With Agfa and Heidelberg both abandoning the entry level scanner market, all that's left are Microtek and Umax

If you scan 35mm color slides you need a minimum of 2800 dpi. The "3200 x 1600 dpi" is a slick form of misinformation. It's just 1600 dpi optical resolution and not really enough for 35mm slides.

Unless you are scanning only to put snapshots on the Internet or send via e-mail. Then any simple scanner is okay.

But if you took your original photos with a Leica, Nikon, Canon, or other good quality 35mm camera, you ought to scan them with a scanner which is as good as your original camera.

And if, like us at FLAAR, you intend to print your slides at large sizes, do you really want to buy a Microtek ArtixScan or Agfa scanner? Do they really offer what you need to get excellent scans defined as capable of enlargements on a wide format inkjet printer?

Microtek now offers a 4000 dpi 35mm slide scanner (ArtixScan 4000tf), the same basic innards as the Polaroid (which means the same low capacity of wringing details out of the shadow areas, the problem that results in both the Polaroid and this Microtek not being seriously considered by professional scanner people). The 4000 dpi is only a small part of what you need in a scanner; you need good shadow detail, available more readily in the Nikon.

Once a Creo box arrives in your studio or office your awareness of the words "professional quality" will take on a new meaning. Creo does not have to claim its scanners do crisp scans, the scanner simply does them crisply. Creo does not have to claim that a Creo scan can be enlarged. A Creo scan can be enlarged to fill a billboard. Thus please excuse our enthusiasm, and our surprise that someone who is buying a $15,000 color printer is led to believe that a Microtek scanner can produce a quality that you would want to compare with a Creo scan. The two models of Creo that we have used and which we recommend are the Pro II and the Supreme. As far as we know these models are not made by Microtek

Microtek is a well known company which produces good low-cost scanners. Indeed the first scanner I ever bought was a Microtek (600 dpi, about ten years ago). But their first 35mm slide scanner did not fare well, indeed the one I tried to test at Brevard Community College had ground to a halt and could not be brought back to life. When I tried to obtain a Microtek flatbed at the nearest Microtek dealer for a test-demo, they refused unless I paid for the demo time (what a clever way to get repeat business). Since Heidelberg provided a scanner quickly and as Creo sent a $54,000 scanner without even asking me to sign a receipt, naturally I tend to know more about the capabilities of these scanners since these are the scanners available to use on a daily basis in the various FLAAR studios.

What occasioned me to write this particular summary of my experience with Microtek was my surprise, indeed amusement, to see a Microtek scanner sold as part of a professional package totaling $25,000+ . The rest of the hardware looked okay, albeit rather steeply priced. But a Microtek scanner? And gloriously labeled as "1000x2000 for crisp images.. allowing for greater enlargement with richer detail.. gives you professional quality scanned images.."

It is precisely the weak 1000 dpi, rather low (a polite way of saying rather pathetic). This scanner itself is okay, as an entry level unit for home use. But for using to make scans for a $15,000+ wide format printer! Whoa, why would anyone spending $15,000 for a printer, to enlarge an image to gigantic proportions, it is precisely this kind of power user who should go out of their way to avoid buying a Microtek (or an Epson or HP or any low price, low-dpi econo-scanner). This scanner is totally useless to scan 35mm slides for enlargement past letter size. This scanner can only handle 4x5 chromes and even then 1000 dpi is rather slim.

Admittedly I may go to extremes (I prefer a Creo EverSmart when I scan to print), but once you see the astonishing quality produced by a Creo scanner (or a Fuji Lanovia, Agfascan XY-15 or a Heidelberg Nexscan or a Cezanne) you really want to help people who are entering this digital world to get some actual facts.

No, you do not need a $54,000 scanner (yes, it does give you better scans, actually the scans from the Creo are stunning, the quality is phenomenal, and when you enlarge them to 36x42 inches the quality impresses everyone who looks at them. Indeed the day I first wrote this review I took a Creo scan of a modest 35mm slide, blown up on the Creo and printed by a Hewlett-Packard DesignJet 2800CP wide format printer. I then took the prints across the street to an exclusive gallery which sells big-bucks paintings. Out of curiosity I asked the gallery if he would consider offering digital fine art to his clients?

Naturally digital fine art has not yet "arrived" in conservative German art circles, but the gallery owner was astonished at the obvious quality of the image. He said he had no idea this quality was possible with digital equipment.

So if you intend to do fine art prints, don't waste your time with a cheap scanner. Yes, if you have outstanding images and if you use SilverFast scanning software, you can tweak a bearable image from an Epson or a Microtek. But if you are scanning 35mm slides and trying to get a fine art print out of them, don't waste your time using any cheap flatbed or even the Nikon 2000 (and certainly don't attempt to squeak by with the Polaroid 4000). You need at least the Umax 3000 and I would recommend the Creo EverSmart Select or Supreme if you are seriously considering doing commercial fine art giclee prints. And if you are setting up a fine art giclee print service, be wary of anywhere that offers a Umax or Microtek scanner as part of the package (if you want to produce fine art giclee prints that will earn enough to pay for a real scanner, consult with IT (Improved Technologies, e-mail iris@itnh.com: check out FineArtGicleePrinters.org). IT offers Creo EverSmart scanners, Iris, Ixia, and Mimaki JV 4 printers.

If you prefer to work with Epson inkjet printers, you can get information on fine art giclee and photo scanners from Parrot Digigraphic. E-mail Dan Hunt, imaging@parrotcolor.com.

Microtek and Umax make most of the entry level scanners for other companies

The Microtex ArtixScan 6000xy is the same scanner as Creo used to sell as its EverSmart Jazz. Main difference is the software that comes with Creo software would tend to get a higher rating by prepress professionals.

The ArtixScan 4500tf looks very much like the Polaroid scanner for 4x5 chromes. What is irritating is the claim "4.3 dynamic range…" Virtually every serious writer on scanners complains about these frivolous specs because there is no universal independent testing facility which rates what a company claims. Technically 4.0 is the top of the range, so 4.3 immediately invites suspicion of being either exaggerated or resulting from numerous resamplings, which consumes lots of scanning time. Nikon also engages in this ploy. Indeed a few years ago Nikon claimed its $2,000 scanner was as good as a drum scanner!

We have several Nikon scanners and they do a good job (though they don't survive much student use at the university; several of them are abandoned in the corner). But I would never expect a drum scan quality from any entry level scanner.

The other Microtek scanners are more or less the same as the scanners which Agfa used to sell at entry level. But at the high-end, the two Agfa 5000 dpi scanners are fully professional and are not from Microtek. Indeed our all time favorite high-end flatbed scanner is the Agfascan XY-15.

The entry level Heidelberg Linoscan equipment was actually made by Umax but bundled with LinoColor or other good Heidelberg scanner software. But then SilverFast scanner software became so good that people at entry level just bought a Umax and added SilverFast software. The result was the identical scanner to that Heidelberg sold but with software which is easier to use (LinoColor was made for German prepress professionals; SilverFast is adopted for a normal human being, including people who just want to do a few basic scans on the weekend).

Once a Creo box arrives in your studio or office your awareness of the words "professional quality" will take on a new meaning. Creo does not have to claim its scanners do crisp scans, the scanner simply does them crisply. Creo does not have to claim that a Creo scan can be enlarged. A Creo scan can be enlarged to fill a billboard. Thus please excuse our enthusiasm, and our surprise that someone who is buying a $15,000 color printer is led to believe that a Microtek scanner can produce a quality that you would want to compare with a Creo scan. The two models of Creo that we have used and which we recommend are the Pro II and the Supreme. As far as we know these models are not made by Microtek.

The Microtek 9600XL works with the Vivid Image scan-to-print system. So if you want a scan-to-print system, see if any of the better Umax scanners works with the Vivid Image system; if not, then the Microtek 9600XL would be an acceptable choice (probably better than most Epson scanners except the Epson 836XL). Also, if you can get SilverFast scanning software to work with a Microtek, by all means they are acceptable for their price. But if SilverFast does not yet work on a Microtek, it is worthwhile paying extra for a scanner (such as LinoColor or Umax) that does accept Silver Fast. Sorry, the SilverFast is sufficiently good that it is sold separately, but if you are interested in learning a real scanning system, SilverFast is a good investment.

---

What is expensive in the review process is the Macintosh work station, monitor of adequate size, storage for all the scanned images (RAID and DVD-RAM), and the cost of the technician to run all this. The added expense is the webmaster and web designer to post all the information. Thus corporate sponsorship is indeed appreciated. Funding is welcome in the form of educational grants which are used to train our newer personnel. Our dozen employees are always eager for seminars, courses, and it is helpful for them to be able to attend the trade shows and see all the different scanners. Thus corporate funding is used for these improvements as well as for the costs of improving the primitive navigation on the FLAAR scanner web sites. If you have been reading FLAAR sites in past years you have possibly noticed the recent improvements.

Do we have a grudge against Microtek? No reason too although their dealer in Florida refused to loan a scanner or even give a demo unless we paid in advance for their time (they probably have been burned too often by people wanting a demo and then buying the same model, at less cost, on the Internet). Yes, if the Microtek dealer had been more pleasant and if we had a demo it would have been possible to learn the benefits of the Microtek scanner. Equally naturally, if Heidelberg sends us a LinoColor scanner then we have an opportunity to learn all the capabilities of this scanner. It's kind of difficult to feature a scanner unless we physically have it in our facility. A 30 day loan is not much help when our reviews last for over a year (actually the reviews stay posted for the life expectation of a model, which is about 2 to 3 years).

FLAAR is an institute dedicated to evaluations of what scanners are appropriate to handle our archive of 50,000 35mm slides. We spent two million dollars over several decades doing the photography in museums all over the world. So now perhaps you can understand why we don't want to entrust our life's work to a so-so scanner. We prefer to have the best money can buy.

Even for those slides which we need only basic digitization of, at modest resolution, we would tend to prefer to use something like a Fuji FineScan 2750 from Fujifilm Electronic Imaging.

For slides needed at full quality, then a more powerful Fuji, Creo , or Heidelberg scanner would produce the results we expect.

---

• Redesign May, 2004 / Last updated July 16, 2002