How Good are the Microtek Scanners?

[RedSun]

It seems Microtek makes some good film scanners, such as the 1800f and the M1. How about the other models?

Are the glassless film scanning really that good, better than the Epson, such as 4990 and V700?

[Ron Stowell]

I had a Microtek that was absolute crap! Only thing it could do consistantly was freeze up, finally sent it to the computer bone yard.

[RedSun]

Really? I thought the glassless scanners are good. The M1 can do like >4,000 dpi optical?

[jcoldslabs]

I use a Microtek i900 scanner that works fairly well. I really like the snap in glassless holders for all formats. I've never used an Epson so I can't offer a comparison.

I've read lots of negative comments online about Microtek's products and especially their customer service, but this has not been my experience. My #1 complaint is that I get noise in the form of banding in the darkest shadow areas when I scan transparencies. The scanner is now 8 years old so this could be an issue with dust accumulation on the mirrors. I wouldn't make crucial prints from the images I scan with it, but for everyday use it works fine.

Jonathan

[Gem Singer]

A while back, my brand new Microtek M-1 made approx. thirty scans before it stopped working.

It took two weeks of E-mailing, back and forth, to convince the Microtek techs that the problem was caused by a manufacturing defect.

They eventually replaced it with another brand new M-1. That one didn't last long either.

Eventually ended up with an Epson V750 Pro, which is still going strong to this day.

[drew.saunders]

Really? I thought the glassless scanners are good. The M1 can do like >4,000 dpi optical?

Glassless can reduce dust, but a 4x5 negative will often sag in the glassless carrier, so you could have lower resolution and have to re-scan. I have an M1 and it's really about a ~2400spi scanner, even though it's rated at 4800, you don't get more detail, just bigger files, if you scan higher than 2400. You can use the glass carrier and mounting fluid, but that defeats the purpose of the glassless carrier, so you might as well go with the Epson. Honestly, I've been thinking of getting rid of it and replacing it with a V700 or 750 for some time, but it does work well enough.

[Kirk Gittings]

FWIW When I first bought one I had to return it a few times to get one that worked longer than a week. I later replaced it with the Epson 750 which IMO has a slight edge in quality.

[Frank Petronio]

Are they still selling them new? I had two returns before getting my money back....

[Paul Bujak]

I've had an M1 for two-three years and have had no troubles with it. It is very noisy, grunts and groans a lot but continues to work fine. My only complaint is that is is extremely SLOW! To scan a bunch of negs can take an eternity. I do like the 8x10 capability.

[Preston]

I have an 1800F that I've had for several years, and have had zero issues with it. Yes, it's a little noisy, but I just ignore it. I scan 4x5 at 1800 ppi using Vuescan on Win 7 64 bit. I can get a nice looking 16x20 quite easily. If I want a bigger print, I'll get a drum scan.

If you do find an 1800F in good working order and you are using a 64 bit Win OS, you'll need to use Vuescan. The reason is because neither Silverfast or Scan Wizard (Microtek's driver) have updated 64 bit software for this scanner.

I haven't noticed any film flatness issues with the glassless carrier for 4x5. I don't insert the neg/chrome until I'm ready to preview and scan.

I do hope the scanner lasts a good while longer, but I'll go with an Epson V700 or 750, or whatever the equivalent will be when the 1800f gives up the ghost.

--P

[Ken Lee]

I gave away my 2500F when it started drawing lines on the scans. It weighed a ton and was extremely noisy. VueScan software did a better job than the Microtek software. The scanner had an abrupt "toe": poor separation in the low values. It delivered 2400 spi in the green channel, the only thing better than the Epson which replaced it at 1/3 the price.

[Corran]

Yeah I have the lines issue on my Agfa-branded 2500. I love the scanner otherwise. Still can't figure out how to open it up to clean it!

Also, if the negative isn't just right it really struggles.

FWIW, I bought it for $25 on eBay, and it cost $50 to ship it. $75!!

[RedSun]

At this time, I have choice of Microtek M1 vs Epson v700 at similar price range. I figure it is no-brainer to get the v700?

I was sold by the glassless scanning.

[Adamphotoman]

Both the Agfa Duo Scan 2500 and the Microtek machines are essentially the same machine. There are a few cosmetic differences and I was told that the lens in the Agfa is glass where as the Microtek is (plastic?). Both were intended for designers to make images for placing in their designs but not to finnish the job. Then drum scans were used. Both produce noise and banding from dense areas of film. My unit sits in a corner. I replaced it by using a Betterlight for an improved scan with film grain or a drum scan for much more control.
I think a DSL properly used with good alignment and great glass will out perform the Agfa/Microtec. I have much more control with Capture one and with upping production volume.
I have a friend who uses a scanner for creating images in reflected mode. He creates a dam on the glass and floods the centre with water to scan flower parts under water. My scanner will go to him instead of the computer bone yard. Until he drowns the electronics and fries it.

[Frank Petronio]

Back when the M1 was new it supposedly had better specs and people got good results but given that they have no support and many quality control concerns, getting an Epson is a no-brainer.

Unless you get a working one for $75 lol.

[Ken Lee]

At this time, I have choice of Microtek M1 vs Epson v700 at similar price range. I figure it is no-brainer to get the v700?

I was sold by the glassless scanning.

In principle, scanning without glass is better because there's no glass to scratch or accumulate dust on top or out-gassing underneath.

In actual practice a scanner with better tonality , smaller size and noise, faster and more reliable does make this choice a no-brainer.

[Peter Langham]

Corran,
Here are direction for opening the 2500 . I have them saved from some old post from somewhere, and I think they come from Microtek:

Follow these basic steps:
1. Turn the scanner off.
2. Take the lid off the hinges.
3. Place something in the locking hole towards the back of the scanner and
gently push down.
4. While the locking mechanism is depressed, slide the reflective glass
toward the back position.
5. Clean the scanner with mild detergent and a lint-free rag. Note: Always
spray the detergent on the rag and not directly on the scanner

Be aware that this frequently does not solve the problem. There has been speculation of other causes, but no 1 cause or fix has been identified that I am aware of.

[Corran]

Thank you!! I will try this out. I consistently get 2-3 lines in the exact same place over and over, so I'm assuming that it's a dirty sensor, but we'll see.

[jcoldslabs]

Corran,
Here are direction for opening the 2500 . I have them saved from some old post from somewhere, and I think they come from Microtek:

Follow these basic steps:
1. Turn the scanner off.
2. Take the lid off the hinges.
3. Place something in the locking hole towards the back of the scanner and
gently push down.
4. While the locking mechanism is depressed, slide the reflective glass
toward the back position.
5. Clean the scanner with mild detergent and a lint-free rag. Note: Always
spray the detergent on the rag and not directly on the scanner

Be aware that this frequently does not solve the problem. There has been speculation of other causes, but no 1 cause or fix has been identified that I am aware of.

My i900 opens in the same way, and for a while I was getting HORRIBLE lines across my scans, not just in the dense areas. When I finally got it open I found that a moth had died in the works! Cleaning all of that debris out really helped.

So is the banding and shadow-value muddiness a known issue with these Microtek units? If so that will make me feel both relieved and disappointed. For the past couple of years I have been testing and refining my B&W development process and finally have been getting what look (to me) like excellent negatives with good contrast and fine detail, but I cannot for the life of me get nuanced tonality in the shadow areas of my scans from these negatives. If it's the scanner that's the culprit that means my negs may in fact be as good as they look to the naked eye, but it also means I have been gauging my negative quality to some degree on what I have been seeing on the screen. Time to save my pennies for an Epson.

Jonathan

[Kirk Gittings]

Spring for a good drum scan from Lenny Eiger and compare the two. That is the gold standard IMO.

[Gem Singer]

Jonathan,

The ideal negative for darkroom printing needs to be more dense and contrasty than the ideal negative for scanning and digital printing.

A thinner negative scans better than a denser negative.

Having learned the hard way, I can suggest that you give more exposure to the shadow areas (place them in Zone III).

and use compensating development to prevent blowing out the highlights.

[jcoldslabs]

Gem,

Thanks for the tips. And fortunately, that's pretty much what I am doing. I grew up in a darkroom, so to speak, so my eye for negatives was established back then. When I examine the negatives once they are dry I usually have a good sense if they are properly exposed and developed with good shadow detail and non-blown out highlights. In some ways this is where my scanner's faults may be a blessing. Since it does poorly with thin shadow areas, I may have unwittingly shot for more open shadows in order to help give my scans a "boost." Still, my scans, no matter how well done, never match the glory of the prints I made the last time I had a darkroom. I'm hoping to get back to wet printing in the near future.

Jonathan

[alexn]

I use a microtek i900 and love it...

[Corran]

And of course I finally get this great info on how to clean this stupid scanner out and it doesn't work on Windows 7 64-bit. Just my luck. Looks like I'm going to have to be getting a V700 now, despite fairly poor performance in my opinion unless I feel like fiddling with whatever kludge is needed to get the focus right.

[Preston]

Bryan,

I had the same issue on my 1800f with Win 7 64 bit. The only solution was to use Vuescan Pro-64 bit. It works just fine with my scanner. You could download the trial, and see if it works. If it does, you're golden.

--P

[Corran]

Actually I think the main issue is I can't get the drivers to install for the SCSI card. I've tried a billion different things from various searches.

I have a Adaptec 2940U2W card. It just won't take.

[Preston]

Bryan,

Wish I could help, but I am not versed in SCSI at all. My 1800f uses Firewire.

--P

[Jim Noel]

I have an i900 and love it. Certainly it will scan circles around anything Epson has ever made, particularly with negatives. The controls are complete enough to eliminate the need to do anything in PS if one scans a decent negative. When teaching at the College I was forced to use a variety of Epsons and never got a scan to compare with what I do at home. Additionally, I have a friend who has used an i1800 for many years in his commercial business of scanning original painting and drawings.

[Kirk Gittings]

I have used probably every modern scanner in the $500-$1000 price range (never bothered with the real cheapos). At this price point it appears that the quality of the key components like sensor and step motor are pretty similar in quality leading to some having incrementally (slight) better or worse output over others. Since excellent software like Silverfast and Vuescan is available for pretty much all these scanners-that is a leveler too. One can get adequate scans from either from either the Epson 750 or the Microteck 1800 or i900 if you have a decent transparency or negative. The decision pretty much comes down to very slightly more quality and reliability. I went through numbers of Canon and Microtek 1800 scanners trying to get a good one. I have never had an Epson fail and my current 750, bought when they first came out, has worked flawlessly. But it is what it is, IMO an advanced amatuer level scanner. If you want a seriously better scan from a flatbed you have to step up to something like the IQsmart (which I am fortunate to have access to). The difference then becomes dramatic.

[jcoldslabs]

In light of what's been said above, I'm wondering how much scanner noise is normal. Since I've only ever used my Microtek i900 I have no basis for comparison.

Below is a detail of a recent scan I made from a 4x5 transparency. Much of the rest of the scan looked fine, except for this shadow area. I have crunched the levels to exaggerate the effect, but I get this kind of noise in the extreme highlight and shadow areas of ALL my scans. (The banding is parallel to the direction the scan head is moving, if that makes sense.) I have to assume that this level of noise is always present in the background, but with negatives or transparencies that are properly exposed the noise is not all that apparent and most of my scans look pretty good. But if I have to make significant adjustments to lighten or darken the scan using 'curves' or 'levels,' this scanner noise is exacerbated and becomes visible in the final image. I have opened the scanner and blown out as much dust and debris as I can, but the level of noise remains consistent.

Any suggestions or thoughts would be welcome. If this is considered normal, then so be it. If not, well....


http://www.kolstad.us/ebay/Scanner-Crap.jpg

Jonathan

[MisterPrinter]

In light of what's been said above, I'm wondering how much scanner noise is normal. Since I've only ever used my Microtek i900 I have no basis for comparison.

Below is a detail of a recent scan I made from a 4x5 transparency. Much of the rest of the scan looked fine, except for this shadow area. I have crunched the levels to exaggerate the effect, but I get this kind of noise in the extreme highlight and shadow areas of ALL my scans. (The banding is parallel to the direction the scan head is moving, if that makes sense.) I have to assume that this level of noise is always present in the background, but with negatives or transparencies that are properly exposed the noise is not all that apparent and most of my scans look pretty good. But if I have to make significant adjustments to lighten or darken the scan using 'curves' or 'levels,' this scanner noise is exacerbated and becomes visible in the final image. I have opened the scanner and blown out as much dust and debris as I can, but the level of noise remains consistent.

Any suggestions or thoughts would be welcome. If this is considered normal, then so be it. If not, well....


Jonathan

Each element of the CCD will have a different output for a given input, a calibration routine tests each element against a known input and makes tables to compensate for the differences. I don't know the calibration system for your scanner, but I'd be looking at it first.