Thought you might find this interesting:
http://www.hasselbladinfo.com/cgi-bi...w.cgi?10/38651
Printable View
Thought you might find this interesting:
http://www.hasselbladinfo.com/cgi-bi...w.cgi?10/38651
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?
After reading the interesting discussion in Hasselbladinfo, I will have to revise my statement! :oQuote:
Originally Posted by Maretzo
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
There is some eroneous information in that linked thread:Quote:
Digital ICE is a purely hardware function of a scanner
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirk Gittings
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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]
We discussed that review at length above.
I am VERY interested in how this turns out. Have a lot of MF to scan....:eek:
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 i use a free file sharing service that allow for 100mb uploads 4Shared
/Stefan
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
Stefan,
As I replied to you privately 100mb is far from large enough for a a high res file from a 4x5 tranny ....
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/a...2/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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg_E
Thanks a lot!Quote:
Originally Posted by highdesert
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 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!?
Safari on Mac works fine with 4Shared.com
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 .
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
Very beautiful image. Probably deal with that blow out section in CS3.Quote:
Originally Posted by highdesert
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.
It keeps crashing safari (Leopard). Anybody successful with OS 10.5?Quote:
Originally Posted by highdesert
Bob
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by pango
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
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
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by John Brady
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by John Brady
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by John Brady
highdesert
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
I've been using mediafire.com successfullyQuote:
Originally Posted by highdesert
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob McCarthy
highdesert
That would be great, Thanks, I am interested in M1 (have a 4990 now).
Bob
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.
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
Mac crashing???????? I heard that this was a MS thing :0)Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob McCarthy
The 4share thing works just fine on my 2 years old XP machine!
I also using Firefox.
If you're having trouble with 4shared, try this link:
http://www.mediafire.com/?cfxxtd2zoof
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
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.
According to--
http://www.microtek.de/Product.php?P...etail&P_Id=151
I couldn't find any mention of ICE or PictuRescue on the M1 page on the Microtekusa site.Quote:
Originally Posted by Microtek
Hmmm...I'll be in Berlin for a few days in March. Maybe I'll travel light.
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.
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.
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
So what's the verdict? Another waste of money ?
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
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob McCarthy
highdesert
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
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.
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.