[LargeFormat] cost of scanning question - ArtixScan 1800f
Verna Knapp
largeformat@f32.net
Mon Oct 13 22:16:04 2003
Shadow detail is one of the things that is a lot better with the 1800f
than with the Scanmaker 5. It really does have a wide dynamic range.
Here is something I posted to the discussion group back in September:
---------------------------------------------------
Oh, ok. I'll go on the web site and look it up.
"The 48-bit ArtixScan 1800f combines an optical resolution of 3,600 x
1,800 dpi and an impressive 4.8 Maximum Optical Density resulting in
amazingly sharp, detailed image capture for the demanding standards of
service bureaus and pre-press environments. Microtek's patented dual
platen design accommodates a variety of reflective, positive, and
negative film originals -- from 35mm up to 8" x 10". This professional
scanner features glass-free transparency scanning to ensure that only
the original image is captured, and not the unwelcome artifacts
introduced by glass, to yield superior image quality. Two interfaces are
included for superior connectivity -- FireWire and the new Hi-Speed USB
(USB 2.0) interface.
"
http://www.microtekusa.com/as1800f.html
The greater dynamic range is what I like the most about it. I'm going to
rescan some of the more extreme photos I scanned with the Scanmaker 5 to
pick up more detail in the shadows.
I haven't tried pushing it to its limits yet. Just after I got it and
got set up I had to move from Oregon to Colorado, and I'm still
unpacking and getting set up, so have not had much time for my photography.
-----------------------------------------------------
I hope that helps.
Verna
Bill Wandel wrote:
> You said that the 1800f does "wonderful work". Could you be more specific?
> How does it handle negative material, both color and BW? I have a Scanmaker
> 4 and have had problems with shadow detail.
>
> Bill Wandel
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: largeformat-admin@f32.net [mailto:largeformat-admin@f32.net]On
> Behalf Of Verna Knapp
> Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 8:32 PM
> To: largeformat@f32.net
> Subject: Re: [LargeFormat] cost of scanning question
>
>
> It depends on which Microtek. I have a Microtek Scanmaker 5 and a
> Microtek ArtixScan 1800f. They both have trays with open holes for 35mm
> and 4x5 and a glass tray for bigger than 4x5. The tray slides into the
> lightpath. It is not obvious looking at the scanner that this is so
> unless you know to look for it. The top half is a light color, and the
> bottom half is a dark color. The slideout is at the top of the bottom
> part in front. The same as the end that opens the most for the flatbed
> part. I had the Scanmaker 5 for a number of years, and it does fine
> work. I got the ArtixScan 1800f as an upgrade/replacement for it, and
> now I'm going to rescan. It does really wonderful work. It isn't cheap,
> though. A used Scanmaker 5 could be a good deal. Clive has the Scanmaker
> 4, I think.
>
> Verna
>
>
> Jim Hemenway wrote:
>
>
>>I don't think so Philip. I've only had good results with a flatbed and
>>transparency top which has its own light source and which shines down
>>through the film onto the scanner's sensor.
>>
>>Other folks may have had better experiences with the reflective tops but
>>for me the 11x17 Epson 836XL with transparency top is great for my 11x14
>>and 8x10 chromes. I print the 11x14s on the Epson 220 and get prints
>>which appear to me to be the equivalent of 11x14 contact prints. I use
>>an old LeafScan film scanner for 4x5 down to 35mm.
>>
>>There are some Epson scanners which have a light in their lid which I've
>>been told are very good and cost around $300 or so, and are big enough
>>for 8x10.
>>
>>Jim - http://www.hemenway.com
>>
>>
>>philip lambert wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I have a Microtek and it didn't come with anything for
>>>transparencies. It
>>>certainly scans prints and documents. Please advise if it is worth
>>>experimenting with. Philip
>>>----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Hemenway" <Jim@hemenway.com>
>>>To: <largeformat@f32.net>
>>>Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 7:04 PM
>>>Subject: Re: [LargeFormat] cost of scanning question
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Philip:
>>>>
>>>>Which scanner do you have and do you have a transparency adapter with
>>>>its own light source and which replaces the cover of the flatbed
>>>>scanner?
>>>>
>>>>Transparency adapters which reflect light back through your chrome into
>>>>the scanner are indeed a waste of time.
>>>>
>>>>Jim - http://www.hemenway.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>philip lambert wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Hi! anything professional seems expensive here in London.
>>>>>Anybody know if it's possible to scan in a 5x4 neg at home on a
>>>>>domestic
>>>>>scanner and get a decent 10x8 off it or will it be a waste of time? I
>>>>>thought of trying it after I bought a scanner but haven't had it out
>>>>>
>>>since I
>>>
>>>
>>>>>started getting my negs back on a CDRom. Some shots look good 14 inches
>>>>>
>>>long
>>>
>>>
>>>>>on a monitor -unfortunately currently I am between printers (apart
>>>>>from
>>>>>
>>>a
>>>
>>>
>>>>>b&w laserjet).
>>>>>And should I start with a 'chrome or a negative? PL
>>>>>
>
>
> --
>
> "Seize every minute of life...look at it and really see it...
> live it...and never give it back."
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LargeFormat mailing list
> LargeFormat@f32.net
> http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/largeformat
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LargeFormat mailing list
> LargeFormat@f32.net
> http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/largeformat
>
>
>
--
"Seize every minute of life...look at it and really see it...
live it...and never give it back."