Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 31

Thread: Microtek ScanMaker 1000XL PRO?

  1. #21

    Microtek ScanMaker 1000XL PRO?

    No need for guinea pigs... I'll have some resolution, DMAX and color fringing tests done in a few days. I plan to start on that this weekend.

    Since I no longer am a self-respecting writer, you can expect to see a full review of the scanner in VC magazine in a few issues, maybe even in January/Febuary, if I can make the deadline. I'd rather do it right than do it fast, though.

    ---Michael

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    12

    Microtek ScanMaker 1000XL PRO?

    michael,
    any info you get would help me sleep better with this decision.....lol. and if i can help you out in any way please ask.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    12

    Microtek ScanMaker 1000XL PRO?

    guys,
    julio fernandez just emailed me with some interesting data on both scanners. i pass it on to you. any comments?
    ed
    from julio:

    "Image Sensor:
    41,300-element tri-linear CCD array

    Here is the data for the Microtek 9800 XL:
    Image Sensor:
    21,360-element Kodak Trilinear CCD array

    The CCD resolution for the Epson Expression 1680 is 1600 dpi. a similar machine to the MT 9800XL.

    Epson do not give data on their CCDs other than in the above case they give the CCD resolution. For the 4990 they do not give it at all and you have to do the calculations to arrive at the number, which they have nothing to bragg about. Some people believe that the 4990 has 4900 dpi resolution! exactly why Epson does not disclose the real data. The 1000XL is not the Jazz. There are lots of things that go into making a scanner such the mechanical elements, movements, lighting, cooling of the CCDs. I would have liked the 1000XL at $1900 but the reality is that there is nothing there anywhere comparable for that price and MT knows that."

  4. #24
    Ted Harris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    3,465

    Microtek ScanMaker 1000XL PRO?

    ed,

    The email address you ahve listed here doesn't work .... Michale and I both tried to email you and they bounced back ... send me a good email and I will forward my originaland Michale's response to you ...

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    12

    Microtek ScanMaker 1000XL PRO?

    this is the right email.
    edwood44@hotmail.com
    it seems to be working ok from here.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    1

    Microtek ScanMaker 1000XL PRO?

    A german computermagzin tested the microtek 1000xl. unfortunatly the real resolution was around 1300dpi, much better was the older epson 10000xl

  7. #27

    Microtek ScanMaker 1000XL PRO?

    Ted: You say the 1000XL it is not a replacement for the 9800XL because that scanner stays on the line. If Mikrotek was to say that the 9800 XL is obsolete that would automatically devalue the current inventory of 9800XLs, and cause a serious loss to their their dealers. This is marketing 101.

    Before manufacturers launch products, in the ideal situation they will have depleted inventories before the new product gets out and that is when you see price reductions, or else rebates a la Nikon. However, marketers are not always in strategic control and need to get products out while older inventory sits around sometimes because it is not sellable, as may be the case withe 9800 XL. The 1000XL has a superior, denser CCD to that in the 9800XL and there is no reason once the inventory of 9800XLs is sold out, why it should not be discontinued. I arrive at contrary conclusion: If Mikrotek says that the 9800XL stays it is not because it is better than the 1000XL but becaue they can't sell it and do not want to lose their shirts if they discontinue it.



    I have not seen the results from the German Magazine but if they did as all other mazazines do in such reviews, it is not a sure thing their results are right either for the simple reason that it is impossible to maintain planarity and optimum elevation of the film plane while dry scanning because of the curvature of the film adds an uncontrollable variable. All magazine evaluatinos I have yet to see are quite cavalier on this issue, although I admit to not having seen yet the German mag evaluation.

    As to your evaluations of the 1000XL and the 1800f, I believe their authenticity and honest intentions, but I it is evident that those evaluations are seriously flawed. The capabilities of two products being compared can not be established with tests set at the limiting value of the lesser product (the 1800f), but at the top limit of each of each product. Only then is a proper comparison possible. Lastly if we say the same settings, that would have to mean that the film plane for both tests would be identical. This is simply not possible to ensure when dry scanning because of the variability of the film plane. The temperature and humidity variations in the film as it goes from one scanner to another results in changes in curvature and an uncontrolled variable. The "same conditions" has to mean absolutely the same. It would be interesting to see both products tested at the limit of each product's resolution under exactly the same conditions of film planarity. and at the top optical (not extrapolated) resolution of each.

    The 1000XL is designed to higher standards than the nearest Epson and should be capable of higher resolution because of its denser CCD if all other things in the test are equal, i.e. each the tests are made as per the above criteria.

  8. #28
    Ted Harris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    3,465

    Microtek ScanMaker 1000XL PRO?

    Julio,

    Just a quick note, if you reread my post on the 'tests' you will see that I clearly stated there was nothing at all scientific about them .. merely a target of opportunity since we were using both scanners at the workshop. If you want rigerous, controlled tests stay tuned. A discussion of both scanners and the results of tests with AIG targets, etc. under controlled conditions will be in our next scanning article which is slated for the May-June issue of "View Camera" magazine.

    As for the 1000XL v. the 9800XL it is not a marketing ploy. They are both still available because they are targeted at very different markets. The 9800 for schools and others (e.g. small publications like weekly advertising newspapers) which often require a tabloid size but have little need for high resolution and the 1000XL for photographers and prepress operations.

  9. #29

    Microtek ScanMaker 1000XL PRO?

    Hi Ted: Thanks for your reply. Re-reading my posting I feel that my tone could have been more in keeping with the person I was directing my answer to, a real gentleman and experienced photographer, which you are, and your reply emphasizes that point.

    Earlier you had stated: < Julio, you said "At 3200 dpi real optical resolution that would be a clear choice against offerings from Canon and Epson whose real optical resolution is only about 1666 dpi." True enough IF it has real world 3200 dpi which is unlikely since Microtek is stating theoretical resolution based on the fact that they are using a stack of two 1600 spi ccd's, similar to what the 'consumer' level Canon, Epson and Microtek scanners use. The difference here is in (hopefully) better optics and scanning motors. The 1800f has true optical 1800 resolution with a single, larger 1800 spi chip.>

    Ted, Microtek gave you the wrong info. The 1000XL has a 41,300-ELEMENT TRI-LINEAR CCD array NOT "the stack of two similar to consumer level Canon Epson and Microtek scanners" . The 3200 dpi resolution claimed by Microtek is accurate based on the CCD array for this scanner and its width. This is no consumer level CCD array in fact it is the best CCD yet of any flatbed under the Creo. Am I wrong?

    Now for the test logistics: I agree your tests did include a caveat but...I am being a little sticky about this point for several reasons, one, that the 'test' had the potential for being very useful on what appears to be a perfect in between step above all flatbeds now available under the Creo. Also, because these errors in test the protocol are quite prevalent in product consumer evaluations. The problem: We have two scanners A and B. A can go to say, 1800 dpi, B can go to 3000 dpi. We need to compare them. Protocol 1) -If we compare both "A" and "B" at 1200 dpi we are neither going to be fair to either "A" not "B" but the test will be most unfair to "B" . Furthermore, if uncontrolled variables exist in the test, the variables can tilt the results either way if they outweigh quality differences. Film planarity according to my argument was such a potential deviation. With this protocol we do not push scanner B to 3000 dpi, so there will be no way of knowing what that scanner is ultimately capable of delivering at its maximum resolution. (Based on the wrong information you did not believe the 1000XL could go to 3200 DPI and that probably contributed to the wrong choice of test parameters. ) Protocol 2) Test scanner "A" at 1800 DPI and "B" at 3200 DPi. To do that it is obvious that if film is a 5X7, we are going to end up with mega files, and if we want to see what these look at 20X magnification we will have to make murals. Evidently, 5X7 is the wrong choice.

    An analogy applies: In horse racing they add weights to compensate for a skinny rider, and that is logical, as the purpose is to see how fast a horse can run when all horses are equally weighted. In that scanner comparisons the logic fails because if "B" has five legs and "A" only four, we will never know how fast "B" can run if we cut one of his legs. As is now clear, the preconcption at the time was that the 1000XL was a consumer level scanner with only 3 legs, the rest followed. The conclusion of this 'unscientific' test was that the 1800f was marginally better!!

    There are worse things than being unscientific, one of which is being misleading and that is exactly what happened here. The statement that that 1000XL has a CCD array just like consumer level scanners is wrong and it does not jibe with either its specs or the latest info you quote later describing this as a pre-press machine. A pre-press scanner with a consumer level CCD?

    The latest claim that the 9800XL is intended for schools, etc. seems disingenuous indeed, does Microtek think that we are all that gullible.? You stated: ..."The 9800 for schools and others (e.g. small publications like weekly advertising newspapers) which often require a tabloid size but have little need for high resolution and the 1000XL for photographers and prepress operations."

    This is what the Microtek 9800XL brochure has to say: " It is the preferred workhorse for production environments, design houses and professional graphics companies. Te Scanmaker 9800 XL is a majestic addition to Microtek's time-honored trasition of excellence."

    Really Ted, this "majestic addition" was just meant for schools and small publications" ???? I think some one has been caught in their own hype.

    Ted, it is time to get back to the drawing board on this one. Yes, this is a pre-press scanner with real 3200 optical dpi resolution, no it is not a consumer level scanner like Canon's and Epson flatbeds and yes it has a 41,300-ELEMENT TRI-LINEAR CCD array. As for the 9800 XL , this majestic scanner once intended for design environments in professional graphics companies has now been demoted to schools and small publications before it is discontinued once inventories get down to an economically safe level.

    If you can get hold of that beast again I would hope you can re-evaluate this scanner as you and Michael said you would. I am sure that there are many that would like to see the results. But, perhaps it is better you do not, that way Microtek will not sell many 1000XLs and that will force them to keep their price down.

    Best regards, Julio

    Julio Fernandez

  10. #30

    Microtek ScanMaker 1000XL PRO?

    Julio,

    I think there may have been some confusion over the CCD array in the 1000XL scanner, so don't be too concerned about the accuracy of that statement. Ultimately, it is irrelevant what is in the machine, and whether it is 'consumer' or 'professional' grade. These types of labels are a red herring to the real issue; the overall real-world performance of the scanner when in the hands of a knowledgeable photographer/operator.

    The point that Ted was making about the 9800XL is that it meets a certain price point that covers a market that cannot justify the expense of the newer, higher specification 1000XL. That doesn't mean that it won't be discontinued at some point, but it is not inconceiveable that these two products will fit together in the product line nicely.

    I have the 1000XL sitting right here next to me, and the testing of it is ongoing. There is an article planned for the May/June issue of View Camera that discusses this scanner and the i800 in the context of real-world large format film scanning applications.

    While it may be interesting to theorize what these scanners are capable of producing under laboratory testing conditions, I'm much more interested in the results that people who may purchase the scanners for their use can produce. To that end, we are testing the scanners under conditions that are consistant with this use.

    ---Michael

Similar Threads

  1. Microtek i800..
    By David Honey in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 1-Feb-2006, 13:04
  2. microtek 1800f
    By Percy in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 10-Oct-2005, 14:34
  3. Microtek 900 or Epson 4990 or Microtek 1800
    By Ron Marshall in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 3-Apr-2005, 11:37
  4. Microtek Scanmaker i900 Review
    By Jeffrey Zweig in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 16-Sep-2004, 05:38
  5. 4x5 scanner: Microtek scanmaker 45T?
    By dangal in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 27-Jan-2002, 06:55

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •