Like I said, they _would_ have to pay me to buy one :)

They and the vendor should pay me for
the hours lost trying to get two defective units
to function.

Depends on how much I got paid. Generally I'd want
to make at least 20 percent profit on the deal...

I wouldn't buy a Microtek if you paid me at this point.

Good luck. They won't be able to tell you because
they don't do signal to noise and sales folks
wouldn't have that info anyway (if they even know
what it is...) Want to do your own s/n test a good
book describing the procedure is Robert Gann's
Desktop Scanners: Image Quality Evaluation. Dr. Gann
is an engineer at Hewlitt Packard.

Look -- it's probably a decent consumer scanner for
what it is. It all depends on what you need one for
(not densitometry, however.) I have an Epson Expression
1600 sitting next to my Macintosh. A pretty decent flat
bed. It'll do prepress, but ain't high end. And it's
signal to noise doesn't give the Dmax Epson claims for
it.

I wrote their sales dept and asked for documentation to back up their
claims.  We'll see what I get back, if anything.

O.K.well I should probably clarify what I said.
I meant no such thing as a _cheap_ 48 bit scanner,
since if the scanner is cheap they likely had to
sacrifice some higher end components _somewhere_
(meaning even if it can scan a true 16 bits per
channel likely can't process/deliver 48 bits.)

In any case, looks like the i900 incorporates
a separate scan bed for film, which is good --
better than using an adapter for scanning film
on the flatbed. But I'm skeptical of the claim it
captures "more tonal information than a stand alone
film scanner." I.e., they don't actually say *which*
stand alones (low end/high end film scanners) it's
"better" than.

While the Dmax claim is clearly bogus, it's probably
fine for scanning negative film (negative films have
a low Dmax anyway, 2.8 or less.) Possibly fair for
transparencies but not high end (4.0 Dmax.) Again,
no way to know without testing. Problem is
manufacturers don't provide a true Dmax based on
s/n ratio since if they did they couldn't make
extraordinary claims about their products...

You can't afford $200? I saw a speedmaster on ebay...

Problems: 1. calibration; 2. signal to noise ratio;
3. negative densities are not linear. Densitometers
are not like scanners and software. You never need
to upgrade and if you have/can afford a scanner and
computer you can afford a visual densitometer...

No such thing as a 48 bit scanner. And certainly no
flat bed or CCD scanner can achieve a 4.2 D-max. 4.2
is in fact, ludicrous. 4.0 is a max density, and only
a drum scanner can do that. Don't fall prey to
marketing hype RE scanners.

The _quality_ of a scanner is measurable by it's _price_.
I never saw a microtech scanner that could come close to
a quality flat bed scanner, let alone a drum scanner.
Cheap scanners have ceap components. Even if you somehow
have 48 bits, the other cheap components can't handle it...

I've been reading about the zone system and I'd like to start
experimenting with it... the only problem is I can't afford a
densitometer to do my calibrations.  Is there point in trying to use
the zone system without calibrating?  What about using a scanner as a
densitometer?  We are thinking about getting a microtek scanmaker i900
where I work - which boasts 48 bit / 4.2 max density.  So I would have
access to that, but I don't know much about the technicals of scanners
- if 4.2 is good enough or not.  I think it would work for negative
scans since there is no glass, but I'm not sure about scanning prints.

Also, I shoot purely roll film right now...  can I just substitute
development adjustments with contrast filters?  Or does it not work
that way?