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.
Printable View
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.
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
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/
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.
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.
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.
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Colin Graham
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.
Thanks, that's what I was looking for.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Harris
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg_E
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.
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
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.
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
The Imaging-Resource diary has been updated :)
http://www.imaging-resource.com/SCAN/M1/M1B.HTM
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Not with mine up to 4x5.Quote:
Gene-- Has the glass been an issue with the v700/750? Any problems with newton rings?
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.
Sort of, though the 1800f was discontinued quite a while back, because they could no longer get the sensors required.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by retrogaz
The amount of post production sharpening was significantly less than with the 4990, both scanners on Silverfast.
This one worked well.
bob
Still diggin mine. Looks like revision 4 for Silverfast 6.5 is out today. Downloading it now.
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.
Ted
What is a step up from the epson 750 or the microtek m1
both price and quality.
Thanks in advance
Tom
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.
I was afraid that was the answer.
Thanks
Tom
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, AlanQuote:
Originally Posted by Ted Harris
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by alanmcf
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:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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).
Kirk .... don't you mean given up on the consumer flatbeds?
Yes sorry.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Harris
What is your take with 8X10 film or even 5X7 on the consumer bed?
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:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirk Gittings
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by audioexcels
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.
Audioexcels,Quote:
Originally Posted by 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
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.
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
Alan, sometime in the next two weeks .....
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