Microtek Artixscan 1800f vs. Epson 2450 for MF/LF

[otakar_sroubek]

Has anyone had any experience using the Artixscan 1800f for scanning

MF and LF film using the drawer system. Everyone seems to talk

about the Epson 2450 with a higher dpi, but the Microtek seems to

have a better Dmax and software etc. Any comments would be

appreciated. Ultimate printing output 16x20 to 20x24.

[noshir_patel]

Since the Epson uses a two CCD approach instead of one CCD (which I believe the Microtek uses) the Epson's performance is nowhere near true 2400 dpi. This is because the sampled dots overlap each other considerably. I own it and think it's good for the money, but I consider it a 1200 dpi scanner. Everything I've read about the Artixscan 1100 leads me to believe that the 1800f would be far superior to the Epson in both true resolution and dmax. (In fact, I believe even the 1100 would be better despite slightly lower resolution, though there's no reason to buy one now.)

 

In any case, I've used Epson scans of 4x5 transparencies to produce very nice 20x24 prints (preflighted lightjet service from WCI). I do scan at 2400 dpi, not for the resolution, but for the noise reduction you get by downsampling (which shouldn't be necessary with the 1800f). I think MF to 16x20 might be acceptable with the Epson, but it could be marginal.

[otakar_sroubek]

Thanks. Going one step further, do you believe that the 1800f can come close to a dedicated film scanner for MF such as the Minolta Multi Pro or Nikon 8000? I would like to consider printing to an Epson 7600.

[steve_hovland]

If I recall correctly, there is no glass between the film and the sensor on the Artixcan.

[noshir_patel]

I'd expect the Nikon Coolscan 8000 (and similar dedicated film scanners) to blow the Artixscan 1800f away. (I own the Coolscan 4000 which I use for 35mm, by the way. Don't really see how it could be any better except I'd prefer if it was supplied with a better profile... Wouldn't be an issue if I got a custom profile, I suppose.) I have heard of some banding issues with the 8000, but I don't remember the details. Since I don't shoot MF, I didn't care to research it.

[otakar_sroubek]

Thanks for your input. Is there anyone, though, who actually has used the Microtek 1800f for MF and LF and if so, could you post your results (images) and opinions. Although the Epson 2450 is a popular machine, I suspect that the Microtek delivers a better scan. Thanks

[demcgee]

I asked a similar question about the Artixscan 1800f in the Large Format Forum but no one there seemed to have any first had experience either so... I figured the only way to find out about it was to get one - so I took the plunge and ordered the 1800f today. I hope to have it in a week or two - they didn't have it in stock. Price $1299.00 plus $29.00 for shipping. Ship date either Jan 24 or Feb 4 - so they say. As there seems to be some interest in this scanner I will post comparison scans of the Artixscan 1800f and the Epson 1640su once I get it up and running - and scanning. Still interested in hearing from anyone who may have personal experience with this scanner.

[demcgee]

At this sight are some comparison scans. http://www.sendpix.com/albums/03032212/120756000000062324a4cc36712a086df523592a97c768/

 

The Epson scan was done on the 1640su with Silverfast AI6 software and an icc profile. The Microtek (MT) scan was done with Scan Wizard software and incorporating an icc profile created in that software.

 

 

The picture is of �Park Avenue� near Moab Utah. It was shot with Fuji Velvia 4X5 film. Original scan was done at 400dpi the detail was magnified in Photoshop.

[madoka_takagi]

I bought a Microtek Artixscan 1800f six months ago for one purpose only----to

scan 8x10 BW negatives because it seemed like the only scanner out there

that will do this. I have had nothing but problems---one problem really---

SCAN LINES. I sent the scanner back to Microtek, they said they repaired it.

They didn't. So I sent it back again and they replaced the scanner. The new

scanner has the same problems. I have tried scanning with Silverfast and

Scan Wizard and they both give me this problem. As it turns out, other people

I know who use it for the same purpose have the same problem. Clearly there

is something wrong with the design or how it has been integrated into

software. If anyone knows of any scanners out for scanning 8x10 negatives at

a similar price or has a solution for this problem I would love to hear from

them.

 

Thanks

[goran_nilsson1]

Hi !

 

I have just bought the ArtixScan 1800f. I will be using it for my 8x10" color-nagatives. I am upgrading from a ScanMaker 4. This ScanMaker 4 had huge scan-lines "streaks" problems. Especially when "printing down" well (over if you like) exposed skies. Otherwise I liked my old ScanMaker 4. This ArtixScan is far far far better. There may be some faint lines here too when doing some extreme printing down. But I am very pleased with the ArtixScan 1800f.

 

I was doing some cleaning efforts with the ScanMaker 4 but nothing helped (I even scrubed the CCD-window).

 

Note that the calibration window must be absolutely clean. If you got a very strong line (dust inside) you may try to blow (spray can) some air towards the optics and mirrors. That worked for my ScanMaker 4.

 

When it comes to 6x6 film the ArtixScan is below my Minolta Multi II (not pro) which scans medium format at max 1128 ppi. Though the ArtixScan is much cleaner in the shadows on medium positive film.

I will use the ArtixScan just to make 6x6 "contact-sheets". I am making a mask that will take 2 strips of uncut 120-film. I would never cut any medium format film for this scanner. And that is just what I have to do if I would use the included medium format mask. Probably Microtek never intended this scanner for other than casual medium format use. The quality just isn't very good and people just don't want to cut their film-strips. I take this cumbersome medium format mask as a Microtek hint not to use this ArtixScan on small film.

 

Needless to say I will not even test this ArtixScan on 135-film.

 

On the contrary the 4x5" Q-60 calibration transparency (included with ArtixScan) scanned very good. So this scanner may work on this film size. I don't know because I never used that format.

 

Just one last note on Newton-Rings. First of all this ArtixScan is very cool and you can have the lamp turned off 1 minute after scanning. The ScanMaker 4 was very hot and you had to manually turn if of (not forgetting to close the scanning software first).

 

Now Newton-Rings appear when the film is not absolutely flat on the glass. And heat make film buckle. It is moist in this non flat area that really cause these nasty rings.

 

DrumScanner operators use oil and there are even some sprays to use. But fortunately there is a simpler way. Just dry the film up (1/2-1 minute, mostly on the non-emulsion side) with a hair-drier put on (very) low temperature. I did not bother to much about Newton-Rings with the ScanMaker 4. After all I had to retouch all theese streaks anyway. But with this clean ArtixScan 1800f I had to solve this porblem. It works to 110%. I have not found any Newton-Ring yet with this method. But as I said it allso depends on a cool scanner.

 

To sum up:

 

This ArtixScan 1800f really makes me happy !

 

1.) I get very clean scans.

 

2.) The scanner is very cool.

(I really like when the lamp turns of immediately after scanning.)

So I can very easily get rid of any Newton-Rings.

 

This Scanner is very expensive here in Sweden (the same price as the Minolta Multi Pro).

So I ordered mine from UK.

 

Goran/Sweden

[jeff_zweig]

The 1800f is based on the 1100 which in turn was based on the Scanmaker 5 series. All of them have been proven success stories as you can see in the posts above with the guy with the Scanmaker 4.

 

Those of you with the lines, have you calibrated the scanner? You mentioned it happened in both Silverfast and ScanWizard Pro which could be a problem with the scanner.

 

Microtek is usually on the ball when it comes to Artix products. I would see if they have any suggestions, if not then you should be able to get it replaced. I haven't had any lines on my 4000tf, but my SM5 never had the lines problem so I doubt it is a design flaw.