Best Scanners in the $400-3000 range?

[JW Dewdney]

You see - the whole PROBLEM with the consumer level equipment like the Epsons and Microteks are that they are absolutely NOT designed for continual use. They have whimpy power supplies and poor quality components - designed to just barely do the job. You will NOT get consistent results compared to pro equipment. I'd basically steer away from anything made in Asia, hopefully that doesn't sound xenophobic. But it's pretty much true. Drum scanners and high end flatbeds are really optimized for this sort of operation (Heidelberg Tango, Screen, Linotype-Hell, etc...). You should expose yourself to some pro equipment sales people to get the blurb - though make sure you absorb only what's important and not the sales hype (they might try to convince you that new equipment is the only way to go..). Good luck. Another poster here (was it this thread?) mentioned the FLAAR reports. That's an EXCELLENT place to start! I'd read over their excellent website first and then pick up a couple reports. But it really depends on exactly what your customers are looking for.

Jonathan

[Ted Harris]

Oren, yes the 9800XLis stillin the line and is a good scanner, just not the same resolution as the other.

Jonathan, not realy a fair statement regarding staying away from Asia. Screen (Daipan) and Fuji both produce topquality pofessional equipment in Japan and Microtek has a whole range of professional scanners seldom seen in this country produced in Taiwan.

Flaar is not a bad place to start for high end info but, at a minimum, you need to read Sybold reports as well since Flaar has soem definite biases.

[JW Dewdney]

Ted, you're QUITE right about that. Sorry- I spaced out. I was thinking more along the lines of the HPs Epsons and Microteks... but the Fujis are superb as are the Screens, I'm sure. I think the FLAAR reports ARE biased, but personally, I'd be WAY more suspicious of Seybold. I shot the orig. poster a link to some Scanner Op groups on yahoo groups - hoping he can get some really good advice there from the horse's mouth.

[Michael Mutmansky]

I don't know whether the 9800XL will be around much longer. I have a feeling it has been discontinued but that there are still supplies of it around, and until they are gone, Micortek will have it on the website. I don't know for sure, but Ted may be able to confirm that.

My sense is that it probably comes close to the actual delivered performance of the 1000XL, ecen though it's specifications are about 1/2 of the newer scanner.

There are a few caviats, though. I think it only has a SCSI interface, and I'm sure it is a lot slower of a scanner than the 1000XL, so that should be considerd in this situation.

Both of the scanners are limited to about 16" in the long dimension, maybe about 16.5" if you are very careful, so that will be an issue if you have a larger piece of original material to scan.

The 1000XL is a great scanner for large originals, but unless that is a regular requirement, I would lean toward getting a smaller scanner, as they typically have better delivered resolution, take up less space, and cost less as well. Don't plan on scanning a bunch of 35mm slides on the bed at 3200 spi and expect to get anywhere near the results of even an inexpensive film scanner like the Nikon Coolscan V. It's not designed for that kind of task. If you want large batch scanning, you have to move up to a Cezanne or similar scanner, which is out of your price range, even for a used one.

[sanking]

I don't know whether the 9800XL will be around much longer. I have a feeling it has been discontinued but that there are still supplies of it around, and until they are gone, Micortek will have it on the website. I don't know for sure, but Ted may be able to confirm that.

My sense is that it probably comes close to the actual delivered performance of the 1000XL, ecen though it's specifications are about 1/2 of the newer scanner.

There are a few caviats, though. I think it only has a SCSI interface, and I'm sure it is a lot slower of a scanner than the 1000XL, so that should be considerd in this situation.

Michael,

The 9800 XL has one SCSI, one USB and two Firewire ports.

I don't know what the 1000XL delivers, but my testing of the 9800XL with a chrome on glass resolution target indicates that it is capable of resolution of around 20 lppm, maybe slightly more or slighly less depending on your mood.

This level of performance actually exceeds the needs of my application, which is scanning of ULF negatives where the anticipated enlargment would not be more than 2-3X.

Sandy

[JDHaggin]

Any progress with the Microtek 1000xl research ? I saw that Ted Harris made some comparassions to the 1800f and I wondered where everyone was with that.

HOW IS THE COLOR ACCURACY with these Microtek Scanners? Several of my cusomters are bringing me old photos and wanting restoration work. I primarily will be using my scanner for reflective media such as old/new photos 60% and some photo film work 40%

Obviously High resoultion is important and I was curious what the mickrotek 1000XL true optical was. Havent heard what the word was. Im ready to purchase and I just need some final help and/or advice.

thanks in advance

Justin

[MJSfoto1956]

HOW IS THE COLOR ACCURACY with these Microtek Scanners?

If you are a perfectionist, then you shoud build your own ICC profiles for your unique combination of film, print, scanner, computer system no matter what the brand of scanner. For example, I have built custom profiles for my BetterLight scanning back. Chromes and color negs are the most difficult, but flat art is extremely simple assuming you have two things:

1. A Gretag Macbeth ColorChecker (you have a choice of two versions -- a simple 24-color version and the Digital ColorChecker SG with 140 color patches).

2. Profile making software such as ProfileMaker, MonacoProfiler, or InCamera

Simply scan your color chart with zeroed controls (nothing "automatic" on). Be sure to save as 16-bit TIFF

For InCamera, just import the TIFF into Photoshop being sure that it does NOT automatically add its own profile (you'll need to set your Photoshop preferences properly), then run the InCamera filter and save the profile to your ICC Library on your hard disk. There is no need to save the imported file after that.

When you are ready to scan your flat art, follow the same procedure: zero your automatic controls, adjust for white/black points only, make the scan, then import the 16-bit TIFF into Photoshop and when it asks your to apply the profile, choose the one you saved.

Of course, "better" scanning software allow you to assign the profile at scan time, in which case you would apply the profile in your scanning software rather than in Photoshop. However either way ends up doing the same thing. You'll be impressed at how much better the color quality of your scans is.

[JDHaggin]

Thank you for that excellent reply. Any other suggestions. Yes I am a perfectionist and these tips are sure to add to my greatly lacking abilities.
Do you have any recommended reading reguarding the color issue? Photoraphy and art kinda jumped out and bit me about 1 year ago and I have loved learning anything I can get my hands on reguarding improvement.


A question I would have for any/everyone is....

What scanner in the 400-3000 range has a reasonable optical scanning range and the highest true Dmax? Im so tired of the hype of scanners and would like to get ahold of
a something that can really offer some range adaquate for professional use.

Justin

[Ted Harris]

Justin,

See our review of the performance of the 1000XL in View Camera, that lists the true DMax and the true resolution. You will not find that any of the other scanners from Microtek or Epson perform much differently. I suspect the resolution of the 1000XL will be thehighest fo the bunch and same with the DMax but again the differences will not be great. Read the article and see the numbers and the testing methods ... or look at other threads here where they have been referenced. Also remember, as Michael noted above, that you will lose a bit of the longest dimension on a 17" negative. If you want true 11x17 capability you won't find it in your price range unless you shop used and get lucky.

As for color accuracy, that is a function of the software and how you use it. Generally speaking you are best advised to do most of your color corection in PS. To the extent you are going to do it while scanning this is one area where Silverfast Ai really shines, giving you much more control over color than the other softare packages available for these low end scanners.

As for the comment that the highest resolution is realized only in a "sweet spot" or stripe in the middle of the scanning bed, that is true of all the consumer class scanners, they all use the same or a similar scanning array. Only the 1800f uses a different array and one that gives you the same resolution edge to edge. The higher priced scanners eliminte the problem with x-y axis movements.

Bottom line is that if you are doing this work as a business you might want to consider making the investment in a higher end machine.

[sanking]

Justin,

See our review of the performance of the 1000XL in View Camera, that lists the true DMax and the true resolution. You will not find that any of the other scanners from Microtek or Epson perform much differently.

In what issue is the review? I don't remember seeing it.

Sandy King