' you will see that I clearly stated there was nothing at all scientific about them .. merely a target of opportunity since we were using both scanners at the workshop. If you want rigerous, controlled tests stay tuned. A discussion of both scanners and the results of tests with AIG targets, etc. under controlled conditions will be in our next scanning article which is slated for the May-June issue of "View Camera" magazine.

As for the 1000XL v. the 9800XL it is not a marketing ploy. They are both still available because they are targeted at very different markets. The 9800 for schools and others (e.g. small publications like weekly advertising newspapers) which often require a tabloid size but have little need for high resolution and the 1000XL for photographers and prepress operations.

[Julio Fernandez]

Hi Ted: Thanks for your reply. Re-reading my posting I feel that my tone could have been more in keeping with the person I was directing my answer to, a real gentleman and experienced photographer, which you are, and your reply emphasizes that point.

Earlier you had stated: < Julio, you said "At 3200 dpi real optical resolution that would be a clear choice against offerings from Canon and Epson whose real optical resolution is only about 1666 dpi." True enough IF it has real world 3200 dpi which is unlikely since Microtek is stating theoretical resolution based on the fact that they are using a stack of two 1600 spi ccd's, similar to what the 'consumer' level Canon, Epson and Microtek scanners use. The difference here is in (hopefully) better optics and scanning motors. The 1800f has true optical 1800 resolution with a single, larger 1800 spi chip.>

Ted, Microtek gave you the wrong info. The 1000XL has a 41,300-ELEMENT TRI-LINEAR CCD array NOT "the stack of two similar to consumer level Canon Epson and Microtek scanners" . The 3200 dpi resolution claimed by Microtek is accurate based on the CCD array for this scanner and its width. This is no consumer level CCD array in fact it is the best CCD yet of any flatbed under the Creo. Am I wrong?

Now for the test logistics: I agree your tests did include a caveat but...I am being a little sticky about this point for several reasons, one, that the 'test' had the potential for being very useful on what appears to be a perfect in between step above all flatbeds now available under the Creo. Also, because these errors in test the protocol are quite prevalent in product consumer evaluations. The problem: We have two scanners A and B. A can go to say, 1800 dpi, B can go to 3000 dpi. We need to compare them. Protocol 1) -If we compare both "A" and "B" at 1200 dpi we are neither going to be fair to either "A" not "B" but the test will be most unfair to "B" . Furthermore, if uncontrolled variables exist in the test, the variables can tilt the results either way if they outweigh quality differences. Film planarity according to my argument was such a potential deviation. With this protocol we do not push scanner B to 3000 dpi, so there will be no way of knowing what that scanner is ultimately capable of delivering at its maximum resolution. (Based on the wrong information you did not believe the 1000XL could go to 3200 DPI and that probably contributed to the wrong choice of test parameters. ) Protocol 2) Test scanner "A" at 1800 DPI and "B" at 3200 DPi. To do that it is obvious that if film is a 5X7, we are going to end up with mega files, and if we want to see what these look at 20X magnification we will have to make murals. Evidently, 5X7 is the wrong choice.

An analogy applies: In horse racing they add weights to compensate for a skinny rider, and that is logical, as the purpose is to see how fast a horse can run when all horses are equally weighted. In that scanner comparisons the logic fails because if "B" has five legs and "A" only four, we will never know how fast "B" can run if we cut one of his legs. As is now clear, the preconcption at the time was that the 1000XL was a consumer level scanner with only 3 legs, the rest followed. The conclusion of this 'unscientific' test was that the 1800f was marginally better!!

There are worse things than being unscientific, one of which is being misleading and that is exactly what happened here. The statement that that 1000XL has a CCD array just like consumer level scanners is wrong and it does not jibe with either its specs or the latest info you quote later describing this as a pre-press machine. A pre-press scanner with a consumer level CCD?

The latest claim that the 9800XL is intended for schools, etc. seems disingenuous indeed, does Microtek think that we are all that gullible.? You stated: ..."The 9800 for schools and others (e.g. small publications like weekly advertising newspapers) which often require a tabloid size but have little need for high resolution and the 1000XL for photographers and prepress operations."

This is what the Microtek 9800XL brochure has to say: " It is the preferred workhorse for production environments, design houses and professional graphics companies. Te Scanmaker 9800 XL is a majestic addition to Microtek's time-honored trasition of excellence."

Really Ted, this "majestic addition" was just meant for schools and small publications" ???? I think some one has been caught in their own hype.

Ted, it is time to get back to the drawing board on this one. Yes, this is a pre-press scanner with real 3200 optical dpi resolution, no it is not a consumer level scanner like Canon's and Epson flatbeds and yes it has a 41,300-ELEMENT TRI-LINEAR CCD array. As for the 9800 XL , this majestic scanner once intended for design environments in professional graphics companies has now been demoted to schools and small publications before it is discontinued once inventories get down to an economically safe level.

If you can get hold of that beast again I would hope you can re-evaluate this scanner as you and Michael said you would. I am sure that there are many that would like to see the results. But, perhaps it is better you do not, that way Microtek will not sell many 1000XLs and that will force them to keep their price down.

Best regards, Julio

Julio Fernandez

[Michael Mutmansky]

Julio,

I think there may have been some confusion over the CCD array in the 1000XL scanner, so don't be too concerned about the accuracy of that statement. Ultimately, it is irrelevant what is in the machine, and whether it is 'consumer' or 'professional' grade. These types of labels are a red herring to the real issue; the overall real-world performance of the scanner when in the hands of a knowledgeable photographer/operator.

The point that Ted was making about the 9800XL is that it meets a certain price point that covers a market that cannot justify the expense of the newer, higher specification 1000XL. That doesn't mean that it won't be discontinued at some point, but it is not inconceiveable that these two products will fit together in the product line nicely.

I have the 1000XL sitting right here next to me, and the testing of it is ongoing. There is an article planned for the May/June issue of View Camera that discusses this scanner and the i800 in the context of real-world large format film scanning applications.

While it may be interesting to theorize what these scanners are capable of producing under laboratory testing conditions, I'm much more interested in the results that people who may purchase the scanners for their use can produce. To that end, we are testing the scanners under conditions that are consistant with this use.

---Michael

[Cameron Hamill]

I hope it's OK to resurrect this thread after so long...

Can anyone tell me the difference please between the 1000XL and the 1000XL Pro?

I've found both versions for sale on eBay. I've only found the 1000XL Pro for sale as brand-new. I can't find any clear indication online of the actual differences.

Thanks a lot in advance for any feedback.