Microteck Artixscan 1800f vs Nikon Coolscan 9000 ED vs Canon 5D

I'm not very satisfied with my scans on the microtek artixscan 1800f. I scan

at 5000 dpi at 100% acquired from PS. I've scanned at various dpi looking for

the scanning sweetspot and have found 5K seems to produce the best result. I

use silverfast AI using the 2 pass option across the negative. My negatives

are medium format of good quality but my scans produce somewhat soft images

which I have to work with in PS. I use Bruce Frasier's techniques for source,

content, and output sharpening. I'm somewhat happy producing 11x14 printed

images but am unhappy producing anything larger. I mentioned my frustration to

my film processor and he said I needed to look into purchasing the Nikon

Coolscan 9000 ED. He said the coolscan produced superior scans and with my

negative size, thought I could get excellent results making larger prints. I

have seriously considered abandoning scanning altogether and acquiring a

quality digital camera but the film processor told me I could get better scans

using my Hasselblad and scanning with the coolscan than using a canon 5D. Does

anyone have any thoughts or suggestions comparing products or dumping the scan

process and going straight digital?

The Microtek is a flatbed scanner, and flatbeds typically have inflated resolution and other specifications.

I own a Nikon LS-8000, which is very similar to the LS-9000. Basically, it is grain-sharp, with excellent color reproduction and dynamic range. At 4000 ppi, it has about twice the effective resolution of the best consumer flatbed - an Epson V700/750. Scans of Hasselblad film, slightly cropped to avoid the borders, are 8500x8500 pixels, or 72MP.

The largest high-quality print from a 5d, with resampling, is about 16x24 inches. The hasselblad image has over 350 ppi at that size, without resampling. If you don't print any larger than this, a DSLR would be faster and simpler. It takes a lot of practice to get consistently good results from a scanner, whereas a DSLR is very good right out of the box.

Hi. You may be expecting a lot from your particular scanner. The 1800f has a maximum

resolution of 1800 ppi, which is fine for 4"x5" film but is likely to be limiting for medium

format roll film, producing enlargements of the sizes you are talking about. Setting the

scanner to 5000 ppi is simply getting the scanner software to interpolate extra

information. I've found I got better results scanning at the scanner's maximum resolution,

and then letting the printer driver interpolate at the end stage of printing.

I think the previous answer was right - you may have to take the plunger for a dedicated

film scanner with a higher resolution.

Regards Jonathan

Hi again. Just had a little think about this. First of all, assuming you print at, say, 300dpi,

then with the scanner set at 1800 ppi you should have a maximum print size of about 13

inch square. So not too bad. I have a different Microtek scanner from yours, but they all

use the same holders. The holder for the medium format roll film is dreadful, as it

expects you to cut your film into individual negatives, and if you're not using 6x9 cm film,

then your piece of film is badly supported in the holder. This can lead to unsharpness. I

modified an old negative carrier from my old enlarger, and my results are better. You can

also buy third party holders which look much better from http://

www.betterscanning.com/ .

Hope that helps. It may be worth getting a new holder, before splashing out on a new

scanner.

Jonathan

Here's an idea even better than Nikon:

http://www.evinrude.com/en-US/

It took me a while to learn that scanning at resolutions higher than the maximum optical resolution of the 1800f produces somewhat soft results. Since then, I've been scanning my 6X6 negatives at 1800 ppi, with excellent results using Silverfast AI software.

The negative support issue that Jonathan mentions can be a problem. My solution was to cut out several pieces of thin, black construction paper that support the fourth side of the negative. As soon as I can come up with the extra bucks, I'm going for one of Doug Fisher's holders. Cutting negative strips into individual frams is a royal PIA.

John Kelly your way to funny. Sometimes I need to take a break. Thanks everyone for the valuable suggestions. I'll change the resolution and work on the negative holder for sure. I too have been bothered by cutting down negatives. It has changed the way a catalog negatives. I'm going to look around town and see if a digital lab has a coolscan to use for comparison. Also, I'm printing at 480 ppi. This recommendation from Photoshop Artistry by Barry Haynes, Wendy Crumpler, and Sean Duggan isbn 0-321-34699-8 a pretty good intermediate PS book.

Bruce

Definately put it back to 1800ppi. I have a V750, so your mileage may vary, but I've found that silverfast's multiscanning softens the image slightly.

From what I've seen on largeformatphotography.net, the 1800f has really good "single pass multisampling" whereby the film is scanned in one single pass, but during that pass the film is sampled up to 8x. This is superlative for reducing noise, and cleaning up shadow detail while retaining the sharpness of a single scan. I don't know what the holders are like on the 1800f (I know for certain they aren't as bad as Epson's), but Doug's holder works.

Also, if you are printing on an Epson, the driver produces the smoothest tones with image resolutions of 720dpi or 360dpi. With the exception of printing through Qimage, I get smoother tones printing at 360 than at an odd resolution like 480dpi. With very fine detail on small 8x10s 720dpi is the best, but for larger prints with larger detail 360dpi is the way to go. 720dpi is really excessive and file sizes become unweildly.

I have used the Microtec Artixscan 120TF and sold it because the quality was not good enough. I then bought the CS 9000ED with which I am very happy. I use as well a EOS 5D. The 5D images look cleaner but the final print size of the scans can be bigger. It depends what you want. When you want to scan the CS9000 is the only choice if you are on a budget. The totally overpriced Imacons are still an option. You can see the results here in my portfolio at photo.net.

Hope this helps.

Peter

The 1800f, properly used should give you good scans from 6x6 film. However, there is no

question that for MF you will get better results from the Nikon 9000. To maximize the

quality of your scans get the optional glass holder.