Microtek 9800xl with Transparent Media Adapter?

[jonathanbennett120]

Maybe I'll find my answer in another thread, but just incase being specific helps:

http://www.microtekusa.com/sm9800xltma.html

I'm looking at this Microtek 9800XL with the Transparent Media Attachment. Has anyone used a Microtek Transparent media scanner for film, negative or positive?

If so, how well do they work? I want this scanner mainly for the tabloid reflective scanner bed for my flat line artwork, but I would love to be able to scan in whole strips of negatives to archive.

Any info or suggestions are appreciated.

J

[jd callow]

I have not used one with the TMA, but have used the ones which have the dual lamp and the film drawer which are, in my opinion, the best of the (consumer level) dual purpose flatbed scanners. Generally speaking Microtek makes excellent flatbed scanners.

[michael mutmansky]

How small is the film you are planning to scan?

I have tested that scanner, and it is a wonderful scanner for it's purposes. However, many of the (much less expensive) smaller scanners perform better for simple film scanning of negatives smaller than about 5x7. Above that, you probably aren't going to scan at a resolution that would show much of a difference in either case.

---Michael

[tom_micklin]

I use the Microtek i800 with the built-in 8x12 inch transparency adapter.
For film (medium and large format), it works beautifully. Especially with the full version of Silver Fast.

[sanking]

I use the 9800 with TMA for scanning LF and ULF negatives. It does a very good job, though it just misses the long dimension of 7X17 and scans of 12X20 have to be made in two passes and stitched. However, at 1600 dpi the resolution is high enough to allow enlargement of up to about 3X-4X from these negatives, which is surely as large as I would ever want to go with these formats.

That said, if I had it to do over again I would have purchased an Epson 1640XL for this purpose because the top configuration gives more flexibility in placement of the negatives.

You could also use the scanner for 5X7 and 8X10 film, though there are better scanners for less money available for these formats.

Sandy

[jonathanbennett120]

Thanks everyone. I actually want the tabloid size part of the scanner for my non photo related artwork. I'm a cartoonist and I hate scanning large pages of artwork in pieces and then stitching them together in photoshop. SO, the TMA just happens to be the most convienient configuration for having a film scanner AND a tabloid size flatbed. That's why I'm so interested in this model. I don't want two scanners. I also am not too worried about the film scanning. I know it sounds like blasphemy, but for now I just want to be able to archive my slides digitally and email scans and share pics on the web. If I needed large prints then I could always take a slide to a fancy digital lab. If the Microtek did a good enough job I'd be very happy, but I just wanted to see if anyone had used it and see if it did a decent job of holding detail and color from 120 film. That's the format I've been shooting and would scan. 120 and maybe some 35mm.

So, that's my long explanation of what I'll be using it for and why I'm leaning toward this model. My priority is large format line art.

I appreciate all these comments. It sounds like the Microtek would do the job. I've already used a friends flatbed for my art and it works like a dream, but he doesn't have the TMA.

[jonathanbennett120]

Sanking, I also just had to say, the Epson is simply out of my price range. Thanks for all the tips.

[Greg_E]

I have a 9800xl with TMA at work, but have never used the TMA part. It's a slow beast, and it has some quirks that I really don't like. The scans of reflected media are fine, and the driver has some very nice tools. The Mac driver is a little quirky with the install, but the Windows driver works great. I've only used this machine on firewire, so I have no idea how it does with USB. Since your biggest concern is your reflective art, you should be fine with this scanner. And for what you need with the films, how bad can it be?

One thing about it's speed, it does offer a batch scanning mode, so you could fill the entire bed with film, and then walk away (for a long time).

[michael mutmansky]

Jon,

At best, the scanner will deliver about 1200-1400 lpmm from a chrome, so for basic scanning, it'll do fine.

It comes with Silverfast, which I find to deliver better results than the Microtek software under some circumstances. It may also do very well for reflected scans, but I didn't pay too much attention to that during my tests.

I think it'll do what you want, but not without some expense compared to an inexpensive consumer-oriented scanner. Saving room on the desktop is probably worth it, though.


---Michael

[sanking]

Jon,

At best, the scanner will deliver about 1200-1400 lpmm from a chrome, so for basic scanning, it'll do fine.

It comes with Silverfast, which I find to deliver better results than the Microtek software under some circumstances. It may also do very well for reflected scans, but I didn't pay too much attention to that during my tests.

---Michael

To get 1200-1400 lppm from the 9800XL would be to die for. I have trouble getting 1200 dpi/spi from my 9800XL, which at best gives resolution of 25 lppm.

I also like the Silverfast software and feel that I can get more out of it than with the Microtek software. But, I have used it in the past with several other scanners so familiarity counts.

Sandy King