another question on a microtek 1800 f

[brian reed]

I am torn between getting the Microtek 1800f or the Epson 4990 pro. On the one hand I like the glassless scanning on the Microtek and the high Dmax of 4.8. with Epson I like the price and Epson support. My question on the Microtek is I noticed on the specs that it is 45 lbs. Is it this massive a machine? compared to 9lbs for the Epson. Just wondering.
thanks

[Brian Ellis]

I wouldn't buy a scanner based primarily on the manufacturer's dmax rating, there's no universally accepted standard for measuring dmax by manufacturers and it sometimes seems to be done mostly by the marketing department. The Microtek may very well be a better scanner than the Epson, I don't know I've never used it, but I do feel confident that the dmax number isn't sufficiently meaningful to use it as the basis for a buying decision.

[Ted Harris]

First you should take a look at the rece ntthreads taht cover this question speciufically. Second, see our article in the May-June issue of View Camera magazine where the 'real world specifications' of scanners is discussed.

To answer your specific questions: 1) The 1800f is all around a much different and, IMO, a far superior machine to the 4990. The real world DMax of the 1800f is ~ 2.9 while that of the 4990 is a tiny bit less than 2.5; since these measurements are on a log scale that is a significant increase. Additionally, while not specified by the manufacturers, we found all the Microtek scanners to have less color fringing than the Epson scanners ... an important consideration in real world perceived sharpness. 2) The 1800f is not exactly 'massive' but it is a substantial machine measuring 14.5x7x23. It has a significantly larger scanning array and superior damping to the 4990. All around, the 1800f can be viewed as an 'entry level' professional machine and the 4990 as a top-of-the line consumer machine. There are many more differences but that should give you the idea.

All that said, if your goal is prints in the range of 8x10 to 11x14 from 4x5 trannies or negatives the 4990 should sereve you well. If you are going to print larger you will start to notice the difference of the scan quality when printing at 16x20 and beyond. If you have the money and the space you will not be disappointed with the 1800f.

[Ellen Stoune Duralia]

Hi Brian It's hard to pick among the models out there, isn't it? It might be helpful to know what your end use will be for your scans. I know alot of folks really like the Microtek. I have an Epson 4880 that I'm very happy with. For my in house printing capabilities, it does a fine job.

My choice was based on reviews I've read, my budget, what I needed to do with it and the results I've seen others obtain with the same model.

Oh, and Mr. Ellis is right. Don't believe the marketing hype as manufacturers do tend to inflate their numbers. I'm sure other Epson and Microtek owners will speak up soon to help in your decision making process so you've come to the right place.

Good luck to you

[Jack Mantelles]

OK then, I too am considering an 1800F, but I can;t seem to find any info on the amount of the 4x5 transparency that is cropped when using the supplied film holder, Does anyone know this snswer.

Thanks

Ngyuen "Billy" Kok

[Ted Harris]

Billy, virtually none.

[Paul Butzi]

Billy, the 4x5 glassless holder crops very little of the entire 4x5 negative, and if you use normal holders, you'll lose next to nothing.

And, if you have to have the whole thing, you can scan a 4x5 on the 8x10 glass carrier, and get more than the whole thing. I've done this for clients who want the entire negative showing so that they get the paper mask area and the funky holes from Polaroid type 55 p/n.

www.butzi.net

[Lars Åke Vinberg]

Billy,

Here is a scan from the 4x5 holder, scaled to 150 ppi so you can measure for yourself. There is a slight cropping.

http://8x10.se/1998-L009.jpg

[brian reed]

thanks everyone for the input. I think I've made my decision now I'll have to scrape up some cash.

take care

[Julio Fernandez]

Brian: In a recent comparison of scanners, the Microtek i900 was featured against several Epson scanners, all of which produced better images than the i900. The 1800f is something else of course and should be a better machine than the 900. Construction wise the 1800f (and even the 900) towers over the Epson and should accordingly be a much more durable and reliable machine. The image posted by Lars Åke Vinberg taken with the Microtek 1800f looks quite good but being only 116KB it is too small to judge the scanner on that basis. I'd love to see a full sized version of that image, to better judge the capabilities of the 1800f.
The glassless feature of the Microteks has been shown to offer little advantage by people that have removed the glass from other flatbed scanners only to find no improvement. Also, it comes with downsides. Every-time the drawer is opened up an uninvited guest comes in: Dust!

Regardless of which scanner you choose their main drawback has to do with the mounting of the slides. On an Epson flatbed, the plane of optimum focus (POF) should be midway between the glass bed and the plane on which the unmounted film normally rests. On the Microtek the POF should be at about the glassless carrier plane. Neither machine has auto-focus and both machines are close focusing devices with shallow depth of field. What that means is that film curvature can put the film well away from the POF. For this reason dry mounted slides can not achieve optimum sharpness throughout the image, particularly with large formats. Film curvature produces another undesirable result: It increases the amount of reflected light while decreasing the amount of refracted light. Neither the Epson or the Microtek mounts restrain film curvature.

Dry mounting has other downsides: light scattering, diminished resolution. contrast and tonal range. It is no coincidence that drum scanners (big bucks) use wet mounting exclusively. The brilliance and tonal range of the wet mounted slide exceeds by far that of the same slide viewed dry, something that can be readily observed with the naked eye even before scanning but which of course the scanner also sees. Wet mounting upgrades any scanner. Besides eliminating scattering and reflected light Wet Mounting is far more effective than any digital or infrared technique at removing dust and scratches and it also works on silver images. It does so while improving the image rather than degrading it as those other techniques do. With the 1800f that should remove dust as one of the potential issues with that machine.

A new yahoo group dedicated to Wet Mounting and related scanning issues deals with the subject, you can access it at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SCANMAX/
Several of the files and photos there that enable you to see and compare the differences between dry scanning and the more advanced technique of Wet Mounting. The technique is uncomplicated and kits are available for most scanners.
Julio