Discussion
of the Microtek ArtixScan 4000t for 35mm slides and negatives.
Perhaps
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.
The
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
identical Polaroid.
Next
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).
Which
should you buy, Artix or Polaroid? If you get SilverFast, chose
that option. But myself I would prefer any of the newer
Nikon scanners.
Microtek
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.
If
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 |
|
|
