Microtek M1 user experiences

[Doug Fisher]

>>I never could figure out how to get a 16 bit file with Silverfast SE anyway, even the 48>24 bit RGB option shows up in PS as a 8 bit file. <<

48 is to 24 what 16 is to 8 bit. In other words, 48 bit is the 3 colors of R, G, and B at 16 bits each. 24 bit is the three colors of R, G, and B at 8 bits each.

The only way you can get a high-bit file out of the SE version is to choose the 48 bit HDR output option. That is similar to a raw-type of file ouput. The resulting scan will be flat but all the information will be there for you to tweak things once opened in PS versus letting the scanning software make those decisions for you.

Doug
---
www.BetterScanning.com

[Ken Lee]

"I am convinced that these are all memory issues and that unfortunately this machine requires ridiculous amounts of ram."

It's not the machine, it's the scanning software, or (more likely) the driver software.

Given that the lines are equidistant, it is possible once the driver have read in a certain amount of data (the distance between lines) it does a bad job of writing the data to cache. Something is losing track of where the old pixels leave off, and/or where the next set of pixels belong. The result is that some garbage is "inserted" every time - and it appears as a "line". After the line, the next set of good data is appended to the file. Over and over.

My guess is that if you were to scan a smaller image (exactly as small as the good areas on your images) you would avoid this problem, because you would never reach that limit, and therefore never reach that part of the code. Similarly, if you were to scan something 5x8, you'd see even more of those gaps, spaced equally.

It's just a guess, but as a software engineer, it seems logical to me.

[Colin Graham]

Ah, thanks for that Doug. Wasn't thinking about the individual channels.

[John Brady]

"It's not the machine, it's the scanning software, or (more likely) the driver software."

Thanks Ken,
Thats the best explanation I have gotten so far.

As an update, the bars are still showing up even with 8 gig. Although the performance has gotten better, after several scans they started again. I stopped them by restarting the scanner and the computer, next scan no lines. Very frustrated!

Does anyone have a used creo for sale?

[BarryS]

The problem is *not* memory related. I generally get more lines at lower resolutions and I have a 3000 ppi scan with no lines.

[Harley Goldman]

I have a question about using the 4x5 holders. Unless I am completely dense (which is a distinct possibility) and can't figure out how to use them properly, it seems that the holders provide excellent film support on 3 sides, but the 4th is unsupported and sags.

Anyone else experiencing anything similar or have any tips on getting the film into the holder correctly?

[BarryS]

I think the holders are supposed to stretch the film on two opposite sides. The two 4" long sides have rubber insets that grip and stretch the film. The holder isn't designed to hold all 4 sides from what I can tell. If the film is correctly inserted and the holder is closed correctly (which isn't always easy), the film is stretched fairly flat.

[Harley Goldman]

I am loading the chromes at the top of the holder, as the instructions show. I carefully close the top, then slide the top towards me. The entire mechanism does tighten down, but my film is still significantly bowed in the middle where it is not supported. I have tried it many times and I have yet to have it work.

Maybe I need that new Viagra film rinse.

[Gene McCluney]

I am loading the chromes at the top of the holder, as the instructions show. I carefully close the top, then slide the top towards me. The entire mechanism does tighten down, but my film is still significantly bowed in the middle where it is not supported. I have tried it many times and I have yet to have it work.

Maybe I need that new Viagra film rinse.

I have the Microtek Artixscan 2500f It uses similar neg holders. I have no issue with film flatness with this type of holder....if you make sure when closing the holder and sliding it, that the film does not move far enough to drop off the edge. You don't have to slide the film hold-down all the way, you know. Are you correctly placing your negatives or transparencies in the holders with the emulsion up? When done correctly this way, the film holding clamp, coming down on top of the film will flatten it out, as film naturally has a slight curl towards the emulsion side.

[Ken Lee]

Looking closely, it is clear that those "lines", are really regions that should have been rendered with good data, but where there is garbage data instead.

Imagine we write a computer program, whose job is to simply write out the alphabet - and this is what it produces: abcd#fghi#klmn#....

This is a classic coding bug that any software engineer could spot and fix... if it were thoroughly tested.

My guess is that the software was rushed through the Quality Control process, given only light "touch-testing", instead of taking the time to try out all the settings.