Microtek ArtixScan M1?

I found this info at http://www.imaging-resource.com
They have a review unit ( Review seams to have seized thought:0( )

"There are two M1 packages: the $649 M1 and the $799 M1 Pro. The difference between the two is in the bundled software and accessories.

You see that immediately when you open the M1 Pro box to find a second set of four film holders, which is not supplied with the M1. While scanning a set of 12 35mm slides, you can load a second holder. Scan four strips of 35mm film while you load another four. Scan 22cm of 120 film (four frames) while you load more, or two 4x5s while you clean the next two.

Contents. Alternate scanning software packages, calibration software, OCR software, manuals and more.

Larger film can be placed on the included glass holder that replaces the film holder drawer on the transparency bed. Microtek supplies a set of black vinyl tapes with the company name on them to hold the odd-sized film on the glass.

The scanner itself is accompanied by a power cord and a USB cable.

One thing that's missing, however, is Kodak's Digital ICE. Considering the performance hit, we weren't much disappointed by that decision."

Source:http://www.imaging-resource.com/SCAN/M1/M1.HTM

Do they rely make two different hardware versions?

Or is ICE just disabled in software?

If so it would be easy to just download the F1 drivers to get ICE activated for the M! !!!???

After all it would be more expensive to produce two versions of hardware.

They do it with dishwasher machines, same hardware with different model number due to witch touch button template they stick to the front of the machine ( Yes I have seen this ).

Same with cars, especially turbo engine cars more cash gives you new software and more horsepower.

/S
 
Gregg,

How do you like the Artixscan. I saved up enough $$$ for a scanner in this price range and as my birthday is coming up, I have a good excuse to get one. :angel: I've narrowed it down to either the Artixscan M1 or the Epson v700... I'm having an awful time trying to decide between those two. On paper the Artixscan seems like a better choice to me but I'm a bit hesitant as there aren't many good reviews out yet. I would very much value your opinion.

Fernando
 
There is a long thread about the M1 at the Large Format Forum. Near the end of the thread reports from users start to appear. Apparently, there is a glitch in the software, either in the scanner driver or the Silverfast Ai package. Read all of that. If the glitch gets fixed, the M1 may be slightly better than the Epson V700/V750. A review is scheduled to be in View Camera magazine soon.
 
Thanks Venchka.

I think that this was the thread that you were refering to:
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=27341

It was very informative.

It had a link to this user report from Hasselbladinfo.com. He has the Artixscan F1 though. It seems to be the same as the M1 but with additional digital ICE hardware. North Americans get the M1 but the rest of the world gets the F1 it seems. But the F1 is twice the price.
http://www.hasselbladinfo.com/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?10/38651

I still would value Gregg's opinion. I may take a chance on the M1 as I only have a limited time to gas-out!
 
Last edited:
I currently use a Coolscan V ED but am interested in the M1 or V750 to batch scan 35mm. Does anyone know how many 35mm frames you can scan with the M1 at any given time? I looked at the Microtek website and can't find any information on this.
 
I have the Coolscan V ED too and I'm also interested in the M1 for better batch scanning as well as for scanning medium format. I'm not sure how many frames it can scan at once but the 35mm holder can accommodate 4 strips of 6 frames.
 
Nando said:
I have the Coolscan V ED too and I'm also interested in the M1 for better batch scanning as well as for scanning medium format. I'm not sure how many frames it can scan at once but the 35mm holder can accommodate 4 strips of 6 frames.
Click to expand...

24 frames at a time sounds good to me! Thanks.

Just waiting for the reviews to come in.
 
Thanks for the review Edward. That was great and quite helpful. I think that I'm pretty set on getting the M1 now. The long 13 to 21 minute scanning times you mentioned... I'm assuming that not only were scans made at the maximum 4800dpi, as you mentioned, but that they were also multipass scans?
 
the scans were all performed at 4800dpi with multi-sampling from set at 0 to 4 with 120 film. The times really go up from there, in fact I just did a 120 scan last night with multi-sampling set to 16 that took about 30 minutes.

If you don't need that much resolution, say you stay in the 1200 to 2400 dpi range without multi-sampling you can get the scanning time down to about 2-5 minutes, I don't have my notes with me right now so I may be a little off.

Overall, the M1 isn't a drum scanner but I do think its the best flatbed on the market.
 
My Nikon Coolscan V ED isn't that much faster at 4000dpi and with multi-sampling turned on to 4 or 5. Multi-scanning at the maximum 16 and with 4000dpi a 35mm would probably take almost an hour. I never bothered to time it though.

I couldn't imagine how long it would take the M1 to batch scan 24 35mm frames at max dpi and max multi-sampling. Yikes! If I were batch scanning, it would be for the web so I probably would only use something like 1200dpi and turn off the multi-sampling.

The big dilemma for me now is whether I should go for the "Pro" model with the better software and extra holders or save $120CDN and go with the regular one. I use Vuescan and I'm not familiar with Silverfast at all. I must go and do some research on the two different Silverfast versions. Vuescan, unfortunately, doesn't support the M1 at this time.
 
Browse for M1 reviews, including those on dealer sites ( Adorama or B&W, don't recall)...I found several. I'm eagerly awaiting critical comparisons Vs Nikon and demonstrations that M1 does actually impliment its advertised HDR ). If someone says that really works, I'd only want the Pro version, and only for HDR.

Most Nikon V scan 35mm with Ice in 1.5 minutes. Mine does, and Nikon advertises that. Although Vuescan seems to make it multi-pass/scan, like 5000, I think it's teasing. V is a one pass machine.
 
1.5 minutes for a single pass seems right even with using Vuescan. I do get better results from multiple passes when scanning at 4000dpi. I think I got the terminology mixed up in my last post. By multi-sampling, are we talking about combining a short exposure pass and a long exposure pass? I was thinking multiple passes to reduce noise.
 
somewhere on silverfast's website they explain what mulit-sampling is and how it works. I just can't find it right now.

In a nut shell, sometimes the light source in a scanner isn't bright enough to get through shadow areas completely and because of this noise can occur. When multi-sampling is used the scanner makes multiple scans of the images, anywhere from 2-16. Because noise is random, the noise pattern will be different in each scan. When all the scans are complete the software is able to compare the noise patterns with actual detail and and take out all noise.

It's pretty cool.
 
It is a great concept (and you accomplish similiar result with multiple digital camera frames on a tripod and the PS3 stacking feature!). One common problem though, especially with flatbeds, is that the scanner does not start subsequent scans at the exact same spot. This results in a less sharp final scan.

Doug
 
Thanks for the review and the warning that it has no Digital ICE. That is a bummer as I need to scan lots of very old negatives in less than pristine condition.

The Epson V750 sounds like the only decent flatbed option with digital ICE.
 
ICE won't work with "very old negatives" ...assuming means silver negs as opposed to C41 negs. Probably doesn't work with C22 (ektacolor/kodacolor) but I've not tested.

However, used lightly (checking the preview), Photoshop's dust/scratch filter can do it's job without noticably softening finest details.
 
Digital Ice works with slide film but there are sometimes problems with Kodachrome films. With Kodachrome, it will clean up image but sometimes results in over softening of details in the slide. Perhaps the digital ice is misinterpreting certain details for defects or dust.

Anybody can clean up a scan in Photoshop but it is much more time-consuming. Personally, I'll be scanning black and white most of the time with the M1 so, for me, the lack of digital ice isn't that big of a deal.
 
Not to make too much of a point, but M1's a roll of the dice until somebody does a thorough review or we start seeing enthusiasm from users...

Have we seen ANYTHING suggesting M1 is better than any Epson, or rivals Nikon more than 750 does (doesn't) ?

Nobody's reported wet mounting successfully with M1, but Epson pushes promotes it. For some it'd make Ice less necessary..better than Ice for silver negs, right?

M1 might rival Epson with third party wet-mount kits, which some say are better than Epson OEM...but neither Microtek nor Silverfast nor any of the reviewers say anything about that (from what I've googled)...and one would buy M1 primarily because it was "glassless" ...wouldn't one?

I'd love to be able to put 24 exposures on a pretty-good flatbed and walk away, getting decent scans an hour later ...rarely printing them..just as previews for selective Nikon scans and online posting... but I'm waiting for a good review.
 
Well, I decided to wait perhaps another month or two before getting another scanner. Our espresso machine broke down and as everyone in the family are coffee geeks, I decided it was best to get a replacement espresso machine (an Ascaso Steel Duo) instead of a new scanner. Hopefully by that time it will be clearer where the M1 falls in relation to the Epson v7xx's and the Nikons scanners.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom