Imacon Precision III vs. Microtek F1 - operator does matter!

[Michal Makowski]

I wonder if results from Microtek F1/M1 operated by an experienced operator will be better than from Imacon Precison III operated by newbie! I’m asking because my local lab is using IPIII, and as far I know they are scanning in 8 bit, no matter what they are scanning and no matter what you want to get and the operator is not very skilful.
If I get similar results from Microtek I will buy one and I will start mastering scanning technique at home with a cup of tea ;)
Regards
Michal

[Michal Makowski]

Any comments?

[Brian Ellis]

I have no experience with either of these scanners. But as a general proposition, I'd take a talented person with mediocre equipment over a mediocre person with great equipment every time.

[Robert Budding]

I'd prefer the talented person with the great equipment.

It seems that the OP is trying to determine how many ways a newbie can mess up.

[mrladewig]

If I get similar results from Microtek I will buy one and I will start mastering scanning technique at home with a cup of tea ;)
Regards
Michal

Just don't try to scan the cup of tea. It might not work out well.

I don't know about the Imacon vs Microtek specifically, but it might be handy for you to operate your own scanner and have the option to send out for better scans when needed. It wouldn't take too many scans to break even on the cost of an M1/F1.

[Stephen Best]

While I agree with your general proposition, the results I've seen posted here from the Microtek look pretty awful. There's not a lot to screw up with Flextight scans if you get your settings right. That said, I'd make sure the Precision III owner had paid for the auto focus option or look for someone with an 848/949/X5. The latter is a better class of scanner as well.

[Michal Makowski]

I already knew that Imacon is far better than Microtek. But situation is something strange, I mean the “commitment” with my lab is strange, I did not pay for scans as far as they stay in the lab. My integration in to the files is limited to the “back sit driver position”. Of course I can stay in the lab and do some things with scaner/CS3 operator.
The maximum print size that I usually print on their Lambda is 30x40. Is this to big for Microtek and should I stay with Imacon on the back sit?
Michal

[gary mulder]

try to let them make 3f scans on the imacon. This is the 16 bit raw format for Flexcolor. Download Flexcolor and do the conversion into Tiff 8 bit your self.

[Jerzy Pawlowski]

The maximum print size that I usually print on their Lambda is 30x40. Is this to big for Microtek and should I stay with Imacon on the back sit?
Michal
If it is 30 x 40 inches then for sure it is too large for Microtek. If you are talking 30 x 40 centimeters then some would say yes. I think for final print you will prefer professional scanner, however to select negatives, small prints, and some pre-visualization functions a scanner of the Microtek M1/F1 type and you as a good, care taking operator might make sens in long run.

[Helen Bach]

I haven't used the M1 extensively, so don't trust these comments too much.

I gave up on the glassless holder - it was warped, and so it vibrated during scanning. Microtek are sending a new one, but there is a 12 week waiting list because of the demand for replacement holders. All the tests were done with the glass holder. The film is scanned emulsion side up and the CCD is above the film, so there's only air between the emulsion and the CCD.

Scanning at 4800 ppi did not produce better resolution or more sharpness than scanning at 2400 ppi. Scanning at 2400 ppi produced more resolution than scanning at 1200 ppi. The scans at 2400 ppi showed less resolution than an Imacon 949 at 2040 ppi (Imacon with -120 sharpening).

The 2400 ppi scans could be sharpened and printed at 720 ppi (without resampling) to a quality that was acceptable to me. They could not be printed at 360 ppi to a quality that I was happy with - ie sharp and detailed when viewed up close, with no visible sharpening artifacts. People I showed them to thought that they were very good, but I didn't. My conclusion: I wouldn't be happy enlarging an M1 scan by more than about 4x.

Gary's answer sounds like the ideal solution in your case.

Best,
Helen

[rugenius]

Here's a different spin on the operator results if you want to hear more opinions:
http://whitespider.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=104&Itemid=88#josc40

Bill:)