ArtixScan 1800f

[Richard S. Lindzen]

I'm looking for a scanner with high resolution and dynamic range that will
handle 8x10 transparencies. The ArtixScan 1800f seems to meet my needs.
Does anyone have experience with this scanner? How about the comparable
models from Epson and UMAX? I will be using the scanner to generate proof
sheets, and to scan 4x5 to 8x10 transparencies and negatives.

Dick Lindzen

 

[Leonard Evens]

I'm looking for a scanner with high resolution and dynamic range that will
handle 8x10 transparencies. The ArtixScan 1800f seems to meet my needs.
Does anyone have experience with this scanner? How about the comparable
models from Epson and UMAX? I will be using the scanner to generate proof
sheets, and to scan 4x5 to 8x10 transparencies and negatives.

I don't have one, but I've seen a few reports from users who seem very
happy with it. As you may be aware, if the sampling frequency is 1800
pixels per inch or about 70 pixels per mm, the maximal attaintable
resolution should be about 35 lp/mm. No scanner will every deliver the
maximal attainable, but I gather that the ArtixScan may come closer
relative to the maximum than typical Epson scanners like the Epson 4870.
The Epson 4870 scans at 4800 pixels per inch, so even with considerable
loss it may still do slightly better than the ArtixScan for 4 x 5. I
don't know how The ArtixScan compares with the Epson scanners capable of
doing 1600 ppi. Those focus and they probably do better relative to
scanning resolution than the less expensive Epson flatbeds.

As to dynamic range, you have to be careful about how that is reported.
Often you just see a simple calculation based on the log of the bit
depth. Any figure like 4.8 should be suspect.

You might also be interested in the results at
http://www.jamesphotography.ca/bakeoff2004/scanner_test_results.html

 

[Ted Harris]

I used an older UMAX (Powerlook III) for years and recently traded it for a
Microtek i900. The i900 is their latest model and sells for a few hundred less
than the 1800f. It is worth a look the performance is excellent.

IMO there is no comparison between the Microtek i900, 1800f and 2500f and the
Epson or UMAX as the Microtek scanners as the Microtek's use glassless scanning
sliding the transparancies/negatives into a slot below the glass platform for
reflective material. Additionally, the Epson 4870 will not handle 8x10's.

I am very pleased with the results scanning 4x5 transparancies and negatives.
Ted Harris
Resource Strategy
Henniker, New Hampshire

 

[Richard S. Lindzen]

Does anyone know what the difference is between the ArtixScan 1800f and the
Microtek i900? The former seems to cost more, but the latter seems to have
better specs.

Dick Lindzen