ARTIXSCAN F1 FIRST IMPRESSIONS

[jsmisc]

Hi Jürgen,
I think your scans are great and a very impressive advert for the F1.
Please could you tell me if digital ICE works with film on the scanner because the pictures you post are spotless and I wondered if you had needed to clean them up at all or if ICE had done it automatically.
Thanks,
John

 

[polypal]

Ulrik,

Of course I did warn Jürgen because he is a good forumfriend and we need him to continue the excellent job he does with the tiltsensor.
I am sure he has a nuclear vault to store his CFV back in.
Besides that have you any idea what shipping a lead wall costs?

Paul

 

[jotloob]

John

Digital ICE is a purely hardware function of a scanner . The ARTIXSCAN F1 has that function .
It must be activated in the scanner software .
I did nor use that function for the posted scans .
I use a JOBO antistatic brush and a DUSTOFF airgun . The airgun has to be used very
carefully , of course . Don't shake the aircan before use and do not use full pressure .
Then you will not have any moisture on your films .
I did not have to clean the slides before scanning , just a little "airbrushing" .

The JOBO antistatic brush is just 7cm wide and is extremely soft .
BTW , I use the same proceedure for my CFV back (when neccessary) . No trouble at all .

And TILT SENSOR , my digital friend , likes to be tickled with that brush .

Regards Jürgen

 

[polypal]

Jürgen,

Thanks for showing us the first results with the Artixscan F1.
You are amongst the brave that are not afraid to show first results with new equipment.

I would like to compare the results from the 848 scanner and the F1 under better conditions.
I am very impressed by what you have shown us.

Paul

 

[afranklin]

Hi Jurgen,

> The Artixscan has no lens at all...

Unless it scans using a sensor that is as wide as the film, and is literally right on top of the film...it more than likely has to have a lense somewhere. They do say the optical path doesn't have an "interfering pane of glass", but that doesn't mean it doesn't have a lense...

Out of curiosity, what made you draw that conclusion?

Regards,

Austin

 

[uaiomex]

At 100% crop I can see clearly the superiority of the Imacon. but then again, the Artix still hold pretty good in comparison. Hard to tell over the net, but it seems to me they should closer to the Imacon than to my Epson 4870.

Thanks Jurgen, I think I'm much closer on buying this scanner.
I need to buy toys once in a while. I think I still have to wait anothr year or so for used (under warranty) or demo dbacks to come down in price for my budget.

Since I have the glass already, I want to buy a Gaoersi 6X12 camera to go with the Artix. It may be a killer combo. What do you think?

Thanks for your images, Jurgen

Eduardo

PS Don't worry, I won't send you my tranies. Insurance back and for would be too expensive.

 

[hassiman]

Franly... given the cost of the two units I would have to say the F1 looks great... A better comparison would be between the F1 and something like a Nikon Super Coolscan 9000...

Anyone have one?

 

[jotloob]

Austin

I have never taken apart my predecessor scanner nor will I do that with my F1 now .
As you know from the specs , the scanner is able to scan transparencies up to a size of 8x10 inches .
All I try to describe from now on is just an assumption . My conclusion is based on what I see .

As far as can see , scanning is done by moving a "lightbar" and a "sensorbar" along
the film holder , up to the maximum length . Between these two is the filmholder . But you can not really see all parts exactly .
Lightsource and sensors seem to be very near to the inserted film .
You have to insert the negatives or trannies into the filmholders with the matte side pointing to the top .
(If you do it the other way round , the scan results are unusable . Lots of reflecting light) .
That means to me , the lightsource is on the top of the film . This would imply the sensorbar is below the film .
I can hardly believe , that there is still a lens in between . At least not a RODENSTOCK lens as in the HASSELBLAD X1 and X5 . No room . And what kind of lens should that be ? ? ?

So , if you can get a hand on a drawing of the F1 scanning principle , I would like to get a look at it .

Regards Jürgen

 

[jotloob]

Richard

As I stated before , I do not want to compare an IMACON848 to the F1 . It just happens , that I have scans from the very same tranny from these two scanners .
These two are too different in design and price .
The F1 costs 1000E inclusive the SILVEFAST Ai STUDIO software .
The HASSELBLAD X1 or X5 cost at least 10 or 15 times as much .
But up to now , I am satisfied with what the F1 produces for me .

Regards Jürgen

 

[afranklin]

Hi Jurgen,

Typically, flatbed scanners, when scanning transparencies, have a lightbar on one side and "something" on the other side that moves with the lightbar. That "something" is typically a mirror or prism. That mirror/prism then reflects at ~45 degrees (optionally) back to another ~45 degree mirror/prism, then through a lense and then to the sensor.

I think what they are saying in their "no pane of interfering glass" is you don't lay the film on the flatbed part (I assume the flatbed part has a pane of glass still?), like an enlarger or an Imacon or a Leaf (or typically any dedicated film scanner) the film is in a glassless holder. Nothing revolutionary about it if that's what they are doing, there are other dual-mode scanners that have a separate method of film scanning that doesn't use the flatbed glass.

Best Regards,

Austin