New Scanner coming

[Bob McCarthy]

In the recent View Camera article on scanners, the sidebar mentioned that Microtek was about to release a new scanner. I believe the article mentioned June.

Anyone have any news or insight on the new scanner.

Bob

[Bob McCarthy]

Can anyone correct the title, I hastly wrote printer and should have been scanner.

bob

[Ralph Barker]

tch, tch. ;)

[Bob McCarthy]

Thanks, my bad.

bob

[Michael Mutmansky]

Bob,

No news yet on that scanner, I don't believe. I think it will be marketed towards the spot that the 1800f will be vacating. Beyond that, I don't think anything has been released publicly.

Ted will speak up as soon as information is released, I'm sure.


---Michael

[Ted Harris]

No announcements yet but the Microtek folks say there should be some news by the end of the month.

[Bob McCarthy]

Still nothing on the Microtek page. I was looking at the 1000XP, don't see much on the LF site regarding the scanner. Specs' are better than the 1800 and the price is well below the "super" scanners (i.e. creo, etc).

I've come back into LF photography after a 20 year absence. It appears to me the scanner is the key to the LF growing to a new level. I, for one, wish that Nikon would make a dedicated 4x5 scanner with the scanning quality of there smaller format scanners.

Oh well,
Bob

[Ralph Barker]

Bob - actually, Nikon did make a 4x5 film scanner, the 4500. But, it was dropped several years back. It wasn't cheap, though - about $10K, if memory serves.

[Capocheny]

It appears to me the scanner is the key to the LF growing to a new level. I, for one, wish that Nikon would make a dedicated 4x5 scanner with the scanning quality of there smaller format scanners.

Oh well,
Bob

FWIW, I agree with you entirely. For LF to grow, I think the scanner will be an important driving force. However, that said, there are lots of people out there doing LF in the most traditional ways possible... and printing their images in traditional methods. It seems they don't want to go the new, digital route. IMHO, to each their own! :)

Why stop at a 4x5 scanner? :) :)

Cheers

[Henry Ambrose]

Bob - actually, Nikon did make a 4x5 film scanner, the 4500. But, it was dropped several years back. It wasn't cheap, though - about $10K, if memory serves.

And ithe Nikon was an absolutely HORRID machine with worse software.

I'm thinking that as good as the sub $1000.00 flatbeds have become we may never see a great dedicated 4x5 film scanner.

[Bob McCarthy]

FWIW, I agree with you entirely. For LF to grow, I think the scanner will be an important driving force. However, that said, there are lots of people out there doing LF in the most traditional ways possible... and printing their images in traditional methods. It seems they don't want to go the new, digital route. IMHO, to each their own! :)

Why stop at a 4x5 scanner? :) :)

Cheers

I morphed from B&W to color during my absence. Digital had much to do with the transition. I still have my Besseler/ZoneVI enlarger but its in storage. I've concidered rebuilding a new darkroom, but have to spend some bucks to get there. I am interested in doing digital B&W but the papers are not there yet. I am hopeful that some of the recently released papers will rectify that.

No one using the 1000XP? It looks 8x10 capable.

Bob

[tim atherton]

And ithe Nikon was an absolutely HORRID machine with worse software.

I'm thinking that as good as the sub $1000.00 flatbeds have become we may never see a great dedicated 4x5 film scanner.

what's wrong with the Imacon in this regard?

[Ted Harris]

Bob, if you mean the Microtek 1000XL Michael and I tested it extensively with sizes up to 7x17 (which it doesn't quiete handle if you wnat the entire negative. Michale had a test machine for several months that he just recently returned to Microtek. The results of that test were included in the tests in the May-June "View Camera" article referenced at the beginning of this thread.

Tim, yes the Imacon 646 through 949 handle 4x5 but not for $1000, no where near close.

[Bob McCarthy]

Bob, if you mean the Microtek 1000XL Michael and I tested it extensively with sizes up to 7x17 (which it doesn't quiete handle if you wnat the entire negative. Michale had a test machine for several months that he just recently returned to Microtek. The results of that test were included in the tests in the May-June "View Camera" article referenced at the beginning of this thread.



My mistake, it was the XL I was referring to. I did look up the VC article and was somewhat shocked to see the dismal results the machine delivered. The PRO version of this machine is on the cusp of what I feel I am willing to spend. It's also in rebate so a new machine may be coming. I think I know the answer, but is there a chance the higher plane the film holders occupy over the scanning glass could effect the results??

I went through the web based scanner test by Leigh Perry and used the comparo feature. The microtek 2500f looked pretty solid to me. I can find no mention anywhere on the product. I'm assuming it's discontinued.

I'm still in wait mode,

Bob

[Ted Harris]

Bob, the numbrs on the scanner don't tell the tale. Remembr that the reason forit is to scan LARGE negatives, 8x10 and larger. When you are scanning film that size while it is nice to be able to scan at resolutions such as 4000 if you do so you are asking for a monster file, I mean somethng in the range of many many many gigabytes; so large that few microcomputers could handle it.

OTOH if you aren't interested inscanning larger than 8x10 this is not the scanner for you any way. And there ARE NOT improvements to it coming in the near future. As for the 2500f it has not been discontinued. Microtek is not curently sellingit in the US but it may be possible to get one. The price is ~ 3K. If you are interested send me a PM. OTOH have you thought about an 1800f? Or a used higher end machineinthe 3K price range?

[Bob McCarthy]

Bob, the numbrs on the scanner don't tell the tale. Remembr that the reason forit is to scan LARGE negatives, 8x10 and larger. When you are scanning film that size while it is nice to be able to scan at resolutions such as 4000 if you do so you are asking for a monster file,

Over the past few years I have begun printing conciderably larger than when I had a wet darkroom. It may be a "color" thing. My standard paper is now 13x19 (vs. 8x10 in B&W), and I print occasionally up to 24x36 (30). The ink jet has really changed printing requirements for space and dollars required to set up large.

I'm thinking (a "rock solid) 2400 dpi will get me there. That is an impression I get from you and others discussing the subject. On a whim I bought a 4990 last evening. JUst to have something to use until I sort out where I'm going. Eugene Singer thinks I should either go analog printing or stay digital. He may be correct, frankly I'm concidering both. I no longer make my primary income in Photography. This is for my soul.

Bob

[Ted Harris]

Bob, whether it si for your soul or for your table the decision is the same ... which method will get you to the final print you seek. If it is one method soetimes and the other other time then stick with both. I am makingthe assumption that you, like most of us, already have a fully equipped and fully amortized wet darkroom (one that probably has next to no resale value in today's market). If that is the case then I say keep it for the moment. I believe that new papers adn inks and printeres wil soon (say 1 to 3 yeears) bring us to a point wher we can duplicate most every sort of print nowdone in a wet darkroom with digital workflow .. but we are not quite there yet. Then again, I could be all wet (or is it all dry in this instance) and we won't ever get there. Point is it doesn't cost you anything to ait and see. Personally, I wouldn't make any major investments in my traditional processing though.

I have been going through these agonies for the past 10 months while designing and building a new house and studio. The house is nearly finished and we are about to turn to the studio/office/darkroom which is a separate buildig, a barn already on the property. Originally I was going to build a large darkroom, 24 x 6. I was going to put a Durst 10x10 1205AF horizontal enlarger in the space along with the other stuff. After a lot of thought I decided not to get the enlarger, much as I liked the idea I just couldn't justify the dedicated space it required for the amount of use it would get. I will keep my 5x7 vertical enlarger but may not even set it up initially. I will keep lots of space for film processing but I am now thinking if I really need 24 x 6 or if half that length will do just fine. Thinking back I realize that I have produced less than a dozen wet prints in the past three years while turning out hundreds of digital prints. I don't think that progression will change. OTOH, I do want the ability to work with alternative processes if I have the time. Frankly the darkroom decisions didn't take much thought. The construction and placement of a permanent cyc, the lighting grid, how to incorporte classroom space in the second floor ... all that has been much more on my mind. Also, how and where to place my 'finishing' space; printers, dry mount press, mat cutter, framing, etc. The printing space has been a big consideration and I hae not yet made the final decisions although I amleaning toward puttingall of that on the second floor well away from the main studio space and darkroom.

Now, your 'solid 2400 dpi' statement. First, all depends on the size o the original and the size of your final print and, more impprtantly, what goes into that 'soli' besides resolution. I can't stress enough that the real optical resolution of a scanner is only one of the important characteristics of the machine that need to be considered. Some of the others, IMO are even more important, espcially for color printing. Chief among these is DMax or density range which is one area where ALL of the consumer class scanners lag far behind the higher end ones. DMax becomes more important as you pint larger and the presence or loss of highlight and shadow detail becomes more obvious. It also shows in the rendition of midrange tonal vales in many instances. As was mentioned in another recent thread, you wo't even notice waht you are missing if you don't see two side-by-side prints, one from a scan from one of the 'consumer' class scanners and the other from a scan from oneof the high end scanners. The lower cost/quality scan, thus, is producing an acceptable starting point for an acceptable image but not one tha you might choose after seeing what else is possible. Other considerations are the quality of the optuics in the machine, the quality of the mechanics and the sophistication of the software. All this is by way of saying, yes rock solid 2400 is a starting point but how do you define it? Frankly, neither the 4990 nor the 1800f nor any of the under $1000 scanners, meet the test for me IF I am printing larger than 11x14 and sometimes 16x20 and it is often pushing it t 16x20 since you are then at a point where the loss of shadow detail starts to become obvious in sume subject matter.

We shouldn't kid ourselves, we just are never going to get the same ultimate quality out of a $400 piece of machinery that we get out of a $25,000 piece of machinery. BUT, and a big but, we don't need the capabilities of that high end machine most of the time. I've got a Screen Cezanne and a Microtek 1800f. I have not abandoned the 1800f, in fact I use it for scans of a lot of material that I know will be printed small, my notecards for example. No need to take the time and effort required to do the ultimate scan for an image that is going to be printed so small. The analogy exists in the wet darkroom as well. It is not the enlarger, per se, but the qualilty of the light source and the enlarging lens that make the difference and again, it depends ont he size of the final print.

Sorry for the long answer but, as you have already heard, there are no simple easy answers to the questions raised. There aren't for traditional printing either for that matter.

[Bob McCarthy]

Ted, thanks for the response. if you type as fast as I do, It took some effort. let me kick out some thoughts along the same lines.

Film is becoming an issue for me, hard to buy locally, have to drive 80 miles round trip to get color processed (and I live in a major metroplex), twice if I don't plan well. It make me wonder how much longer it will be conveniently available.

Image quality compression with 4x5 vs. other formats is also apparent to me. My Nikon D2x does a very good job on color, if I shoot with good focus, off a steady platform, with a superior quality lens, I get darn good images. Medium format is dead because of the 35mm form factor digital. 4x5 should be significantly better, the info is there for sure. But the is scanner leaving a significant amount data behind, it's better than digital, but not a great deal so. To get there, I sense a drum scan or super flatbed is required. There is the bottleneck, I'm grapling with. I don't worry about big files, I own memory loaded fast computers (I use them in my other business) and storage is cheap.

I moved 3 months ago to a new house. I am going to build a film only darkroom and put the enlarger in storage for now. You're no doubt correct, it's not worth much. I'll continue to do B&W film at home and send color out for the time being. As far as the scanner goes, I'm going to wait out photokina which as I recall is late Sept. That is where my head is for now, for better or worse.

The last time I worked in 4x5 was in the early 90's. Things were pretty straight forward them. Tri-X, HC 110, Dektol, Brilliant, what else did I need.

Thanks again for the concidered reply. One last question, do you shorten the contrast range of the negative to compensate for the scanner DR>

Bob

[Ted Harris]

As far as the scanner goes, I'm going to wait out photokina which as I recall is late Sept. That is where my head is for now, for better or worse.

One last question, do you shorten the contrast range of the negative to compensate for the scanner DR>

Bob

Nothing wrong with waiting for Photokina but I don't expect any major breakthrough announcements there either. Remember that there have been basically no changes in the "superscanners' as you call them (BTW I like that name) for some 4-5 years; Aztek, Creo, ICG, Screen, etc. are manufacturing and selling basically the same technology they were a few years ago. There have been some small changes and improvements but not many and nothing revolutionary. At the other end of the spectrum the consumer class scanners haven't made any major forward leaps in the past 2-3 years either; new machines keep coming out with ever more astounding resolution claims but the actual improvements have been very small. IMO it wll take some breakthrough technology developments in another, related, field such as forensic or medical imaging before we see any real changes in the photo scanner landscape.

To anwser yoru question regarding negatives, no, I don't make any changes in the way I shoot or process film. My most used black and white emulsions are T55, ACROS and TMax 100 with Ektapan (until my stash runs out) probably ahead in the studio. OTOH remember that I scan with a Microtek 1800f which has a measured DMax that is significantky higher than that of the Epsons and with a Screen Cezanne with a DMax over 3.5.

[Kirk Gittings]

"The last time I worked in 4x5 was in the early 90's. Things were pretty straight forward them. Tri-X, HC 110, Dektol, Brilliant, what else did I need."

I fondly remember those days.

[Bob McCarthy]

To answer your question regarding negatives, no, I don't make any changes in the way I shoot or process film. My most used black and white emulsions are T55, ACROS and TMax 100 with Ektapan (until my stash runs out) probably ahead in the studio. OTOH remember that I scan with a Microtek 1800f which has a measured DMax that is significantky higher than that of the Epsons and with a Screen Cezanne with a DMax over 3.5.

For my education, what determines the DR of a scanner? Not how it's measured but how the hardware differs to gain a better result.

The Nikon 5000 allows one to change lamp intensity within a range. This on the surface appears to have some use in optimizing the DR of the scan. Do the "superscanners" also allow this? As versed as I am in most things digital, I seemed to miss the scanner class!!

Can someone point me to a reference source to further my knowledge.

Bob

[Ted Harris]

Bob, simple question but very complex answer which I am going to try and boil down to a few non technical statements:

1) software sophistication

2) mechanical tolerances which are much much closer, especially for the drive mechanisms and stepping motors on the high end scanners

3) the inherently ssuperior S/N ratio of the PMT technology indrum scanners over that of CCD technology. In the high end flatbeds this is overcome with larger in the consumer scanners.

The two places online where you will find reasonably comprehensive discussions area at the FLAAR review site http://www.flatbed-scanner-review.org/

and at the Seybold review site and search on scanners http://www.seybold365.com

Both of these sites have their advocates and their detractors. FLAAR, in particular, has been accused of having some significant biasises and oversights. Niether has done much to update information in the past few years but then,when discussing high end scanners there is no real need to do so since not much has changed.

Finally, take a look at "Pixel Perfect II: The Year 2000 Guide to High End Scanners"
http://www.seyboldreports.com/SRPS/subs/3001/html/pixelperfect2.html some of the scanners in this study are stil lmanufactured and most of them are still available ont he market either new or used (although not necessarily in the US) or they have successer models. If you want more on the actually technology issues, limits, hardware capabilities let me know.

[Bob McCarthy]

Ted,

Thanks for your help. And your patience!

Bob