Microtek M1 Scanner

[Ted Harris]

I spoke with the North American product manager yesterday. There have beensome further delays and they now expect the M1 scanner to start shipping in September and to reach the US the begining of October, latest. This may be conservative and they may actually start production sooner and be here sooner but this is the latest.

[Ted Harris]

Hwere is the latest Press Release from Microtek to the media, dealers, etc:

An update on the launch of the Microtek ArtixScan M1 dual-media scanner is overdue, and I apologize for my silence. The development of the ArtixScan M1 has taken much longer than expected. Our engineers were overly optimistic in their estimates of the development effort. I apologize for not sharing more information with you earlier, but the schedule changed every week and it would have been pointless to share updates when the accuracy of the updates was in question. It is still difficult for me to determine when production will begin on the ArtixScan M1, and I cannot simply rely on the estimates that I have received from our engineering team. Although much progress has been made and the engineers are close to completing the development work, I cannot clearly predict the launch schedule until the development work has been completed. At this time we expect to begin production in August and receive units at our warehouse in Los Angeles in September. For planning purposes, please wait until you hear from me that production has begun. I will send out a notice when we are confident that units are ready to leave the factory in China and we know when the units will arrive at our warehouse in Los Angeles. I appreciate the support that we have received in this long, drawn out launch of the ArtixScan M1, and I look forward to working with you when production units are available to review.

[Scott Rosenberg]

seems like a company that has developed as many product as microtek has would have project managers able to accurrately generate a gant chart.

i hope this is an indication of some new breakthrough technology or feature not yet seen on the microtek product line.

scott

[Bruce Watson]

Our engineers were overly optimistic in their estimates of the development effort.

Yeah sure, blame the engineers. In my experience as an engineer, the full story goes more like this:

1) Engineers come up with new idea for a better product.
2) Take idea to management.
3) Management says to scope it out, estimate time and materials, do a project plan, all that.
4) Project plan completed. Management says cut time in half. Keep all features. Cut budget in half. And by the way, keep up with your other projects. Engineers (who know better now than to say it can't be done) say they'll do their best, but won't commit to the new dates.
5) Engineers complete working prototype.
6) Marketing, who wouldn't participate up to this point because it wasn't their idea, now demands lots of changes. Feature creep begins in earnest.
7) Engineers push back, try to nail down features. All agree. Marketing publishes their specs anyway, and as a bonus publishes new date even tighter than the one before, that itself was unmakeable.
8) Engineers stomp into management offices as a group to complain. Management says "what can I do, it's already been published?" Now everyone pissed off.
9) Management meets with engineers one by one to tell them that they have a "bad attitude" and that they aren't "team players." Morale improves greatly of course. Passion for project fades. Resumes float. Leaders transfer to new projects if the can. Schedule slip is guaranteed.
10) When it becomes obvious even to management that the dates aren't even remotely possible, they want to cut features. Engineers explain that this is adding work to the project and is in fact pushing the date out farther. Management doesn't understand. Marketeers livid.
11) When the published date comes and goes, customers want to know what the problem is.

12) Marketing is genetically wired to deflect blame. Since it can't be their fault... BLAME THE ENGINEERS.

The best part is, the people who really get screwed are the QA people. They don't get their hands on a working production unit until well after the ship date. Every day they have the product is a delay in the ship date. Talk about pressure! And an abbreviated QA cycle = buggy product. So ultimately it's you and me who get screwed.

At this stage if I were seriously interested in the M1, I'd be looking to wait at least a year after it actually ships before buying one. I'm not big on being unpaid QA for anyone anymore.

And no, I'M NOT BITTER! I'm not. Really. ;) And the truth is the truth, bitter or not. I'm just saying...

[Ted Harris]

Bruce, far be it from me to disagree with you (hint, the very first thing the new product manager did after assuming the job in October 2006 was make the initial 'early announcement') ... having said that I think that after nearly a year of premature annnouncements they may finally be ready.

[Rakesh Malik]

Bruce, did you work for my company? :)

In my experience in IT, that's about dead on. It is of course worse in gov't contracting than in product development, because the gov't rewards companies that operate that way, and penalizes the ones that get their work done within budget and on time...

[Ben R]

I always thought that Dilbert was exaggerated, now I see that it's under exaggerated if anything! I love being my own boss, who cares if the hours are long and the car cheap...

[Rakesh Malik]

Dilbert's a sugar-coated version tinged with an optimistically satirical bent. If you want something closer to reality, read http://www.thedailywtf.com.

Not that you should stop reading Dilbert if you find it entertaining, of course. In spite of the caricatures, it's non-fictional in nature. I suspect that the fat bald executive here shaved his head to hide the pointyness of his hair...

[Steve Kefford]

.... All I hear is someone not being a team player, and likes to thrash marketers. Sorry, as a marketer, you got your views, I got mine. It sure sounds like your bitter.

Is there a single technical person who has not been screwed over at least once by sales/marketing?

How do you know when a salesman/marketing man is lying? His lips move.

Steve

[Rakesh Malik]

There is no room for arrogant attitudes from any team. If you can't work as a team, have respect, then you don't belong.

By that criterion, most marketing departments should be summarily fired.

[Aggie]

Hubby is a VP at IBM. If you think this chaotic happening is not normal, you are very wrong. Sales and Marketing could be interchangable. I've seen where sales will sell products as already at market, when they have only been intially talked about, not even engineered. You should see the crap behind the scenes with IBM and nissan which hubby oversees. No one wants to talk to any one else until the sh** hits the fan. Then the talk is all about who gets blamed for it not happening. IMO if someone refused to participate and talk to find out what was really going on, they should not be allowed to pass blame.

[Ken Lee]

I am very interested in the M1. I have a 2500f, and the M1 looks like a real improvement, at a far more attractive price.

Tests made with Ted Harris and Michael Mutmansky back in 2005 showed an overall resolution of 2299 ppi, with the Green channel resolving just over the stated 2500 ppi. Also impressive for a consumer flatbed, was a dMax range in the neighborhood of 2.85 to 2.95. Of course, I paid over $2K for it. Even so, they delivered what they promised, unlike other companies.

It seems that they plan to double the width of the high-res glassless portion, allowing an 8x10 scan at full resolution. That's great too.

On the other hand... I have been unable to eliminate soft lines from appearing in my scans. I have profiled the scanner, opened it up, and removed a hair - but stopped short of taking it completely apart. Although the scans are done beneath the glass, it is possible for dust to come into the unit, every time you insert a negative.

They ought to either seal things properly, or devise a way for the owner to clean the unit without toil and exasperation. If they do that, the world will beat down their door, and you can tell them I sez so. Would you buy a lens that you could NEVER dust, never mind clean ? I doubt it.

I also hope they improve the film holders. The ones for medium format require you to cut your roll film down to one image at a time. There's no way to insert anything longer than a 6x9 portion of film in the 2500. The holders for 4x5 are too small: cropping occurs, whether you like it or not.

I look forward to your review of the scanner ! If you would like to arrange for me to test one, that would be... even better ! ;)

[jetcode]

seems like a company that has developed as many product as microtek has would have project managers able to accurrately generate a gant chart.

i hope this is an indication of some new breakthrough technology or feature not yet seen on the microtek product line.

scott

Have you ever developed a product? I've been in the industry 27 years and it's a miracle any product ships on schedule. Case in point. My last contract sales was pushing for a end of year release (2006), management was behind the sales push, and I knew sales and management were living in fantasy land and sure enough the project took a year like I knew it would and sales had to wait. The good news is the product meets specification and the consumer is happy.

[jetcode]

Bruce, did you work for my company? :)

In my experience in IT, that's about dead on. It is of course worse in gov't contracting than in product development, because the gov't rewards companies that operate that way, and penalizes the ones that get their work done within budget and on time...

I contracted for 12 years in the Silicon Valley, it's the same dilemma for all companies.

[Rakesh Malik]

I contracted for 12 years in the Silicon Valley, it's the same dilemma for all companies.

At least when you don't work for the government, you actually have to ship SOMETHING. The government actually penalizes you on the off chance that you finish a project, especially if you get it done on time, within budget, and with few bugs :)

[James Bemus]

Hey Ted, any news on the M1?

[jetcode]

At least when you don't work for the government, you actually have to ship SOMETHING. The government actually penalizes you on the off chance that you finish a project, especially if you get it done on time, within budget, and with few bugs :)

I have some hammers for sale for a mere $12k each.

[Greg Miller]

Yeah sure, blame the engineers. In my experience as an engineer, the full story goes more like this:

1) Engineers come up with new idea for a better product.
2) Take idea to management.
3) Management says to scope it out, estimate time and materials, do a project plan, all that.
4) Project plan completed. Management says cut time in half. Keep all features. Cut budget in half. And by the way, keep up with your other projects. Engineers (who know better now than to say it can't be done) say they'll do their best, but won't commit to the new dates.
5) Engineers complete working prototype.
6) Marketing, who wouldn't participate up to this point because it wasn't their idea, now demands lots of changes. Feature creep begins in earnest.
7) Engineers push back, try to nail down features. All agree. Marketing publishes their specs anyway, and as a bonus publishes new date even tighter than the one before, that itself was unmakeable.
8) Engineers stomp into management offices as a group to complain. Management says "what can I do, it's already been published?" Now everyone pissed off.
9) Management meets with engineers one by one to tell them that they have a "bad attitude" and that they aren't "team players." Morale improves greatly of course. Passion for project fades. Resumes float. Leaders transfer to new projects if the can. Schedule slip is guaranteed.
10) When it becomes obvious even to management that the dates aren't even remotely possible, they want to cut features. Engineers explain that this is adding work to the project and is in fact pushing the date out farther. Management doesn't understand. Marketeers livid.
11) When the published date comes and goes, customers want to know what the problem is.

12) Marketing is genetically wired to deflect blame. Since it can't be their fault... BLAME THE ENGINEERS.

The best part is, the people who really get screwed are the QA people. They don't get their hands on a working production unit until well after the ship date. Every day they have the product is a delay in the ship date. Talk about pressure! And an abbreviated QA cycle = buggy product. So ultimately it's you and me who get screwed.

At this stage if I were seriously interested in the M1, I'd be looking to wait at least a year after it actually ships before buying one. I'm not big on being unpaid QA for anyone anymore.

And no, I'M NOT BITTER! I'm not. Really. ;) And the truth is the truth, bitter or not. I'm just saying...


In my company, the marketing people take 2.5 years to decide what they want, then want the product delivered in 4 weeks, wjich is wholly unrealistsic and prevents all testing & QA. Then get get p*ssed when the product is late or has bugs.

[Ted Harris]

In this particular instance the marketing people made a very premature announcement of the product (much to their regret) so bad on them. OTOH, from all the information I have been able to gather, the engineers were not totally blameless this time around. I've worked on both sides of the fence and, while it is true that marketing always wants the product ready to go out the door instantly, it is also true that R&D frequently wants to continue to test the product for another ... month .... year ... fill in the blank before they release it for production. Trouble is that they are both right.

As for Microtek and the M1, I ahve a call into the product manager and with some luck will have an answer to post here today.

[Rakesh Malik]

I have some hammers for sale for a mere $12k each.

Fortunately, I no longer work for the government. I now work at a "small" bookstore.

:D

[Ted Harris]

Here is the latest:

1) They now have production units in house and are testing the English versions of the software,

2) A few hundred are expected to arrive in the next few weeks and be available in stores soon thereafter.

[Don Miller]

Ted, are they getting you a test unit? Did he know price?

[Ted Harris]

Yes to the test unit and we didn't discuss price. There will be a public announcement coming.

[sung]

..can I assume that this scanner will be in a similar league to the Epson V750 and not any better, but just x2 in price?..

...I know I should wait until the damn thing is released but I need a new scanner NOW!..(anyobody want to sell me their Imacon? :) )

[Anthony Lewis]

I've now hung off for a year waiting for this scanner - it better be good! But there have been so many false dawns on its release, that I'm beginning to think its a myth.

[Ted Harris]

Sung, your assumption taht it will be in the same league as the V750 is likely correct. I don't know where you go the idea that it would cost twice as much as the 750, my expectation is that it will be priced very similarly to the 750.

Anthony, can't see why you have waited so long but since you have waited this long might as well wait a few more weeks. It is now really here.

[Ken Lee]

I just got an Epson 4990. At 2400 ppi, it's almost as sharp as my Microtek 2500F at 2500 ppi, but is much much smaller, lighter, faster, and quieter. It doesn't get locked up after a few scans, and it doesn't produce grey lines on my scans.

The Epson also seems to perform the same on R, G, and B channels, unlike the Microtek, which was clearly best on the Green channel only.

Once I get my variable height holder, I presume it will match the 2500f - at a fraction of the price.

[sung]

[QUOTE Ted Harris;279147]Sung, your assumption taht it will be in the same league as the V750 is likely correct. I don't know where you go the idea that it would cost twice as much as the 750, my expectation is that it will be priced very similarly to the 750.QUOTE]

Hi Ted,

If you are correct re: pricing, then it may be cheaper for me to buy in the US, even with shipping costs added.

Here in Australia, it has been quoted at $1750 Ozzie dollars, in comparison to $750 for the Epson. So I was at least hoping for some improvement in scanning quality over the Epson for the price difference.

Would you know the likely cost in the US?

[seawolf66]

No matter who is to blame the bottom line is we' are going have to wait no matter what we want:

[James Bemus]

Hi Sung,

Microtek's previous announcements for the Artixscan M1 listed the MSRP at $699 USD. Of course, that was over a year ago! I haven't seen any price statement lately.

[Steve Kefford]

Datamind (http://www.datamind.co.uk/Templates/frmTemplateM1.asp?SubFolderID=159&SearchYN=N)in the UK have a price of £750.

Steve

[James Bemus]

<drums fingers on table>

[mandyblack]

Hi, All:

I've been waiting .... and waiting ... and waiting for this scanner and finally e-mailed the company. Another delay, unfortunately.

The manager of product marketing wrote me that they now expect "to be able to release the ArtixScan M1 to distributors
and resellers around November 15." This after someone at their customer service number assured me that it would be in stores
next week.

I don't feel like the e-mail reply I got was particularly private, so if anyone is interested in reading it, give me a shout and I'll send it along or post.

I really was excited about this scanner, but I'll admit to being more and more nervous about being among the first group to buy.

MB

[Gene McCluney]

Hi, All:

I've been waiting .... and waiting ... and waiting for this scanner and finally e-mailed the company. Another delay, unfortunately.


I really was excited about this scanner, but I'll admit to being more and more nervous about being among the first group to buy.

MB

Microtek has been making this style of scanner for years now, with incremental improvements and price reductions along the way. This is not (as I see it) a technological "break thru", but rather an incremental improvement, and price reduction on technology that Microtek has been using for years now. I really doubt there will be any significant "teething" problems with this scanner.

[audioexcels]

Buy a 4990 for $250 or a V700 for $400. Why bother with either of the V750 or Micro products when your results will be the same, but for more money spent? I don't understand the logic or interest in a product that is like comparing a Canon 10D to a Canon 300D...

[archivue]

Why bother with either of the V750...

Silverfast AI an IT8 targets...

[Ted Harris]

An update,

According to my latest conversation with the North American product manager the further delay has been due to tweaking the software to permit users to get the maximum potential out of the scanner's autofocus capability. Scanners are sitting in a warehouse in California waiting for the arrival of the new software from Taiwan. Latest arrival and shipping to dealers will be right after Thanksgiving.

I'm still assuming that I will have one to test out of the first shipment. As soon as it arrives I will post some preliminary results.

[Kirk Gittings]

There is still somewhat of a cold war arms race going on with scanners in this price range. The new Microtec will have auto focus which will be a definite plus if it works well and Digital Ice I believe (which the 1800f did not have?). Beyond that don't expect much more than incremental improvements in resolution, speed etc. I will probably replace my current 750 with one if they work well. I had to return my 1800f twice to get one that worked.

[Kerik Kouklis]

Buy a 4990 for $250 or a V700 for $400. Where can one get a 4990 for $250 (other than ebay)?

[Kirk Gittings]

Have you tried the Epson refurbished area on their website? Though much fewer than before, they do pop up there occasionally.

[J_Tardiff]

Another vote for the Epson refurb area -- and if you get yourself on their mailing list you can sometimes get 10% - 20% off coupons to boot.

I got a stellar deal on one of the Epson P2000s that way.

BTW, I had fun (gently) teasing the Microtek guy at PhotoPlus about the M1. The head of our AIF asked me to check it out because they are interested in one for a large project. At least I could tell them I touched one.


JT

[Kerik Kouklis]

Have you tried the Epson refurbished area on their website? Though much fewer than before, they do pop up there occasionally.Tried it, no go on the 4990.

[Asher Kelman]

I'm still assuming that I will have one to test out of the first shipment. As soon as it arrives I will post some preliminary results.
Thank for keeping us in the loop! You might be inducing a lot of Channukah and Christmas gift choices!

Asher

[Kirk Gittings]

Tried it, no go on the 4990.

Check back periodically. I saw one there about two weeks ago while I was checking on the refurb price on a 750.

[mandyblack]

OK, for those who have seen the new Artixscan or know more than I do (that's most of you) what are some good reasons to wait for this scanner? I'm still holding out, but I'm beginning to wonder why ...

Thanks in advance,
MB

[Ted Harris]

mandy,

If the autofocus works as well in practice as it has when demonstrated then the M1 is likely to significantly outperform its competitors. However, that is a big IF. OTOH, you only have to wait another week or two at most.

[Steve Kefford]

... Latest arrival and shipping to dealers will be right after Thanksgiving....

Sorry, but for those of us outside USA, when is thanksgiving?

Steve

[Ted Harris]

After Thanksgiving = last week in November/first week in December.

[Doug Fisher]

>> OTOH, you only have to wait another week or two at most.<<

Hehehe... maybe. Are you offering decent betting odds? ;) Given the stream of missed delivery dates that Microtek has been shoveling out for over a year now, I wouldn't mind placing a wager :)

[Doug Dolde]

Maybe they are saving it for April first.

[Doug Fisher]

>>Hey, I wouldn't be surprised very soon an announcement of a new Epson. <<

You will. It will be a V750 with an upgraded light source in the lid where they change from the light tube to a bar of LEDs. Faster warm up but that is about it. It is already available in Japan.

Doug

[gregstidham]

If the autofocus works as well in practice as it has when demonstrated then the M1 is likely to significantly outperform its competitors. However, that is a big IF. OTOH, you only have to wait another week or two at most.
The ability to focus the scanner is the reason I am interested in the M1. I'm glad you are already planning on checking the focus capabilities. Thanks in advance. :)

[Armin Seeholzer]

Oh yes it will be there short bevor chrismas but which year?

Armin

[Rob Landry]

mandy,

If the autofocus works as well in practice as it has when demonstrated then the M1 is likely to significantly outperform its competitors. However, that is a big IF. OTOH, you only have to wait another week or two at most.

Where have the M1's capabilities been demonstrated? Like a few others here, I've been waiting on this scanner since it was announced. Unfortunately, it's a bit like blind faith because I've not seen any statements or sample images from Microtek that justify my waiting. Surely, they could have put up a web page showing off its capabilities by now.

I dunno, but when a product keeps getting delayed this long, it doesn't exactly instill a lot of confidence.

[Ted Harris]

A working model was on display and demonstrated at Photo Plus in New York last month.

[Anthony Lewis]

I think the M stands for 'myth'.

[mandyblack]

Just got this from the product manager:






I have good news. We began shipping the Microtek ArtixScan M1 scanner to distributors and resellers today. B&H Photo in New York is one of the accounts that will be receiving these scanners in a few days.

We received the first factory shipment of ArtixScan M1 Pro scanners today also. We will begin shipping those out next week. I have reserved several ArtixScan M1 Pro scanners for journalists and those will be sent out next week.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,
Parker

[uniB]

I contacted an ebay seller in the UK who are listing one, they say that the units are in Germany at the moment and should be with them by the time the auction ends in a couple of days time. Whether that's true is another matter!

I'm still like to see some reviews, I'm not really holding out a lot of hope for it being much of an improvement on the i900

[Ted Harris]

I spoke with the product manager yesterday. As noted above, the first batch of M1's shipped to dealers yesterday. The M1 Pro's, those with the second set of holders and Silverfast Studio as part of the package, will ship Monday.

He told me that my evaluation unit would be here by next Friday at the latest.

Stay tuned.

[uniB]

grrrr, I'm so close to buying a v750 as well, should I wait I wonder???

[mandyblack]

Chomping at the bit to see what you think, Ted, so have at it!

MB

[Asher Kelman]

grrrr, I'm so close to buying a v750 as well, should I wait I wonder???

Isn't there a new version coming out of the Epson with LEDs? Anyway, Epson does take film to 8x10 size so that is a unique asset!

Ted,

The M1 is fine for 4x5 film, but what about a glassless Microtek 8x10 film scanner in that class?

Asher

[Ted Harris]

The M1, like all of the other recent Microtek scanners takes 8x10 film, in fact does so easier than the Epsons, IMO. You simply mount the film on the supplied glass tray, either tape or wet mount. The tray slides out so cleaning it is easy.

[coops]

I am new to 4x5 photography and scanned a few images on my Epson 3200 yesterday. This was an expensive scanner 4 years or so ago but boy, did it suck on the scans yesterday. I am excited at the prospect of getting decent scans of my work.

[Armin Seeholzer]

Hi Ted

Soon is christmas and you stil haven't got this scanner yet?
Or did you not have the time to test yet!
Cheers Armin

[Skotting]

Hallo to everyone

I am a newcomer to the forum and this is my first remark ever to any forum at all, so bare over with me if I don't know how this works.
As so many of you have stated we are many who have waited an unreasonably long time for the M1 (F1 in Europa) but I think that it will be worth the waiting.

Like Ted Harris I too attended the Expo in NY in October and as I see it this scanner compared to any other flatbed on the market is way ahead on all features that matters, to me anyway.

I had a long talk with a representative from Silver fast and he showed me some raw scans from the Epson V750 and the M1, and there was no comparison between the them. As ever with Epson there was no sharpness and colors were blurred (I have used Epson for years, so I know what to look for)

I asked if the M1 is capable of providing grain sharpness due to the auto focus and the glassless scanning, and he said yes in theory, but no in reality, but as he put it, you won't get it much sharper even if you use a Imacon scanner. So to me this scanner might be what I have wanted for a long time, I just hope that the hardware its made of can take the beating of use and time.

BYS

[Ted Harris]

OK guys, its the real deal. Microtek sent me a Fedex shipping number and the Fedex site says they picked it up. It'll be here Friday.

[James Bemus]

Woot!

[Eirik Berger]

Ted, let us know what you think of it.
I guess there are quite a few of us that consider purchasing this scanner.

[Giacomo GIRINO]

For what it may be worth, I just found this (http://www.silverfast.com/forum/new-artixscan-f1-t5044.html).

Cheers,
Lino

[Lee S]

Ted I too look forward to to your opinion on the M1. Also do you know the price?
All the best. ------------- Leland

[David Luttmann]

Hey Ted.....

.....a few samples crops would make my day. Now to wait for Fedex!

[audioexcels]

For what it may be worth, I just found this (http://www.silverfast.com/forum/new-artixscan-f1-t5044.html).

Cheers,
Lino

That was an excellent review;)

I'm sure Ted will give us some samples and tidbits on Sunday granted he's received the unit tomorrow and has had time this weekend to get into it and see how it is.

[drew.saunders]

Also do you know the price?
All the best. ------------- Leland

Midwest Photo is about the only place I've seen it listed:

$649 for the standard version http://www.mpex.com/browse.cfm/4,6718.htm, and $799 for the Pro version http://www.mpex.com/browse.cfm/4,6723.htm but no details, and both listed as "Out-of-stock" for now.

Drew

[Ted Harris]

Midwest should have them in stock if you call unless they sold the ones they ordered the beginning of last week.

[Harley Goldman]

Can't wait to read the reviews. The pricing isn't too hideous if it performs.

[Giacomo GIRINO]

That was an excellent review;)


I agree but I was just hoping someone would give news about the European F1 version and the availability in Europe. Anyone on this forum? Any European site?

Lino

[Ted Harris]

It's here. It's setup and I ran one scan real quick. Yeah yeah yeah I picked the wrong image to put up here because it is difficult to tell the quality of the image. I'll do another one in a bit. The image here is a real straightforward raw scan. No sharpening, no tweaking at all. Just set the white and black point. Nothing else. Scanned in full 16 bit (48bit in Silverfast) multiple scans set at 4, autopfocus set for the center of the image.

A couple of quick observations:

1) The Microtek Software has not been updated yet for Leopard (I'll try it anyway when I get a chance).

2) The version of Silverfast that ships will not run on Leopard, won't even fully install, but there is an upgrade available on the Silverfast website that runs on Leopard.

To my eye this is a definite and significant improvement over what I have seen in the other consumer scanners. I picked this image to scan first because it is one I recently scanned on the Cezanne, unfortunately it is impossible to do a one-to-one comparison as high-end scanner workflow calls for some sharpening while scanning. When time permits I'll do some of that. I have not checked to see if there is any "hidden" sharpening ala the Imacon but a quick look says there isn't.

Here tis.

[coops]

Thanks, looking forward to the rest of your review. I do have a question though. I was told that scanning 4x5 with flatbeds, I should not hope to print more than 4x without considerable quality loss. Is the expectation high with this scanner that image quality will be good enough to go bigger on the prints?
Cheers

[Ted Harris]

No, I don't expect to see anything more than some significant incremental improvement and that MAY mean you can go to 4x. Generally. I don't recommend going above 3x with prosumer flatbeds.

Stay tuned I'll do a print in the next few days.

[John Brady]

Hi Ted,
Thanks for putting this machine through it's paces for us. I'm confused about your 3x to 4x comment though. If the old 1800f 1800dpi was capable of 3x to 4x why wouldn't the new 4800dpi optical of the m1 be capable of a far greater enlargement?

John

[David Luttmann]

Hi Ted,
Thanks for putting this machine through it's paces for us. I'm confused about your 3x to 4x comment though. If the old 1800f 1800dpi was capable of 3x to 4x why wouldn't the new 4800dpi optical of the m1 be capable of a far greater enlargement?

John

Probably because the 1800ppi was closer to the real value of approx 2000ppi than the 4800ppi. The real rez of the scanner is probably limited to around 2200 to 2400ppi. The scanner can sample higher, but won't obtain anything further from the film.

I do question the 4X figure though. I've seen scans that were done with the V750 and 4x5 Fuji Pro160 that printed well out to 6X.

[Armin Seeholzer]

And with the Epson 750 you can get a perfect 8x or 10 times enlargement from 35mm if you have the neg on the right position!
In my case I got always the grey totaly sharp at 6400 DPI on 35mm!
Happy scanning, Armin

[Ted Harris]

I respect Armin's eye and his talent so won't argue but remember that YMMV and different folks have different ideas of what is acceptable. We are also dealing with the age old question of how we measure enlargement is an 8x10 from a 4x5 a 2x or a 4x enlargement ... depends on how you measure and this difference does count when we are messing with pixels. The standard nomenclature calls an 8x10 a 2x and a 16x20 a 4x when in fact the area of the 16x20 is actually 16 times the area of the 8x10 .... that for another thread at another time.

Armin, I will try some 35mm slides next and then do some prints.

For now here is another scan, again not messed with at all. Standard settings in Silverfast, 48 (16) bit, scanned at 2400 spi, autofocus set manually for the side of the building. The second image is a crop at 100&#37; meaning full pixel size. No manipulation in PS at all other than resizing for here.

The autofocus makes a difference. More later.

[David Luttmann]

Ted,

Not that I think you have too much time on your hands....but can you cmpare that same chimney shot to an Epson V700 / 750 or 4990?

Thanks,

[Kirk Gittings]

Ted,

Not that I think you have too much time on your hands....but can you cmpare that same chimney shot to an Epson V700 / 750 or 4990?

Thanks,

He doesn't own one, he is going to ship me a tranny so we can compare them.

As per 6x from a 4x5 color neg? Not to my standards. I have scanned hundreds of negs on the 750, dry, wet and with great attention to film height and focus. I have never seen one that would be acceptable to me over 3x. If I wanted a first rate 16x20 I paid always ended up going to an Imacon or paying for a drum scan.

[pango]

For now here is another scan, again not messed with at all. Standard settings in Silverfast, 48 (16) bit, scanned at 2400 spi, autofocus set manually for the side of the building. The second image is a crop at 100% meaning full pixel size. No manipulation in PS at all other than resizing for here.

The autofocus makes a difference. More later.

Why am I unimpressed? 2400dpi is not that much, but the chimney looks as though the resolution is not much above half that.

Try a 35mm with good detail and scan it in the highest resolution.

[Ted Harris]

pango,

2400 is the highest REAL optical reolution for all of the consumer scanners; in fact none of them reach 2400. This one might be more but I won't know until I scan the AIG test target.

I'll scan a 35mm eventually but that is not the primary interest of folks here or of our readers (View Camera magazine). When I am doing scanning workshops I always recommend a dedicated consumer film scanner such as the Nikon V/5000/9000 for scanning 35mm as opposed to a consumer flatbed.

[Steve Kefford]

Ted,

Could I suggest that you start a new thread with your observations of the scanner. My browser is having difficulties with this thread.

Steve

[Nathan Potter]

Ted, just to get a feel for what I'm looking at in the two images of the brick mill - I assume the transparency is a 4X5 size image so the 1888 sign on the chimney is about 100 mils (2500 microns) in width on the 4X5. Then roughly, the grout lines between the bricks from the enlargement are about 2 mils (50 microns) referenced to the 4X5 original and limited in resolution either by the scanner or the taking lens. Do I detect a bit of film grain resolved within the bricks? Does this quick result look promising for the M1?

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[Ted Harris]

Yes, it is a 4x5 tranny and you are looking at the full frame in the first image.

The quick result looks very promising for the M1.

[ad. davies]

Ted,
Thanks for the early test, when you have a chance could you see how it handles 8x10 negatives?

Cheers.

[pango]

2400 is the highest REAL optical reolution for all of the consumer scanners; in fact none of them reach 2400. This one might be more but I won't know until I scan the AIG test target.


Much looking forward to the results. Given the hype I thought the M1 should be closer to film scanners and that would mean sharp at 2400 at least and should be much better than V700/V750.

You know, the pricing policy of Microtek in Europe puts the F1(M1) at TWICE the price tag compared to the Epsons competitors, which have an OK resolution for MF/LF. To make it worthwhile, the resolution should really approach that of film scanners.

[John Brady]

(Quote David Lutman) Probably because the 1800ppi was closer to the real value of approx 2000ppi than the 4800ppi. The real rez of the scanner is probably limited to around 2200 to 2400ppi. The scanner can sample higher, but won't obtain anything further from the film.

Hi David, bear with me because i truly don't have the technical knowledge for this one. (I couldn't even get the quote thing to work right:)

Microtek is claiming 4800 optical resolution for this machine. They list much higher digital resolution for this machine which I know is useless for us. They claimed considerably less optical res for the 1800f.

I am still trying to understand this one so any help would be appreciated.
Thanks, jb

[Ted Harris]

pango, my guess is that the results will surpass that of the Epson scanners. The first scans seen to indicate that to me but we will see what some more tests tell us. Remember that there is a lot more to the clarity of the scan than just the resolution number.

John, for a detailed discussion you will need to go back to the articles I did for View Camera several years ago. Simply put , there are two key points here: 1) As you know not all pixels are equal and the sensor in the 1800f is a good bit larger than those in all of the consumer scanners on the market today. 2) The resolution race started long before Microtek and Epson were the leaders in the consumer photo scanner wars. It was going on back when UMax was the major player, 6-8 years ago. What happens is they give you theoretical maximum resolution numbers which have absolutely no meaning in the real world. The same is true of the DMax numbers they give us. Real world resolution and DMax are quite different from these theoretical numbers. At the same time they don't even publish number for some other critical specifications.

[John Brady]

John, for a detailed discussion you will need to go back to the articles I did for View Camera several years ago. Simply put , there are two key points here: 1) As you know not all pixels are equal and the sensor in the 1800f is a good bit larger than those in all of the consumer scanners on the market today. 2) The resolution race started long before Microtek and Epson were the leaders in the consumer photo scanner wars. It was going on back when UMax was the major player, 6-8 years ago. What happens is they give you theoretical maximum resolution numbers which have absolutely no meaning in the real world. The same is true of the DMax numbers they give us. Real world resolution and DMax are quite different from these theoretical numbers. At the same time they don't even publish number for some other critical specifications.

Thanks Ted, that helps me get it. I will be very interested in your results. (I am making progress, I got the quote thing right this time)
jb

[celluloidprop]

The standard nomenclature calls an 8x10 a 2x and a 16x20 a 4x when in fact the area of the 16x20 is actually 16 times the area of the 8x10 .... that for another thread at another time.

Thank you for clearing that up, BTW. The various 2x/4x etc. statements were confusing me a little - feared that 2x or 3x meant that quality 8x10s were an iffy proposition from 4x5.

[audioexcels]

Thank you for clearing that up, BTW. The various 2x/4x etc. statements were confusing me a little - feared that 2x or 3x meant that quality 8x10s were an iffy proposition from 4x5.

I didn't understand this either. It sounds like one can do only a 2X for an 8X10 sheet (anything more than 2X and it's not good), whereas with 4X5, one can do a 4X (hopefully with this M1, or we can just call it 3X like Kirk was saying which is the best the Epson can achieve) with a 4X5 sheet and that's the maximum.

Geez...maybe I'm not making sense now;):)

Basically, with 8X10, you do a 3X on Epson by Kirk's valuation of the Epson and this gives a 24X30 print.

You do the same 3X with 4X5 and it's a 12X15 print.

Because the scanner's threshold of resolution-enlarging is a 12X15 print, one can only do a 1.5X on the 8X10=12X15.

I think I'm not getting the point here, though...better explaination?

LOOKING FORWARD TO THE TRUE DPI test on this machine...and side by side comparison's of what one can expect from the Cezanne vs. the M1 would be wonderfully appreciated (i.e. at what print size one is better than the other, at what print size one can even be printed at, etc. etc.).

Cheers!

[Kirk Gittings]

I apologize, I am using a bit of personal shorthand I guess. Here is my point. IMO after having owned 11-13 prosumer flatbeds from Epson 3200 through 750 Pro, Canon 9950f, Microtek 1800f, Nikon 8000, I could never make a 16x20 wet or dry that would make a comparable 16x20 to a drum or pro flatbed scan. I call that 16x20 from a 4x5 the "4X" boundary. But I could do a decent 11x14, which in my shorthand I call a "3X", because it is in between an 8x10 (2X) and 16x20 (4X).

I currently own a Creo Eversmart and an Epson 750. Ted and I will be doing some comparisons which will be posted, but it won't be like tomorrow! Be patient. We've waited like 12 years for this scanner right?

[Gene McCluney]

I can't yet see what this new Microtek M1 scanner offers that I don't have on my Microtek Artixscan 2500f? It sounds like it has very similar resolution, separate trays for various sheet film and roll film sizes, plus a glass plate for up to 8x10, plus a place to scan reflective art. 2 lens systems, one for hi-res on 1/2 the width of the scanner, the other for 1200 dpi over the whole face. The only thing I see, is that this scanner is vastly cheaper to purchase than what I paid for my 2500f.

[Kirk Gittings]

Auto Focus?

[Ed Richards]

> I can't yet see what this new Microtek M1 scanner offers that I don't have on my Microtek Artixscan 2500f?

Availability? Many of us would buy a 2500 in a heartbeat if it were available.

[Jay Thirsty]

I was under the impression that one of the main differences between the M1 and the preceding models was that it allows Digital ICE with transparent media, whereas on the older models the Digital ICE only worked with reflective media. Or was I mistaken?

[Rob Landry]

Apparently, Vincent from www.Photo-i.co.uk is waiting on an M1 to be delivered for review. His reviews are usually pretty extensive and since he always uses the same set of images in all his reviews, he will have direct comparisons with previous Epsons and Canons. He's also pretty good at scanning and shows crops with and without sharpening to give an idea of real-world results.

[Don Miller]

I apologize, I am using a bit of personal shorthand I guess. Here is my point. IMO after having owned 11-13 prosumer flatbeds ......................

And THAT seems to be the lesson that I too have a hard time learning. Ya gets whats ya pays for. Inexpensive scanners become expensive in quantity.

[Doug Fisher]

>> I was under the impression that one of the main differences between the M1 and the preceding models was that it allows Digital ICE with transparent media, whereas on the older models the Digital ICE only worked with reflective media. Or was I mistaken?<<

FWIW, I have been in contact with someone who received their review sample on Friday and they said that it appears to them the scanner once again does not have ICE for film. Just passing along what this person told me although they had just opened the box and not fully explored everything.

Doug
---
www.BetterScanning.com

[Kirk Gittings]

Doug,

Nowhere on the Microtek sight does it mention Digital Ice on the M-1, so I am assuming no. This will not be attractive to some. It will need to offer some real resolution gains to cut into 750 sales.

[coops]

I am still trying to understand what interest LF photographers would have in a scanner such as this. I am fairly new to this and was also interested, but when I learned that even good flatbed scanners can only deliver a 3 to 4x print, and even then the quality may be questionable, I figured I might as well have my best shots drum scanned and be done with it.
Am I missing something?
I guess that if the M1 could deliver outstanding 11x14 prints, then it would be worth it for those images not being printed larger.
Like everyone else, I eagerly anticipate the review.

[Ed Richards]

> Am I missing something?

1) $$ - most of us would love to stick with drum scans, but unless you want to run your own drum scanner, it is hard to part with about $100 per scan, plus you will not know which are your best shots until you compare the scans. (Bruce and others can weigh in - I bet even if you own a drum scanner you do your first cut with a consumer scanner.)

2) if you are fairly new to this, you have a lot of shooting and printing in front of you before the scan is the limiting factor in your photography. Learn to use the consumer scanner to its capabilities, and when have done your first 500-1000 sheets and have a better idea what you want in a print, then start getting drum scans. (Unless money is not an object, in which case you should find someone you trust to do the scans, and see if you can work out a bulk deal to get through those first few hundred sheets. There are good deals to be had in India I am told.)

[Kirk Gittings]

Ed is absolutely right, they have their place. I use a 750 with DI for magazine work, small exhibition prints, proofing to see what I want drum scans from etc. They are very useful.

[harrykauf]

>
(Unless money is not an object, in which case you should find someone you trust to do the scans, and see if you can work out a bulk deal to get through those first few hundred sheets. There are good deals to be had in India I am told.)

People really send their negatives to India to get scanned? wow...

[coops]

> Am I missing something?



No, not at all. I was asking, and I got some good responses. Thanks

[Jay Thirsty]

I found the source for what I had read about the M1 having Digital ICE:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1161706453.html

"Parker said the company was working with Kodak to develop the film version of Digital ICE. Microtek partnered with ASF (subsequently bought by Kodak) to develop the reflective version of Digital ICE, using opposing lamps to map defects in the surface of a print. The film version will use infrared LEDs focused on a different plane to do the same thing but it's still in development."

I was intrigued by not having to scan film through the glass, and by the possibility that they might offer better film holders and/or software than the Epsons, but if they have still failed to include ICE then I'm not going to buy one.

[Gene McCluney]

I was intrigued by not having to scan film through the glass, and by the possibility that they might offer better film holders and/or software than the Epsons, but if they have still failed to include ICE then I'm not going to buy one.

I have been scanning for years, I have 4 scanners, I never use Digital Ice. If your process your own film, and handle it carefully, there is only a minimum of spotting to do on the scan. "Ice" only works with color film anyway.

The Microtek Artixscan style of flatbed scanners (of which the M-1 is the newest version) does have advantages over the Epson style. It has a sliding drawer with glassless film inserts just for film, and a glass plate for odd sizes, and 8x10. Consider a 2x enlargement from 8x10 negative is 16x20. In other words scan an 8x10 negative at 600 ppi and you get a 16x20 print at 300 dpi.

On an Epson style flatbed, you are always scanning thru glass. On the Microtek, you only scan thru glass for film larger than 4x5. The glass insert on the Microtek is user friendly, it comes out and you can easily clean each side.

[Kirk Gittings]

On an Epson style flatbed, you are always scanning thru glass. On the Microtek, you only scan thru glass for film larger than 4x5.

In the real world I'm not sure that this really means very much. For along time I owned both the 750 and 1800f and tested them extensively. The 1800f had a very very slight resolution advantage over the 750, but this was probably more to do with the superior sensor array in the 1800f, rather than the glassless scanning. Microtek's most expensive prepress flatbed scanners scan through the glass.

[Ted Harris]

Microtek's most expensive prepress flatbed scanners scan through the glass.

As do all of the other high-end flatbed scanners. I agree with Kirk that it is likely more a factor of the larger sensor in the 1800f.

As for ICE, I also agree with the latter comments regarding its use. It works by softening the image ... do you really want that on a scan from a prosumer scanner? I have experimented with ICE enough to know how to use it and never do when using scanners that have it available. I'd rather do the necessary spotting in PS and get the sharpest scan possible to start my workflow.

[Kirk Gittings]

Here is one place I will disagree with Ted. Not all ICE is created equal and it's improving. It is somewhat algorithm dependent as some software runs it better than others with less detail loss. ICE has its place. I did some testing about a year and a half ago. I found SF on the quality setting outperformed both the Epson software, Vuescan (either setting) and the Nikon software for the 8000 in terms of dust removal and minimal loss of fine detail. But it takes much longer, which means it is doing some serious number crunching. These ratings may have change with new software releases.

What do I use it for? Virtually all scans that do not have a large final product or are my art pieces. Hence I use it for web images, proofs for clients, mock ups, magazine work all the time (particularly stock sales from old transparencies which have seen heavy use and are showing some wear). It is not perfect, but It is a real time saver on less than top notch critical work.

[Stefan]

Hi Ted!
I would love to take part of one or several of your test scans mad with the Microtek M1
Can you put some on the web so that I can download them?

I use a free online storage [ http://www.4shared.com/ ] for storing large down-loadable files for my Canon 8800F review (http://www.stockholmviews.com/canon_8800f_review/8800fpage1.html) it allows you to upload 100mb large files for sharing!
That would be sufficient to store a 24bit tiff file:D

Regards/ Stefan

[pango]

What about those fancy film holders? Microtek claims that these film holder would stretch the film for flatness. Any observations?

[Rob Landry]

So Ted, now that you've had a few days with the M1, have you had a chance to do any further testing?

[Doug Dolde]

MPEX is selling one on Ebaby right NOW.

[coops]

Here is a link to another review, or I should say forthcoming review.

http://artixscanm1.com/

[Eric James]

I was under the impression that a given scanner may work well with 4X5 film, but as film size increases scan quality may suffer. If there is an inherent "sweet spot" for flatbeds, why does the M1 4x5 holder not center a single negative/slide?

Is my "sweet spot" assumption faulty; do larger film scans suffer from heat or other factors?

[Maretzo]

Question or debate: Can any scanner match the grain of a fine Fuji negative??? And with how many dpi would it be possible?

[Ciaran Brennan]

Scanner Diary: Microtek ArtiScan M1 at Imaging Resource:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1197518432.html

[Ted Harris]

LOL, Kirk and I don't disagree here either. I was referring strictly to the ICE branded algorithms used by Microtek and Epson. Kirk's right, the Silverfast alogrithms are different and a lot better.

Stefan, thanks for the offer but i don't think it will work. My file sizes are more in the range of 300-600mb from full 48 bit scans.

Rob, see this in another thread http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?p=299230#post299230

My next steps with the scanner will be to test Dmax and resolution and do one more scan but that isn't going to happen for another day or so. The full review will be in the next issue of the magazine.

[Kirk Gittings]

Question or debate: Can any scanner match the grain of a fine Fuji negative??? And with how many dpi would it be possible?

I have never seen grain truly resolved short of a drum or a pro flatbed scanner. There is probably some minimum true optical resolution necessary to resolve grain. Ted can probably shed some light on this.

[Kirk Gittings]

I was under the impression that a given scanner may work well with 4X5 film, but as film size increases scan quality may suffer. If there is an inherent "sweet spot" for flatbeds, why does the M1 4x5 holder not center a single negative/slide?

Is my "sweet spot" assumption faulty; do larger film scans suffer from heat or other factors?

Actually Eric as film size decreases, scan quality suffers. A flatbed scanner that does 4x5 adequately will likely not do 35mm nearly as well. Which is why we recommend dedicated film scanners for 35mm.

The "sweet spot" effect has lessened with each generation of scanners as manufacturers have been trying to build scanners that will properly scan up to 8x10 film.

[Matus Kalisky]

I just checked the german Microtek webpage. The M1 (called F1 in Germany) does not seem to have ANY SilverFast software included. There are no different bundles mentioned at all on the Microtek homepage.

On the other hand the information found on www.macwelt.de version "Studio" is mentioned that should include SilverFast Ai and even version "HDR". The prices are on the high side here - about 1100 euro for "Studio" and 1300 for "HDR" :(

It seems we have to wait a bit more here in Germany to find out what would we get if we would pay for it ...

.. Ted - which version are you testing actually ?

[pango]

It seems we have to wait a bit more here in Germany to find out what would we get if we would pay for it ...


I agree to your observations, Microtek Europe does not provide comprehensible specifications on the website and I find the pricing policy most frustrating. It is tempting for Europeans these days to order products in the US, because even with shipping and TVA plus (unknown) import taxes, the product would still be significantly cheaper than when bought in Europe.

Trouble is that Microtek has a bad reputation with service, so that buying in the US means effectively losing warranty, which is a very bad idea for a product as recent as the M1.

[Matus Kalisky]

Concerning the prices my impression is that the professional photo equipment is in EU generally priced with a slogan: "Nobody buys it anyhow". This is true for LF lenses, lightmeters (Pentax Digital ~ 600 euro !), film, etc ... :(

[Nathan Potter]

Kirk, about scanners ability to resolve grain in films; some years ago I was in a metallurgical lab and measured the grain size of some films. Included was Kodachrome 25 and Ektachrome 400 ASA. The Kodachrome grains inc. the color couplers varied widely from about 0.5 micrometers to about 5 micrometers as a function of the layer in the film and the degree of exposure. Ektachrome 400 varied a bit less - from about 3 micrometers to about 15 micrometers. A quick look at Velvia 50 today shows the grains to be less defined when compared to Kodachrome and Ektachrome - but still pretty small - say from 2 micrometers to about 10 micrometers.

It would appear that only pro scanners would have the capability to really resolve individual grains in films, then only if they are operated with maximum skill. For example the Aztec at the 3 micrometer setting would certainly show grains in Velvia and Ektachrome 400. Ted probably has some sense of this from actual experience with pro flatbeds.

Nate Potter

[Asher Kelman]

Theoretically, if one had a micrometer stage, one could move the film in 1 micron increments and repeat scans and then stack the results.

One would have say 5 to ten scans at each position to get rid of noise and then the shifted fused images would be blended to yield extra resolution. This would require a very stable place to set the scanner, but today, with photoacute or other software, one should be able to resolve grain with a commercial flatbed scanner if one's mind was set to the task and time was no object! I'm not suggesting this is a worthy use of time, just pondering that it could be done.

Asher

[roderick]

Just a quick heads up. There is an M1 on _bay from a reputable seller.
<http://cgi.ebay.com/MICROTEK-ARTIXSCAN-M1-DUAL-MEDIA-4800-DPI-SCANNER_W0QQitemZ130183181317QQihZ003QQcategoryZ51438QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem>

Roderick

[Maretzo]

I am with the finger hovering over the mouse, just waiting the first feedback from Ted...

[Ted Harris]

My first feedback was posted in this thread several days ago. My first cut subjective impression is that it is definitely better than the 700/750.

However, the one on eBay is the base model, e.g. without Silverfast Ai Studio. If that doesn't bother you then hit the button. You won't find a better deal.

It's gonna be awhile before I get to resolution and Dmax tests.

[Randy Treadway]

The big question is- did Microtek include the infrared channel in the M1 which was in development for so long?
Eventually it appears they dropped persuing Kodak's ICE which uses such a channel, but it was never explained whether it was a problem with the infrared hardware itself, or just a problem getting ICE to work with it (or some kind of technical dispute with Kodak).
The reason to ask- the included Silverfast software includes something called iSRD which can utilize the infrared information to accomplish much the same purpose as ICE would do.
But did Microtek include a working infrared capability or not? This makes a big difference to buyers, especially those with high-productivity needs. Individually going through multi-masking to accomplish post-scan dust removal, as provided by the standard Silverfast SRD (as opposed to iSRD) is a huge time penalty that may dissuade potential buyers.
Would appreciate feedback on whether Silverfast iSRD works with the Microtek M1. It will only work if there is a hardware infrared channel.

[celluloidprop]

MPEX lists the PRO as in stock as of tonight. $799.

[highdesert]

Just fyi, I bought an M1 Pro from jr.com for $699. Should be here Tuesday. They sell the base model for $599. I haven't seen better prices.

(Been reading for posts here for a while, but this is my first post on this forum, yipppeee!)

[David A. Goldfarb]

I noticed that as well. I've bought a number of things, mostly non-photographic (including the computer I'm typing on right now), from J&R over the years, and they're a reputable retailer. B&H will usually match their price, if you tell them it's lower.

[Anthony Lewis]

In the UK the F1 Pro sells for about 700GBP or $1450US. In Germany the price is about the same - I think. In Australia the price of the F1 is $1800AUD or $1550US. In the States the Pro version is selling for about $700US now.
I want to know, is there a difference between the M1 and the F1? If not, then why is there such a price disparity. Perhaps someone from Microtek could answer this.
Is the F1 built in a different factory to the M1, and if so, is there are build quality difference?
If there is absolutely no difference, then myself and I think the rest of the world, will be very tempted to ship the M1 directly from retailers in the States.
I would like to know if there are any differences (hidden or otherwise) between the F1 and the M1?

[pango]

"F" for f... the Europeans.

It is quite common to use different model names for different markets, sometimes even different brands like "Pacific Image" being sold in Europe under "Reflecta" and "Braun", sometimes even the same product.

The annoying scenario about ordering in the states is warranty and quality control: If you get a bad unit, you have to send it back to the US, and that is very expensive, given the weight.

[stromaroma]

"The annoying scenario about ordering in the states is warranty and quality control"

Especially so with the first batch from the manufacturer.

[Anthony Lewis]

It is sold as the F1 to the rest of the world, not just the Europeans - so maybe its f--- the rest world. From what I can tell it is designated as the M1 just for America.
I can assure you I am very use to products being designated differently, with differing prices, for different countries. But in this case the F1 is double that of the M1. I have never seen such a huge price difference before with the same product. So I can't help to ask the question, is there a difference? Or is it that Microtek just dosen't care for the rest of the world!

[Maretzo]

Same story with the Photoshop CS3, sold in Europe with 60&#37; of "added value".......

[Greg_E]

Hmmmm... Better than the current top of the line Epson, but is it as good as say a Nikon 9000 or even the older 8000? I shoot 120 films, so I'm a little out of place here, just tracked Ted's review down through google for his first thoughts. Still not sure if I want to spend the money on this or spend more on something better.

[pango]

Some very instructive reviews on the German site "filmscanner.info" put it like this: In the end, it is the lens, not the camera, that makes the quality of the photograph, and the same holds for film scanners.

Autofocus cannot make an image sharper than the resolution of the lens(es) of the scanner. It is therefore evident that to produce a flatbed scanner doing the same quality as a 120 scanner would require 4 times the same high quality optics and essentially push up the price by a factor of 3.

Compared to the coolscan 9000, the M1 is however at 1/3 the price, where it should be 3 times more expensive.

So do not expect miracles ...

[Gene McCluney]

Some very instructive reviews on the German site "filmscanner.info" put it like this: In the end, it is the lens, not the camera, that makes the quality of the photograph, and the same holds for film scanners.

Autofocus cannot make an image sharper than the resolution of the lens(es) of the scanner. It is therefore evident that to produce a flatbed scanner doing the same quality as a 120 scanner would require 4 times the same high quality optics and essentially push up the price by a factor of 3.

Compared to the coolscan 9000, the M1 is however at 1/3 the price, where it should be 3 times more expensive.

So do not expect miracles ...

I do not see the logic behind your statements. It is not expensive to design a lens to be sharp at one magnification ratio...even if the scanner, as this one does, has 2 lens systems. The cost of the Coolscan 9000 is not "just" about the lens. The lens is almost an insignificant part of the overall product cost. The cost of the stepper motors, and electronics and CCD array are much more influential in final costs. Making a dual-purpose scanner such as the Microtek M1, greatly broadens the market for this scanner over a dedicated film-only scanner, thus Microtek can have a larger production run, thus reducing per-unit cost on all parts costs. I seriously doubt that the M1 only has 1/3 the performance of the 9000 scanner. Since this scanner is an incremental "improvement" over previous Microtek Artixscan dual-purpose scanners, I'll bet that a lot of the engineering and tooling costs for the mechanism have already been amortized. When I bought my Microtek Artixscan 2500f (a direct predecessor to the current scanner), I paid about $2500, which was above the cost of the Nikon 9000ed.

[Greg_E]

Not expecting miracles at all, which is why I'm not buying yet. Like many people here I've had a few flatbeds that failed to produce the claimed specs, so I am definitely hanging back to see what happens.

[Maretzo]

I am still envisaging to get a M1, but not for final scan. I am actually "subcontracting" all my scans to a photo lab equipped with a drum scanner. I ask low-res scan (20Mb for 4x5" and 5Mb for 6x6) and if they are decently exposed and sharp, I request a high-res scan (150Mb for 4x5" and 20Mb for 6x6). Usually the low-scan are good enough for an A3 print, which is the upper limit of my Canon 9500. The M1 will only replace the low-res scan. And It should be good enough to A3 prints. For higher output, I will still go through the drum scanning.

[coops]

Thought you might find this interesting:


http://www.hasselbladinfo.com/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?10/38651

[Doug Dolde]

Coops, thanks for that link. The scans sure look close to the 848. The histogram on the M1 is quite a bit flatter though. Not sure what that means...less contrast?

[Maretzo]

I am still envisaging to get a M1, but not for final scan.

After reading the interesting discussion in Hasselbladinfo, I will have to revise my statement! :o

[Giacomo GIRINO]

F1 vs M1
About the difference in price, I find many sources saying the F1 has ICE while the M1 does not. E.g. in the thread suggested by 'coops' above, you will find the statement "...Digital ICE is a purely hardware function of a scanner . The ARTIXSCAN F1 has that function . It must be activated in the scanner software ..."

Lino

[Kirk Gittings]

Digital ICE is a purely hardware function of a scanner

There is some eroneous information in that linked thread:

Ice has a hardware and software component. This is a Kodak technology patent licensed to manufacturers and software companies. That is why you get better results with some software than others, Silverfast in particular.

Also the thing about the 848 and the FI have the same optical resolution, but the FI "needs more sharpening"??????? What does that say? At least per those scans, the F1 needs more sharpening because it doesn't resolve as well as the Imacon. But whether either the Imacon or the F1 scans are optimum is another question and what was the actual sharpening setting on the Imacon? Who knows.

I guess my point is, that unless you have money to burn, I would wait for some better tests. I have wasted allot of money on flatbeds myself. Ted and I will be doing a comparison with the Epson 750 soon.

[audioexcels]

There is some eroneous information in that linked thread:

Ice has a hardware and software component. This is a Kodak technology patent licensed to manufacturers and software companies. That is why you get better results with some software than others, Silverfast in particular.

Also the thing about the 848 and the FI have the same optical resolution, but the FI "needs more sharpening"??????? What does that say? At least per those scans, the F1 needs more sharpening because it doesn't resolve as well as the Imacon. But whether either the Imacon or the F1 scans are optimum is another question and what was the actual sharpening setting on the Imacon? Who knows.

I guess my point is, that unless you have money to burn, I would wait for some better tests. I have wasted allot of money on flatbeds myself. Ted and I will be doing a comparison with the Epson 750 soon.

His alignment or the auto-alignment does not look good on that F1. Sharpening...Flatbeds can take tons of sharpening whereas the Imacon will get grainy when you start sharpening it. Take a scan with the 750 and use no sharpening and compare it to one that has been sharpened as much as it can be. Take a look at Vincent's review on the 750 and how much sharpening it took to start to compare to the Nikon 9000..when the Nikon 9000 used sharpening, it became grainy and ugly. That's no different than what the Imacon will do.

IMHO...person doesn't know how to operate that F1 and I don't think auto-alignment is working as those scans do not look sharp by comparison to even old Epson machine scans I have seen.

[Kirk Gittings]

A 750 will take a ton of sharpening, but it also needs a ton of sharpening, I don't think that is a good thing. A 750 won't resolve grain any where close to an Imacon, so the sharpening won't accentuate the grain in a 750. You just get a king of grain clumping with oversharpening. The 9000 is a different question, it is widely believed that that there may be some sharpening hidden in the 9000 processing workflow, which is the kind of thing that Vincent's test don't account for. I am not a big fan of Vincents tests. I have never found his glowing results for Epsons repeatable after years of testing and using them.

[Anthony Lewis]

I am finding the marketing of this scanner very confusing. The M1 comes in two versions, the Pro and the standard. The main difference between the two is that the M1 Pro has Silverfast AI studio software. Am I right so far? If so, both versions are not specified on the US Microtek website.
The F1 comes in only one version, the plain F1, there does not appear to be a F1 Pro. Is that right? On the European website it specifies that the F1 has Digital Ice, and my local retailer garantees that the F1 has Digital Ice. But there is a suggestion that the M1, Pro or standard, does not have Digital Ice. Can someone clear this up?
Why does not Microtek give exact specfications on their websites, of the M1, the M1 Pro, the F1, and the F1 Pro if it exists? Then I would know exactly what I am buying.

If the M1 does in fact have Digital Ice, and the F1 is not bundled with Silverfast AI, then that makes the F1 exactly equivalent to the standard M1, which in the States sells for about $650US, whereas the F1, sells for around $1450US anywhere else in the world. This price disparity is just ridiculous.

[Greg_E]

Well considering that the scans in that link are bot at 1600ppi, it looks like either there was a focus error, or the Microtek is not very good. I'll wait for Ted to get the 35mm scans done before I decide yes or no, and it will be interesting to see the comparison that Ted and Kirk are going to do with the Epson.

[Anthony Lewis]

I have just spent some time on the internet researching the Microtek M1/F1, and I have answered some of my questions? There appears to be an F1 Pro, which is equivalent to the M1 Pro which is only logical and obvious, but this is not stated anywhere on Microtek websites, only by retailers. So I presume the F1 is exactly the same as the M1, but I would like to see Microtek confirm this.
But the one question I would like answered is about Digital Ice. When I look at any specification for the M1 the words Digital Ice are never mentioned as far as I can see. When I look at F1 specifications they state it is 'powered by Digital Ice Photo technology', whatever that means. Anyone else care to speculate what these words actually mean and if the M1 also has Digital Ice?

[roderick]

Hi,

There is a review here where the author mentions Digital Ice:
<http://www.hasselbladinfo.com/discus/messages/10/38651.html>

There are some preliminary sample scans as well comparing them to a 848 Imacon.

Cheers,

Roderick


[QUOTE=But the one question I would like answered is about Digital Ice. When I look at any specification for the M1 the words Digital Ice are never mentioned as far as I can see. When I look at F1 specifications they state it is 'powered by Digital Ice Photo technology', whatever that means. Anyone else care to speculate what these words actually mean and if the M1 also has Digital Ice?[/QUOTE]

[Kirk Gittings]

We discussed that review at length above.

[hassiman]

I am VERY interested in how this turns out. Have a lot of MF to scan....:eek:

[Stefan]

I would love to see a large full res file from the M1 / F1 preferable unsharpened so that I can play with it myself :0)
For my own Canon 8800F review (http://www.stockholmviews.com/canon_8800f_review/8800fpage1.html) i use a free file sharing service that allow for 100mb uploads 4Shared (http://www.4shared.com//ref/3027459/1)

/Stefan

[Armin Seeholzer]

I'm quite shure he is not able to resolve more then my 750 because I'm happy with my 750 and its the first time I'm happy with a scanner!
Only the holders could be much better!
And if he is a tiny bit better noboby can see it at a 16x20 print from a 8x10 neg!

And what about the quality controll!
I used my first Epson for 10 Years my 2. one has now almost one year!

The next Epson wil be anyway better then the F1;--))))

Thats good for us user we always get a tiny bit better ones!

Cheers Armin

[Ted Harris]

Stefan,

As I replied to you privately 100mb is far from large enough for a a high res file from a 4x5 tranny ....

[highdesert]

Just for entertainment purposes, I've put a 100mb scan from my M1 pro on 4shared.com. Just follow this link:

http://www.4shared.com/dir/5017521/ad6884d2/sharing.html

It is a crop from a 4x5 transparency (Velvia), scanned at 2400 dpi, no sharpening. I used the auto levels feature in Silverfast, which apparently blew out some highlights in the water. Bit depth is 48 scanned, down to 24 bit in the file.

The only thing I did in Photoshop was rotate the image 180degrees.

A caveat: I'm new to LF, but using a 3.6x loupe everything in the scanned area was reasonably sharp. In looking at the scan, I am wondering if I did not stop down enough however.

Another caveat: this is my first "real" scanner, so it is possible I didn't use the best workflow, Silverfast settings, etc.

As I said before, this is more for entertainment / discussion. I'll leave the real evaluation to the pros, and hope that they validate my purchasing decision :)

I'll try to post another "infotainment" scan in a day or two.

highdesert

[Greg_E]

OK, silly me.... How does a person download that file to be able to see it?

[highdesert]

OK, silly me.... How does a person download that file to be able to see it?

This is my first time using 4shared too... Did you try clicking the little symbol with the earth and a downward pointing arrow? It's at the bottom of the tif icon.

[pango]

Just for entertainment purposes, I've put a 100mb scan from my M1 pro on 4shared.com. Just follow this link:

http://www.4shared.com/dir/5017521/ad6884d2/sharing.html
...
I'll try to post another "infotainment" scan in a day or two.

highdesert

Thanks a lot!

Apart of the blown highlights, the in focus part looks really good, more so, if you add a little bit of sharpening. Looks like the 2400ppi are for real.

Surely, for infotainment, people would appreciate a lot a 35mm image at 4800ppi ;-)

[uniB]

I can't download/open it either Greg, what browser are you using pango? Maybe it's 'cause I'm using firefox on Mac and 4shared don't care about us!?

[Maretzo]

Safari on Mac works fine with 4Shared.com

[Anthony Lewis]

GETTING TO KNOW YOUR ARTIXSCAN F1

On page 1 of the supplement booklet with the above title it reads as follows :

. . . . .The scanner also features the PictuRescue (TM) system with DIGITAL ICE Technology to reconstruct damaged photos and film , as well as ColoRescue (TM) to restore faded color .

So the F1 definately has DIGITAL ICE . It must be activated from the scanner software .

[Stefan]

I found this info at http://www.imaging-resource.com
They have a review unit ( Review seams to have seized thought:0( )

"There are two M1 packages: the $649 M1 and the $799 M1 Pro. The difference between the two is in the bundled software and accessories.

You see that immediately when you open the M1 Pro box to find a second set of four film holders, which is not supplied with the M1. While scanning a set of 12 35mm slides, you can load a second holder. Scan four strips of 35mm film while you load another four. Scan 22cm of 120 film (four frames) while you load more, or two 4x5s while you clean the next two.

Contents. Alternate scanning software packages, calibration software, OCR software, manuals and more.

Larger film can be placed on the included glass holder that replaces the film holder drawer on the transparency bed. Microtek supplies a set of black vinyl tapes with the company name on them to hold the odd-sized film on the glass.

The scanner itself is accompanied by a power cord and a USB cable.

One thing that's missing, however, is Kodak's Digital ICE. Considering the performance hit, we weren't much disappointed by that decision."

Source:http://www.imaging-resource.com/SCAN/M1/M1.HTM

Do they rely make two different hardware versions?

Or is ICE just disabled in software?

If so it would be easy to just download the F1 drivers to get ICE activated for the M! !!!???

After all it would be more expensive to produce two versions of hardware.

They do it with dishwasher machines, same hardware with different model number due to witch touch button template they stick to the front of the machine ( Yes I have seen this ).

Same with cars, especially turbo engine cars more cash gives you new software and more horsepower.

/S

[audioexcels]

This is my first time using 4shared too... Did you try clicking the little symbol with the earth and a downward pointing arrow? It's at the bottom of the tif icon.

Very beautiful image. Probably deal with that blow out section in CS3.

Just curious, have you run the same image doing lower resolution passes and even higher res ones? Seems a 4800 would be way overkill, but I'd be interested in a comparo between 1600/2400/and 4800.

Cheers and thanks for the image. Have it up right now and it looks great. I "really" love the colors in this image and from other scans shown so far, it seems the scanner has a certain "look" to it that is nice and natural. Looks much more fluid than scans I have seen with the Epson. Cannot say it quite looks like Jetcode's bit of out of focus or grainy scan which to my eyes has this incredible density/richness to it, but it's also two different slides.

[Bob McCarthy]

Just for entertainment purposes, I've put a 100mb scan from my M1 pro on 4shared.com. Just follow this link:

http://www.4shared.com/dir/5017521/ad6884d2/sharing.html


highdesert

It keeps crashing safari (Leopard). Anybody successful with OS 10.5?

Bob

[highdesert]

Thanks a lot!

Apart of the blown highlights, the in focus part looks really good, more so, if you add a little bit of sharpening. Looks like the 2400ppi are for real.

Surely, for infotainment, people would appreciate a lot a 35mm image at 4800ppi ;-)

I'm at my day job now, but I should be able to do a 35mm slide tonight. Probably by 9pm California time it will be up. I'll also try to do a couple of different dpi settings so we can see if there's much difference.

I did a subsequent scan of the 4x5 and was able to manually set the levels so as to not blow out the highlights in the water.

For anyone having problems with 4shared, I'll be happy to put image files somewhere else if there are any suggestions.

highdesert

[John Brady]

OK, I just got my m1 pro yesterday and installed it last night. I had the 1800f for a couple of years so I am pretty familiar with microtek and silverfast.

First impression is that the new 4x5 carrier sucks. The film fits fine on the width but not from top to bottom. it leaves an 1/8in gap on either side.


Next impression is this machine goes through many more gyrations and weird noises then the old one.

Next, pre-scan works fine but the actual scan takes for ever and when it finally does come up there are black bars running across the image. So right now it's pretty hard for me to evaluate this scanner. I sent an e-mail to tech support and I am waiting for a reply. I guess this is the price for being an early adapter.

I will keep you all posted...
jb

[highdesert]

First impression is that the new 4x5 carrier sucks. The film fits fine on the width but not from top to bottom. it leaves an 1/8in gap on either side.



I noticed that too. The manual definitely needs more description on how to use the film holder. I almost wrinkled one of my better trannys the first time out. I recommend playing with a bad piece of film first. I think the proper way to use the holder is to put the film against the "top" (i.e. closest to the hinge) and as you close the door and slide it down, this tightens the film. So the gap--I believe--is used as part of the tensioning feature. Does that sound right to you?




Next impression is this machine goes through many more gyrations and weird noises then the old one.



I don't have another scanner to compare to, but it does seem to spend a lot of time initializing and makes some strange noises. I would say on average it spends close to 1.5~2 minutes initializing before even beginning the scan.




Next, pre-scan works fine but the actual scan takes for ever and when it finally does come up there are black bars running across the image. So right now it's pretty hard for me to evaluate this scanner. I sent an e-mail to tech support and I am waiting for a reply. I guess this is the price for being an early adapter.



This happened to me too. I assumed it was due to the fact that I was doing other stuff on the computer during the scan. The next day (after a reboot) it wasn't a problem. I'm running XP. I'll be interested to hear what tech support tells you.

highdesert

[John Brady]

Thanks for sharing your experience highdesert, I did the old film thing to figure it out too and agree that the film needs to be all the way at the top and then kind of slides down with the door, still think its pretty crappy though.

I am running xp also on a dual core with 3 meg of ram. I tried re-booting and resetting the scanner but still getting the bars. The documentation is weak at best. You can no longer call microtek for support, so I will have to wait for them to e-mail me back. Tonight I am going to un-install everything and then re-install. I'm guessing I just got a bad unit, it happens.
John
____________________
www.timeandlight.com

[Bob McCarthy]

For anyone having problems with 4shared, I'll be happy to put image files somewhere else if there are any suggestions.

highdesert

I've been using mediafire.com successfully

bob

[highdesert]

I've been using mediafire.com successfully

bob

Ok, I'll put a copy up there. It will probably take about 1 hour because I have to download and then re-upload it. (I'm at work).

highdesert

[Bob McCarthy]

That would be great, Thanks, I am interested in M1 (have a 4990 now).

Bob

[Greg_E]

I was using Firefox on Windows and tried just about everything I could find to get the file. Sounds like it is best done with InternetExploder, never even thought of checking that. I'm still waiting for the Epson V vs. M1 test would also love to see a higher end vs. M1 test like the Nikon 9000.

[Anthony Lewis]

While imaging-resource says Digital Ice is missing on the M1 this is what Midwest says:
HI the M-1 does have ICE similar in the Silver Fast SE version software that comes included.
Jim Andracki
Midwest Photo Exchange

[Stefan]

It keeps crashing safari (Leopard). Anybody successful with OS 10.5?

BobMac crashing???????? I heard that this was a MS thing :0)
The 4share thing works just fine on my 2 years old XP machine!
I also using Firefox.

[highdesert]

If you're having trouble with 4shared, try this link:

http://www.mediafire.com/?cfxxtd2zoof

[Bob McCarthy]

Well crashing a mac is tough, but crashing an app can still happen, when it has to interface with a app written by the admirers of Mr. Gates.

anyway mediafire worked like a charm.

Bob

[hassiman]

I just talked with the head of M1 developement at Microtek, Parker Plaisted. He confirmed that there is NO Digital Ice with ANY version of the M1 scanner. He can not speak to what is included with the F1 which is sold in EU.

[David A. Goldfarb]

According to--

http://www.microtek.de/Product.php?Product=Detail&P_Id=151


The ArtixScan F1 comes equipped with Microtek's exclusive PictuRescue photo reconstruction and restoration system. It features fast and easy photo reconstruction powered by DIGITAL ICE Photo Technology, as well as one-click photo restoration with ColoRescue™ to revive faded photos and film. These automatic features streamline your image editing workflow, providing unparalleled productivity and increased profit margins. So purchase a ArtixScan F1 today to get professional photo restoration results in a fraction of the time.

I couldn't find any mention of ICE or PictuRescue on the M1 page on the Microtekusa site.

Hmmm...I'll be in Berlin for a few days in March. Maybe I'll travel light.

[Greg_E]

The new link works just fine, downloading now. Thanks!

And BTW, we crash Final Cut Pro and DVD studio Pro all the time!


Just looked at the scan... It's pretty good, but I see they still haven't completely removed the blue fringe on certain dark to light transitions.

[Anthony Lewis]

It's looking as if the F1 has ICE, as the guys who have F1's have confirmed it on the Hasselblad forum, as well as Microtek Europe. It looks as if the M1 does not have ICE - unless I am very mistaken/or misundertanding what's been said.
I find it very incongruous that these machines would have different features. I now wonder if there are any other differences? Perhaps we will need seperate reviews!
The reason I am a bit paranoid about this is that where I live I have the opportunity to buy either the F1 or the M1, and I have been waiting for this scanner for a long time. This is my first investment in a decent scanner, so I want the one with the most features, and at this stage it is looking like the F1.

[highdesert]

Here's a 35mm slide. It's not a good one for evaluating color, but it has good tonal range. Film is Kodak Elite Chrome 200. Camera was a Minolta XTsi with Minolta 28-80mm lens.

Baseline file: 4000 dpi scan from a Nikon Supercoolscan 5000 (done commercially, not sure if any sharpening was done)

http://www.mediafire.com/?2n9m2ejx4l0

Here are M1 scans at 1600, 2400, and 4000 dpi (respectively). No adjustments or sharpening.

http://www.mediafire.com/?0omtmji90zr

http://www.mediafire.com/?fsmgfzwzijq

http://www.mediafire.com/?3z1ajkryzvd

Looking at the boats and trees, there's no question the dedicated film scanner looks better. No surprise there I guess.

highdesert

[Doug Dolde]

So what's the verdict? Another waste of money ?

[Bob McCarthy]

Well it obvious that the M1 doesn't hit 4000 dpi.

I have a Nikon 5000 also. Any chance we could see the boat scan at 2400 dpi on the Nikon to compare with M1 2400dpi.

I scan all LF at 2400 dpi of less.

I'm now thinking the M1 won't get there?

Any chance of bad focus on M1??

Bob

[David A. Goldfarb]

Yeah, I was wondering if the M1 at 4000 dpi would allow me to get rid of my 2400 dpi Minolta Scan Dual (I), and from that test it doesn't look like it.

[highdesert]

Well it obvious that the M1 doesn't hit 4000 dpi.

I have a Nikon 5000 also. Any chance we could see the boat scan at 2400 dpi on the Nikon to compare with M1 2400dpi.

I scan all LF at 2400 dpi of less.

I'm now thinking the M1 won't get there?

Any chance of bad focus on M1??

Bob

I used the AF feature on all scans... based on my limited experience I don't think it was a focus issue. I can send you the slide if you want to do a 2400 dpi scan. PM me if you're interested.

highdesert

[Bob McCarthy]

when I think about it, there is not much purpose in scanning with the Nikon. It going to do better no matter the resolution of the scan it appears. Any sense how it compares with an epson?

Thanks for the offer.

bob

[Colin Graham]

Yeah, I'm really interested on how it compares to other consumer flatbeds. My 3200 it getting a little long of tooth, and a dedicated film scanner isn't really an option for me.

[stromaroma]

Since the V750 has been around for a while now, does anyone know if Epson is planning to bring out another version soon? The V750 gets such good reviews and is so cheap, and seems to be capable of producing what I want, so I am wondering if I should just buy it. Based on the preliminary reviews of the M1 here, it doesn't seem to be really worth the extra effort to purchase, but maybe I should have more patience and wait for the formal reviews to elaborate.

[Greg_E]

Thanks for the summary, I guess I won't torchure Mediafire with the extra download... Guess I better keep saving my pennies for something better.

[highdesert]

I'd suggest waiting for a professional review if you're trying to make a purchasing decision. The more I use the scanner -- and get comfortable with Silverfast -- the happier I am with the results.

As I said before, the scans I posted were rookie efforts to pass the time while we wait for a truly objective evaluation.

highdesert

[Stefan]

It looks like the M1 are going to have a hard time even competing with the Epson V700
In this comparison it was butchered by the Nikon Colscan 5000 :rolleyes:

S/

[Greg_E]

If I was scanning larger formats, it would probably be great. But I'm doing 6x4.5cm so every little bit is going to matter. Even on the extremely small images attached above, you can clearly see the color fringing around "high" contrast tonal changes that are missing from the Nikon scan. It seems that to even be close to happy I will need to step up to a Nikon 9000 or a used drum scanner or other similar high end machine. For a $600 scanner this M1 is probably fine and maybe even a huge step forward. But we are also talking about a "cheap" scanner in terms of price.

[Colin Graham]

Mine just showed up. Settled for the regular M1 because the Pro was sold out. Pleasantly surprised that Silverfast SE Plus is indeed included, multipass and a other few extras over the regular SE that came with my Epson... Also came with PS elements v. 4 and v. 5 both (?) the Microtek scanwiz facility, Kodak calibration targets (reflective and trans) an ICC profiling program, 35 mm neg and slide trays, 120 (uninterrupted 6x22cm) 4x5 and a separate glass tray for 8x10...all for $599 US at JR.com, free shipping. I must admit this was a totally uniformed impulse purchase for me, something I never do and am still at a loss to explain, so I've been a bit anxious all week.

Initially very impressed, it flat smokes my 3200, (praise be) but that shouldn't surprise many. I'll have to agree that the prescan calibration is alarming loud and long and it goes through it before every scan, prescan or final, not just to warm up. The higher res scans are slow to the extent I thought my computer had hung, a few long pauses scattered amid the noises, but then I keep forgetting to turn off the multipass before hitting the scan button. I've only run a few negatives so probably shouldn't comment too much there. Not looking forward to rescanning all my work, but the need is readily apparent.

One thing that I did want to mention is that scanning oversized negs appears to be impossible with the scanner. I may have missed someone commenting on this already, but it certainly bears repeating. I'm going to have to modify a tray to let 5x12 hang past an end. The glass of the 8x10 tray is inset too deeply in the tray to let if flop over without curling up dramatically...which I'd stupidly been counting on doing. I'm not sure how much range the autofocus has, but it may be possible to shim up the surface with auxillary glass and still have room to slide it in the drawer. Even so, I was able to stitch a 5x12 from two 5x6 scans and saw no evidence of the curl at the end of the negative in the final scan.

I'm obviously no expert, but thought people might want to know about the bundled software and a so forth. Happy festivus.

[Doug Dolde]

Samy's in LA has one on display on the first floor with a monitor next to it showing the same image scanned on the Epson 750 and the M1 side by side. I couldn't see much difference in image quality but don't really consider it a valid test because they weren't showing actual pixel views just the overall image. The Epson image did look more saturated though; salesperson said both were color calibrated.

[Stefan]

According to this http://artixscanm1.com site the following mags has received there review samples of ArtixScan M1
* Camera Arts
* CNET
* Digital Photographer
* www.imaging-resource.com
* Macworld
* Outdoor Photographer
* Photoshop User
* PHOTO Techniques
* Popular Photography & Imaging
* Professional Photographer
* Shutterbug
* View Camera

So I guess it just a matter of time before we know :0)

/Stefan
www.stockholmviews.com

[Colin Graham]

Just a quick update- the new version 7.042 for the driver seems less buggy on XP and gets through the prescan calibration-auto focus routine quicker.

[highdesert]

Just a quick update- the new version 7.042 for the driver seems less buggy on XP and gets through the prescan calibration-auto focus routine quicker.

Good to know! I also found an update to Silverfast which seems to have cured my previous "black bar" issue.

[Ted Harris]

Folks, I will have my 'first look" review in the next issue of View Camera. All my comments here and all those i the magazine are preliminary. I just haven't had the scanner long enough to do all the normal tests to my satisfaction. I have done a preliminary resolution test and, no surprise, I am prepared to say that it is incrementally better than the V700/V750 but nothing revolutionary. The 4x5 film holder, which has been discussed above, is too large to hold the AIG T20 target without some fiddling so I taped it to the glass gray you would normally use for 8x10 or 5x7. I'm not convinced that I can't squeeze a bit more resolution out of the beast and that is why I want to try it again in the holder. Meanwhile its real world resolution is over 2400 and that beats the V750 but only by a small margin. I still have to test the DMax and the color fringing and try other film sizes (I've only run 4x5 so far). I expect it to be the pick of the litter but nothing startling enough to throw away your current scanner if you have a V700/V750 or maybe even a 4990 or an i900.

There is jut no way that you are going to squeeze much more performance out of thsi or any other under $1000 flatbed unless some startling new technology comes down the pike. Some if it is the sensor quality and an awful lot is the accuracy of the stepping motors that move the sensor. Remember there is a reason the high-end scanners cost over twenty times more than the prosumer machines.

As for using it with smaller film, we shall see, but if it were me I'd stick with a Nikon 9000.

Also a warning, if you are running a Mac and Leopard you will need to use Silverfast as Microtek's ScanWizard Pro has not yet been updated to run Leopard.

[Greg_E]

As for using it with smaller film, we shall see, but if it were me I'd stick with a Nikon 9000.

Thanks, that's what I was looking for.

[David A. Goldfarb]

The 4x5 film holder, which has been discussed above, is too large to hold the AIG T20 target without some fiddling so I taped it to the glass gray you would normally use for 8x10 or 5x7. I'm not convinced that I can't squeeze a bit more resolution out of the beast and that is why I want to try it again in the holder.

Can you sandwich the target between the glass tray and another piece of glass? I've done this on my Agfa Duoscan, and the improvement in sharpness is very significant, compared to taping or using the open holders. The downside is greater potential for Newton's rings and dust, but it can help to scan the neg emulsion side up, since there seems to be an anti-reflective coating on the Duoscan's glass tray. It also depends on the film, since some films have a retouching surface on the base, which is less prone to Newton's rings Eventually, I should just get a piece of AN glass for the top sheet. In any case, it's a simple solution that makes the scanner look $1000 better, and it would be interesting to see how it compares with using the new Microtek holders (which sound like the Beseler Negaflat neg carrier in principle).

[Ted Harris]

David, I can give it a try but don't think it will matter with the target. The AIG targets, which are the industry standard, are laser etched on fairly thick flexible clear film, not your standard negative. Also, at $250 a pop for them I don't want to risk any damage if I can avoid it.

[audioexcels]

If I was scanning larger formats, it would probably be great. But I'm doing 6x4.5cm so every little bit is going to matter. Even on the extremely small images attached above, you can clearly see the color fringing around "high" contrast tonal changes that are missing from the Nikon scan. It seems that to even be close to happy I will need to step up to a Nikon 9000 or a used drum scanner or other similar high end machine. For a $600 scanner this M1 is probably fine and maybe even a huge step forward. But we are also talking about a "cheap" scanner in terms of price.

9000 with glass carrier will be very good, but I do know a very good photographer off the web that from his scans and the level of capturing things so precisely (he teaches courses people can attend to around the world and to my eyes, has about as good of Pentax 67 images I have ever been able to find) that simply cannot pull out the colors of a rich sunset with the 9000.

I think you will need to drum scan it to pull out this level of accuracy. As he described it, he said something to the extent that looking at the slide on the table revealed all the vividness and textures of the sunset, but the 9000 was not able to display the same. Nonetheless, it's still a beautiful looking image.

[Eric Brody]

I have been watching this thread with great interest. The issue for me is the reliability of this or any Microtek product. While such a gross generalization is probably inappropriate, I have read numerous posts about people having problems and getting rid of 1800f's. Some of these posts were quite emotional.

I purchased a Microtek 1800f partly from advice I received on this forum that it was the best machine for less than $1,000. I use mine only for 4x5 scanning and use a Nikon 9000 for medium format scans. When the 1800f works properly, it's terrific but since I have had it, quite often, only on prescans, the scanning head stops mid scan, makes a most horrendous noise, then proceeds. The prescan on the computer screen looks like a smeared blur. Sometimes it misbehaves repeatedly, sometimes I can redo it a few minutes later and it is fine; . Last evening I almost threw it out the window and almost ordered an Epson 750.

The M1 seems like a potential decent choice based on the preliminary information here and I realize I need to await the full review for any kind of a performance evaluation but... will it break,... and if it does, how and where can it be repaired? It seems absurd that a $1,000 basically mechanical device cannot be repaired by its own manufacturer.

Any comments or speculation would be appreciated.

Thanks.

Eric

[Colin Graham]

That is sobering Eric, sorry for your troubles. The noises with the first driver on the M1 did not seem at all natural or healthy, and the vibrations couldn't have been good for the scan, but uninstalling the scanner and reinstalling with the new driver the noises are much more subdued, and the whole prescan routine seems much more efficient... I wonder if anyone else has noticed this as well.

Also, has anyone made much headway with the Scan Wizard program? I can't seem to sort out how to scan B&W negatives...all the film presets are for color film. I'm curious how it compares to the Silverfast. I'm also curious how much the IT8 calibration done in the ICC Profiler is worth when using Silverfast, everything seems to have a strong green cast when loading up that profile.

edit- both problems solved. I was using the old profile from the first install, recalibrating corrected the green cast in Silverfast. Not sure what I did in Scan Whiz, but I'm no longer getting posterized color negative prescans from b&w negatives. Maybe the new drivers addressed this as well.

[John Brady]

This is the problem I am having with silverfast ai studio and my new microtek m1 pro scanner I have purchased. Prior to this scanner I had a 1800f with silverfast se.
I am having dificulty scanning 4x5 negs with this new set up. My system is a Dell xps 600 dual core pentium with 4 gb ram and windows xp. When I try to scan t-max 100 as a 48>24 bit color at 1600 dpi or higher I am getting strange looking bars that run across the finished scan. I am using ps cs2 as the launching point for the software.
I have tried un-installing and re-installing the most recent version off the silverfast site. pre-scans and scans take at least twice as long as the 1800f. Until I get this worked out, I wish I still had my 1800f.
Any suggestions?
jb
____________________
www.timeandlight.com

[asnapper]

The Imaging-Resource diary has been updated :)

http://www.imaging-resource.com/SCAN/M1/M1B.HTM

[BarryS]

Is it me, or do all those scans in the IR post look like crap? Maybe it's the source material, but those images look like they came from a $75 scanner. They also seem unaware of the routinely inflated resolution claims by flatbed scanner manufacturers. Has anyone seen any evidence that the M1 is superior to the V700/750? I'm trying to decide between the M1 and the V700/750 and would love to see a thorough comparison by an experienced operator.

[Ted Harris]

Barry,

Sorry I can't give you a detailed answer yet. It's going to be another two weeks likely. As I said earlier, the preliminary results show slightly better performance than the 700/750 but I'm not ready to make a definitive statement.

[Gene McCluney]

While the Epson line of scanners and this Microtek M1 "may" be close in actual optical resolution, the deciding factor "may" be the more advanced negative holders provided with the Microtek, and the fact that the Microtek (up to 4x5) does not require scanning thru glass.

[Kirk Gittings]

Gene,

Gene,

IMO. The reason the 1800f gave better results over the 750 was the superior sensor array not the mirror trick and the improvements were very minuscule. So with the M1........? To exceed the 750 by much would require significantly better sensors, step motors and optics like the professional flatbeds. All Microtek's professional flatbed scanners (some in the $12,000 range) scan through the glass as do all professional flatbeds.

Frankly I think it is just marketing hype.

[BarryS]

Ted-- Thanks, I'm looking forward to your review. I get the feeling the M1 is fairly comparable and not the quantum leap some were expecting.

Gene-- Has the glass been an issue with the v700/750? Any problems with newton rings?

[Kirk Gittings]

Gene-- Has the glass been an issue with the v700/750? Any problems with newton rings?

Not with mine up to 4x5.

[BarryS]

Thanks. Is the M1 supposed to be the replacement for the 1800f scanner? Because it looks like the 1800f was removed from the Microtek top menu listings although the product pages are still on the site.

[Kirk Gittings]

Sort of, though the 1800f was discontinued quite a while back, because they could no longer get the sensors required.

[retrogaz]

It's all gone very quiet on the M1/F1 scanner front! Has Microtek put an injunction on anyone using the new scanner!!??

I was just wondering if any of you early adopters out there have yet had chance to play with their new toys, and whether you think they are any good?

I'm itching to replace my 4870 with something (if there's something that's affordable and worth replacing it with!!) hence my slight impatience.

Many thanks in advance
Gareth

[Bob McCarthy]

It's all gone very quiet on the M1/F1 scanner front! Has Microtek put an injunction on anyone using the new scanner!!??

I was just wondering if any of you early adopters out there have yet had chance to play with their new toys, and whether you think they are any good?

I'm itching to replace my 4870 with something (if there's something that's affordable and worth replacing it with!!) hence my slight impatience.

Many thanks in advance
Gareth

Eugene Singer bought a M1 from Jim at Midwest. I did the install and calibrate. I can't speak to reliability but this unit was decently put together, Did a few scans, sharp enough edge to edge and I would have to say better than my 4990.

The amount of post production sharpening was significantly less than with the 4990, both scanners on Silverfast.

This one worked well.

bob

[Colin Graham]

Still diggin mine. Looks like revision 4 for Silverfast 6.5 is out today. Downloading it now.

[Ted Harris]

My preliminary review is i the January issue of View Camera. I'm still working with it and will post more information here when I have it. Sometime i the next week I'll be doing another resolution test.

Bottom line though is I think this is the best of the current crop of consumer scanners. Having said that it is not a high end scanner and the results don't approach thise from my Creo or Screen but only a fool would expect that kind of performance. This machine delivers incredible performance for the money, especially compared to what you for twice as much five years ago. No magic bullet but a good scanner.

[Tom Schaefer]

Ted
What is a step up from the epson 750 or the microtek m1
both price and quality.
Thanks in advance
Tom

[Ted Harris]

Tom,

If you search the archives you will see that this question has been asked many times. Unfortunately, it isn't a step but a quantum leap. The next step up in quality will get you a major improvement in quality but will also cost. It takes you into the 10K range. Kodak right now is offering a $2000 rebate/discount on the IQsmart 2 which is the nexct step up. Send me an email or PM if you want more info.

[Tom Schaefer]

I was afraid that was the answer.
Thanks
Tom

[alanmcf]

Tom,
If you search the archives you will see that this question has been asked many times. Unfortunately, it isn't a step but a quantum leap.

Your quantum leap is for 4x5, but I also shoot 645. You quote 2400 as an approximate resolution for the M1 which places it between the Epson 700/750 and the Nikon 4000 dpi film scanners. I am looking forward to comparative numbers for both of those scanner types, especially since I have bought scans 645 scans on the Nikon 8000. I am awaiting your View Camera review. Thanks, Alan
P.S. When does the magazine ship?

[audioexcels]

Your quantum leap is for 4x5, but I also shoot 645. You quote 2400 as an approximate resolution for the M1 which places it between the Epson 700/750 and the Nikon 4000 dpi film scanners. I am looking forward to comparative numbers for both of those scanner types, especially since I have bought scans 645 scans on the Nikon 8000. I am awaiting your View Camera review. Thanks, Alan
P.S. When does the magazine ship?

You can get fine results with the M1 or similar and careful attention (wet mounting)/post-processing/etc. The real issue is the output once you want to get into larger prints. At smaller print sizes, it's quite possible that the consumer beds have similar quality especially if you know how to work both with the machine and post-processing. Obviously, a straight scan out of the IQsmart/Cezanne/etc. will just be super clean and you won't have to be post-processing much at all. Will still need to have obvious attention to what you are doing as an operator, but the straight clean-through-output from these higher level scanners is effortless and enables some massive print sizes with razor sharp rendition that the consumer beds cannot hold a flame to.

Heck..speaking out of no experience, but what I have read. Still, you can print 12X16's and 16X20's which are darn large prints and achieve tack sharp images from the flatbed with LF film, though for 645, will take a bit of work:).

I'd invest into a Nikon 9000 with glass carrier. That will get you as close to the higher level scanners/drum scanners on the market and is a "major" leap up by comparison to an Epson w/4X5 vs. an IQsmart 2/Cezanne...basically, there is no Nikon 9000 in between the Epson and the IQsmart for large format, and that really sucks:mad:

[Ted Harris]

Alan, I have only scanned one transparency smaller than 4x5 on the M1 and have not discussed it in the review. I'll reserve judgement until I do a few more smaller format scans but don't expect it to perform as well as the 9000/8000.

Audioxcels, I think "tack sharp images" may be pushing it a bit for 16x20 from any of the prosumer scanners. Nice images, often (depending on the subject matter) but not tack sharp when compared to prints from scans done on a high end scanner.

[Ted Harris]

Alan, I have only scanned one transparency smaller than 4x5 on the M1 and have not discussed it in the review. I'll reserve judgement until I do a few more smaller format scans but don't expect it to perform as well as the 9000/8000.

Audioxcels, I think "tack sharp images" may be pushing it a bit for 16x20 from any of the prosumer scanners. Nice images, often (depending on the subject matter) but not tack sharp when compared to prints from scans done on a high end scanner.

[Kirk Gittings]

Heck..speaking out of no experience, but what I have read. Still, you can print 12X16's and 16X20's which are darn large prints and achieve tack sharp images from the flatbed with LF film

What does tack sharp mean? Very close to an enlarged silver print on close inspection? Not on any of the prosumer flatbeds I have tested. With a proflatbed or drum scan? Absolutely, sometimes sharper.

[David A. Goldfarb]

What does tack sharp mean? Very close to an enlarged silver print on close inspection? Not on any of the prosumer flatbeds I have tested. With a proflatbed or drum scan? Absolutely, sometimes sharper.

Obviously, Kirk, you need to inspect the scan with a 10X loupe (directly on the hard drive if possible) and then feel the tip of an ISO standard tack with your thumb, and determine which is sharper.

[Kirk Gittings]

In all seriousness, the test is side by side prints, the best silver print you can make at 16x20 from a negative against the best digital print at same size from the same negative. I have done this a few times which is why I have given up on the consumer flatbeds for exhibition quality work ( I have not tested the M1).

[Ted Harris]

Kirk .... don't you mean given up on the consumer flatbeds?

[Kirk Gittings]

Yes sorry.

[audioexcels]

Alan, I have only scanned one transparency smaller than 4x5 on the M1 and have not discussed it in the review. I'll reserve judgement until I do a few more smaller format scans but don't expect it to perform as well as the 9000/8000.

Audioxcels, I think "tack sharp images" may be pushing it a bit for 16x20 from any of the prosumer scanners. Nice images, often (depending on the subject matter) but not tack sharp when compared to prints from scans done on a high end scanner.

I'm thinking of 8X10 film scanned with a consumer flatbed. Still no chance of tack sharp images at 16X20? I think I drifted way off course not considering 4X5 film and that people tend to feel 11X14 is about the limit for a sharp image with it and a consumer bed.

What is your take with 8X10 film or even 5X7 on the consumer bed?

[audioexcels]

What does tack sharp mean? Very close to an enlarged silver print on close inspection? Not on any of the prosumer flatbeds I have tested. With a proflatbed or drum scan? Absolutely, sometimes sharper.

See below comments...my brain was thinking 6.5X8.5-8X10 film scanned with the consumer bed...I also mention 5X7 which is almost 2X the size of 4X5 which "should" in theory give tack sharp images at 12X16...but if one cannot get a tack sharp image at only 2X the enlargement factor of an 8X10, I see one point and only one point of having one of these scanners=proof for sending off negs to Ted to have him do the work:)

OR

1) Get good looking images and create a website to sell your prints, though again, would want to have Ted quality scans on a website.

2) Print smaller sizes and try to achieve the equal of a contact print by using these new papers and larger film to decrease the amount of necessary enlargement.

3) For posting onto Flickr and getting more exposure...similar concept to making a website, but has further exposure with hopes of getting hired for jobs/work.


It's a tough one having to deal with a gap that is a Yugo to a Bugatti...literally...It's like having a 2MP camera phone vs. a Phase/Betterlight back on 6X6 or 4X5...that is, the gap between consumer flatbeds and pro flatbeds/drum scanners....

[Ted Harris]

See below comments...my brain was thinking 6.5X8.5-8X10 film scanned with the consumer bed...I also mention 5X7 which is almost 2X the size of 4X5 which "should" in theory give tack sharp images at 12X16...but if one cannot get a tack sharp image at only 2X the enlargement factor of an 8X10, I see one point and only one point of having one of these scanners=proof for sending off negs to Ted to have him do the work:)

OR

1) Get good looking images and create a website to sell your prints, though again, would want to have Ted quality scans on a website.

2) Print smaller sizes and try to achieve the equal of a contact print by using these new papers and larger film to decrease the amount of necessary enlargement.

3) For posting onto Flickr and getting more exposure...similar concept to making a website, but has further exposure with hopes of getting hired for jobs/work.


It's a tough one having to deal with a gap that is a Yugo to a Bugatti...literally...It's like having a 2MP camera phone vs. a Phase/Betterlight back on 6X6 or 4X5...that is, the gap between consumer flatbeds and pro flatbeds/drum scanners....

Mike, thanks for the flattering comments and always happy to have the work. However:

1) 5x7 and larger printed to 16x20 will look quite good but you will still see some significant difference in prints made from high end scans. Those difference will be evident even a few feet away and will likely manifest themselves in shadow and highlight detail. Keep in mind that when you use the term "tack sharp" what you are often talking about is sharpness or acutance rather than resolution and that acutance will be enhanced by better detail. See "Image Clarity" for lengthy discussion of this or just look at the very telling illustration in Strobel.

2) Same as in #1 above but the differences diminish as you print smaller and the total size of the print makes seeing the detail more difficult.

The span of a Yugo to a Bugatti is a bit harsh but the point is well made. You do have some other options in the under $1000 range that don't mean taking a chance on a used piece of equipment that was very expensive to start. They are the Microtek 2500, 2500f, 1800f (maybe) and Agfa Duoscan T2500 (rebadged Microtek) ... none of these will come close to the high end machines either but all of them will perform slightly better than the currently available crop of prosumer scanners .... that is assuming you get one which is in proper working order.

[Asher Kelman]

I'm thinking of 8X10 film scanned with a consumer flatbed. Still no chance of tack sharp images at 16X20? I think I drifted way off course not considering 4X5 film and that people tend to feel 11X14 is about the limit for a sharp image with it and a consumer bed.

What is your take with 8X10 film or even 5X7 on the consumer bed?

Audioexcels,

It's weird writing to someone through a trucker's call name. However.

The question is whether or not the M1 scanner can be used to produce prints of LF film that you can offer for sale and make some money.Let's not deal for the moment with the extent and urgency of your own needs or desires for more of the latter.

What are you trying to sell? If it's a B&W print of woods and a stream, one is competing with a cadre of obsessed photographers who deliver contact or properly enlarged prints of superb quaiity, some hardly known and others famous. At least, one should aim for that product class. However, if your marketing is brilliant, that might not matter.

If, however, one is able to do work in another class of LF photography, detail and accutance might not matter at all. I've seen pictures, ten feet tall, proudly offered in galleries for up to $85,000, that are considered fine art but are sold because of the orginality of the ideas, composition or social significance that are inherent to the work.

Where is your passion, originality and talent or are you trying to get money somehow? If it's the latter, what are your needs as there are many other easier options?

If your work sells as a contact print and you get orders, a larger print can be made by a good commercial house to match your contact print closely. If, OTOH, you embed artistic passion which puts your work into a different expressive field of art, even the M1 flatbed scanner might be beyond your needs. It's only you that knows what you're aiming for and knowing your target should define the position and weapons you choose.

Asher

[Greg_E]

Just to interject one thing... I've made some really nice inkjet prints from a "cheapo" Kodak DC290 (3.1MP interpolated 2.x MP nominal) digital camera up to 12x18. I wouldn't attempt the same ratio increase on anything 35mm or 645 I've scanned with my Epson 3200 flatbed.

But if you are scanning 4x5 or better 8x10 then this scanner might be worth having. By 8x10 you should be able to get enough pixels that huge prints can be made without all the problems that you encounter with the smaller formats.

But since I still shoot smaller formats, I've decided that this flatbed will not work for me, not even for my pinhole stuff as I can't afford a scanner for pinhole and a scanner for lensed work. So I am still fighting through what I want to buy, but it will probably end up in the $1500 to $2000 range, which is more than twice the price of this flatbed. In digital it mostly comes dow to the image is only as good as the cheapest tool in the chain.

[alanmcf]

Ted, finally my January ViewCamera arrived today with your M1 preview. I ask (beg) that you post your updated resolution test results so as to save me waiting till nearly April for that piece of the next installment. In particular you said the preliminary test results were done using the 8x10 glass holder... while the hype about this scanner is "glassless". Also a DMax would be great too ;).
Thanks so much, Alan

[Ted Harris]

Alan, sometime in the next two weeks .....

[Maximus]

I was waiting impatiently for this scanner to appear since it was first announced by Microtek since I never wanted to have anything like Epson 4990/V700/V750 that would, being priced three times lower compared to Nikon 9000, would allow me to scan MF and MF panoramas, not of course like Supercoolscan, but enough to suite my needs. But now I see that my expectations have broken into a large number of peaces. Test scans posted here show that M1 does not even come closer to Microtek 2500 and fall into the same category as those of V700/V750: soapy picture, lost shadow details, and, what is most annoying, COLOR FRINGING — the thing which I hate so much in Epsons! After a month of deep thoughts I decide to buy Nikon 9000 — when you want real quality from your scanner, expect to invest into it as much money as you invest in your photo equipment. Besides, Nikon 9000 now is sold under $2000, so the price difference is so huge as it could be, but you get from it quality without question. Pity for Microtek, with autofocus + EDIT + new film holders they could make a unit that would surpass Microtek 2500f, but what I see in M1 is a copy of V700, no more. So if scan MF and need really food scanner, buy Nikon, if you need a good scanner for LF, buy a used 2500f, it will be no question better than new M1