of the Microtek ArtixScan 4000t for 35mm slides and negatives.
a year ago the claim was sort of okay: Microtek claims: "At
3.4 Dmax, the ArtixScan 4000t easily captures the level of detail
and sharpness required by the most discriminating imaging professionals."
II doubt many imaging professionals would use a scanner of this
low D-Max, and surely not if they were discriminating.
other tidbit is that Microtek claims this captures "over twice
as many pixels as its competitors" That just ain't so. First
of all, a main competitor is Polaroid, and it's 4000 dpi scanner
is reportedly manufactured by Microtek, so how can the Microtek
version be twice as good as the virtually
problem, Nikon has a scanner that is the same number of pixels but
at vastly superior D-Max rating (even if the Nikon specs are a bit
over enthusiastic the Nikon still looks like the better scanner).
should you buy, Artix or Polaroid? If you get SilverFast, chose
that option. But myself I would prefer any of the newer
is not a bad scanner, it's just that others are better. Besides,
the Microtek ads are potentially misleading, lulling a naive buyer
into thinking that professional prepress people would tend to select
a Microtek. Probably some low-budget places do, but successful prepress
companies would not take these scanners seriously.
you just want a low-cost scanner for your family use, to scan for
using at 72 dpi on the Internet or to send small inkjet prints to
grandmother, a Microtek is okay, but a Nikon
may be better. Depends on whether you buy for price or for quality
of the resulting image.
|| FLAAR offers for you more information about this subject