 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Medium format / February 2006MF Scanners - Microtek 120tf?
I know this is the old Polaroid, but I've never had the opportunity to use one or see the output. In the past I have had access to a Nikon 8000 with good results, but now it's time to buy my own. Has anyone done a rigorous comparison? Let's pretend a used 8000, new 9000, and new 120tf are all the same price - I'll make the $$$ judgement based on the quality differences. I don't care about scanning speed or ICE gizmos - just straight-up scan quality. Thanks in advance. I should add that I have a preference for negative film, but am interested in transparancy performance as well. >I know this is the old Polaroid, but I've never had the opportunity to > use one or see the output. In the past I have had access to a Nikon [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > scanning speed or ICE gizmos - just straight-up scan quality. Thanks > in advance. James Hutchison posts MTF data here: <http://www.jamesphotography.ca/bakeoff2004/scanner_test_results.html> LS-8000 #1: MTF50: 26.92, CA: 0.26 LS-8000 #2: MTF50: 19.52, CA: 0.465 [mine] LS-8000 #3: MTF50: 18.7, CA: 0.592 Microtek 120 #1: MTF50: 18.4, CA: .894 Microtek 120 #2: MTF50: 18.1, CA: .768 Polaroid 120: MTF50: 17.95, CA: 1.27 [CA = chromatic abberation, smaller # = better] ------------ You'll see scan snippets from both models on my scan-snippets site. These two scanners use different light sources and that will explain most of the difference in their apparent sharpness. 120tf uses the more traditional cold-cathode (ie., diffuse) source while LS-8000 uses LEDs, which act more like a point source (see: Callier effect.) There's a price to be paid for that: the Nikon, while giving sharper scans, will also show film grain and defects that the Polaroid (Microtek) will hide. With regard to ICE, all I can say is: don't discount it. When I bought my LS-8000, I assumed it was a scam and that I'd be have it turned off most of the time. I was 100% wrong on that score. It's turned out to be a lifesaver. I spend almost no time retouching scans. The LS-8000 snippets on my site are all done with ICE turned on. Personally: I've owned three film scanners that were either branded as Microtek or OEM'd by Microtek. All are now gone, but the Nikon remains. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com scan snippets www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis Great info! Thanks Rafe. I suspected that the Nikon was better, but wanted some firmer evidence. I might even try out the ICE :) Now do I wait for good used 8000 or just pop for the 9000...... >Great info! Thanks Rafe. I suspected that the Nikon was better, but >wanted some firmer evidence. I might even try out the ICE :) > >Now do I wait for good used 8000 or just pop for the 9000...... A new one is $1800 at BH. A good used one, about half that, give or take. FWIW, an LS-9000 took first place in Jim Hutchison's 2005 "bakeoff" although that one was done by very different rules (deliberately more subjective.) IMO, some of the very sharpest scans on my "snippets" site -- by Max Perl -- are done on a 9000, from 35mm BW GigabitFilm using Nikkor prime lenses. There are a few "fixes" in NikonScan software that only work on the 9000. Most of these are for nuisance-level bugs that have well known workarounds. BTW, you mentioned you work with C41 film mostly -- you'll find the analog gain (exposure) controls very useful for that. Having independent R/G/B lighting means that exposures for the three color channels can be set independently. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com > Having independent R/G/B lighting means > that exposures for the three color channels > can be set independently. > > rafe b > www.terrapinphoto.com Ah -Very interesting, every so often you prove to be of value ;)  Signature"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 greg_____photo(dot)com I have a Mircrotek 120tf. I think it does a slightly better job in the shadows on slide film than the 8000, based on scanning a slide on my 120tf and the same slide on Rafe's 8000. That said, rafe is correct about ICE being worthwhile - but its not a significant problem if you keep your negs/slides clean. The other thing that I should mention about the 120tf - the Microtek software sucks - it can't actually scan a 6x7 at 4000dpi without crapping out. And Microtek customer support is useless. Fortunately, the 120tf also includes Lasersoft's Silverfast software which works pretty well. Peace, -chasfs http://chasfs.com Recently, chasfs <chasfs@yahoo.com> posted: > I have a Mircrotek 120tf. I think it does a slightly better job in > the shadows on slide film than the 8000, based on scanning a slide on > my 120tf and the same slide on Rafe's 8000. based on the very different results between two 120tf scans on the scanner bake-off page that Rafe referenced, I'd say that it would be hard to draw conclusions about the hardware. I'm sufficiently happy with my 120tf that I wouldn't run out and buy the Nikon, even though such a move would be essentially free for me. > That said, rafe is > correct about ICE being worthwhile - but its not a significant > problem if you keep your negs/slides clean. That's an important consideration. I clean my film prior to scanning, so that I don't have to fix things after the fact. > The other thing that I > should mention about the 120tf - the Microtek software sucks - it > can't actually scan a 6x7 at 4000dpi without crapping out. And > Microtek customer support is useless. Fortunately, the 120tf also > includes Lasersoft's Silverfast software which works pretty well. I have a love/hate relationship with ScanWizard Pro TX. If it worked, as does ScanWizard Pro for the flatbed ArtixScan models, I'd never use Silverfast AI, as Scanwizard Pro (not TX) has a far more productive UI. But, unfortunately, you are right. ScanWizard Pro TX is broken and not likely to be fixed since Silverfast AI 6 is included in the package. While I wouldn't go so far as to say that Microtek customer support is 'useless', they have been helpful in areas under their control, but they aren't in a position to make Pro TX work. Neil >That's an important consideration. I clean my film prior to scanning, so >that I don't have to fix things after the fact. Right, and you never get into accidents, so no point seatbelts or airbags, either. Seriously though, I've got access to some excellent film processing these days, but even so, without ICE, there'd be plenty of touch up and cleanup to do. I've finally figured out how to make ICE work on the 4990, so this is the first time I've been able to use it with my LF stuff. What a relief. The downside is that an LF scan with ICE (2400 dpi/48 bits) takes about 45 minutes. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com Recently, rafe b <rafebATspeakeasy.net> posted: >> That's an important consideration. I clean my film prior to >> scanning, so that I don't have to fix things after the fact. > > Right, and you never get into accidents, > so no point seatbelts or airbags, either. A bit of a different issue, no? ;-) > Seriously though, I've got access to some > excellent film processing these days, but > even so, without ICE, there'd be plenty > of touch up and cleanup to do. Understandable. However, I *really* dislike the results of all of the "auto-cleanup" tools I've tried, including ICE. If I were in a high-volume production environment, I'm sure that those results would be acceptable trade-offs. But, as I'm not, I prefer to deal with artifacts individually, using the best methods for the problem at hand. YMMV. Equally off-target analogy: I prefer not to use the autopilot, even when I'm flying for long distances, because I *like* flying. If I were a commercial instead of just a private pilot, I'm sure that the trade-offs would be acceptable. ;-) Neil > Understandable. However, I *really* dislike the results of all of the > "auto-cleanup" tools I've tried, including ICE. If I were in a high-volume > production environment, I'm sure that those results would be acceptable > trade-offs. But, as I'm not, I prefer to deal with artifacts individually, > using the best methods for the problem at hand. YMMV. Sometimes I think you and I exist in different universes. Honestly, the comment above suggests (to me, at least) that you've never actually used ICE. For years, I've looked for evidence that ICE degrades scans in any way -- and found no such evidence. > Equally off-target analogy: I prefer not to use the autopilot, even when > I'm flying for long distances, because I *like* flying. If I were a > commercial instead of just a private pilot, I'm sure that the trade-offs > would be acceptable. ;-) Off target, for sure. I don't touch up scans for pleasure, even though my skills in that area are considerable. I have much better ways to spend (or waste) my time. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com One thing to keep in mind when budgeting for the excellent Nikon 8000 and 9000 scanners is that many users have posted they feel the Nikon glass holder is a necessity to get good corner to corner sharpness with mf film. I think Aztek still sells a wet mount kit for those scanners too, just in case that interests you and you need to factor it into your decision process :) Doug SignatureDoug's "MF Film Holder" for batch scanning "strips" of 120/220 medium format film: http://home.earthlink.net/~dougfisher/holder/mainintro.html Thank you to everyone who responded. I went ahead and picked up a new LS9000. I am starting a new thread regarding some color issues, but so far I am happy. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.