The 4990 achieves its dmax by interpolation and inherently creates allot of noise and multisampling (8X seems optimum with a dummy scan first to warm up the negative) can have a major effect there.
So mutlisampling has very little effect compared to the noise reduction in the 4990. I find very very little noise in the 1800f compared to the 4990 or 848. Ted and I discussed whether the carrier from the i800 could be used in the 1800f because it was that nice. If that's the case, it will be a real nice scanner. I can't speak for performance, but I suspect that it will be at least the equal of the i900 and the 4990. It has some little cams in the carrier mechanism that stretch the negative tight when it is locked into position. I don't want to encourage any GAS here, but the new i800 from Microtek is available, and my initial impression of it is that it has the absolute best negative carrier that any LF flatbed scanner has ever had. The Imacon especially had a high noise floor that suprised me, because If I recall correctly, it appeared to be worse than the consumer Epson and Microtek scanners.Īs we discussed privately, I suspect the multisampling will probably only be of benefit for chromes with this scanner, as it's noise floor and DMAX capabilities are both very good on it's own, and well above the normal B&W negative range. Your comments coincide with the results that we have found in the tests we ran for the article back in the june/July issue. These are very personal judgements of course.Ī friend of mine just bought the new Imacon 949. If you don't need Digital Ice (I need it for volume commercial scans so I will keep the 4990 running for that purpose) and you want to print exhibition quality 16x20 I think this scanner is worth the extra expense over an Epson 4990.
SILVERFAST EPSON 4990 PLUS
I only have free access to an Imacon in the summers so I am trying to approach that Imacon 16x20 level with the MT.įor me the MT 1800F with Silverfast AI Studio does indeed break the 16x20 sharpness limitatation of the 4990 plus it has allot less noise and dimensional accuracy (higher quality gearing or belts). I can tell the difference in my work at 16x20 when I start with a 4990 scan vs. This taping of the 4x5 holder into the main holder slightly increased sharpness.įor me it is ultimately all in the prints. There is no advantage with the MT in terms of sharpness by doing a dummy scan to heat the negative prior to the real scan as in the 4990.Ĥx5 film Film holder had a slight bow to it requiring it be taped into the main drawer holder. The noise level is extremely low to begin with and doesn’t need any help from multisampling. If you scan your B&W RGB and pull the Green channel for B&W, the MT is significantly sharper than 4990 closer to the Imacon. The MT has much less ghosting than 4990 and does not have this odd stretching on a pixel level (gear slop?) that the 4990 does at the edges of film sometimes.
Shadow separation is dramatically better with the MT than I could do with either 4990 or Imacon. MT has much less noise than the 4990 and the Imacon (I find the Imacons very noise) The MT is much much faster than 4990 and closer to speed of Imacon. The sharpening is because bicubic sharper does in fact do some sharpening obviously. Some gain in sharpness by down sampling (3600 to 1800 which is optical res.) but absolutely no less noise. This is not an issue with the film holder as the calibration slot is open.
The dust particles create holes in the calibration data and streaks in the scan. The calibration slot in the glass holder is also glass and collects dust, a big problem here in Albuquerque. the film holder for 4x5 and one big disadvantage. There is no advantage to using the glass bed vs. The sharpest 4x5 scans are with film holders by scanning emulsion up RGB and saving the green channel, in glass carrier emulsion down RGB green channel, but the holder scans were ever so slightly sharper than those from the glass carrier (film taped down). Read his for more detailed information.Ī summary of my observations to date with B&W scan are: My tests did not contardict any of his tests. Though I did not have an Air Force target to test things at a more scientific level, I agree with all of Paul Butzi’s observations in his article on his website. Some of my initial observations comparing Imacon 848 scans (done last summer), my trusty two year old Epson 4990 (with Silverfast AI 6 Studio) and my new Microtek 1800f (with Silverfast AI 6 Studio). It is much closer in quality to an 848 Imacon than to an Epson 4990. so I returned it for a new one), I must say that I am very pleased with this new scanner.
Continuing the older thread.After a great deal of testing, (because the first Microtek 1800f that I got developed alot of problems very quickly.
0 kommentar(er)
