XFer
-
From time to time I read funny stuff here.
Let's put things in the right perspective: if we talk about defending our low-budget purchase because we can't/don't want to buy a high end scanner, good.
We're not made of gold; I'd love to buy a Leica MM but can't and won't.
I'd also love to have an Hasselblad X1 for 35mm + a Kodak IQSmart3 for larger formats, but can't and won't.
But trying to push that a flatbed scanner is "perfectly fine", or even that 3200 DPI are all that's needed... frankly, let's be serious.
I won't publish scans of charts because I don't want to be boring; instead, I'll show you the pixel-level crop of a small portion of a scan of a 645 frame (Fujifilm Provia 100 positive film).
It's an old picture (10 years old) taken with a battered camera (Pentax 645, first version) which does not even have mirror lockup. So it's not the sharpest medium format shot ever made.
Even then, see how a drum scan (left) resolves more REAL DETAIL than a Nikon Super Coolscan 8000 ED (4000 real DPI).
An expert won't need any more information to understand my point.
For the less expert: yes, the 11000 DPI scan from the drum scanner shows more noise/grain, it's normal. And yes, it has some small defects due to the age of the machine.
Yet, the 4000 DPI (!) scan from the Nikon just CAN'T resolve the real details on the conditioner's shell.
This means, yes, that an average, not top-class medium format frame shot on 100 iso positive film CAN have real details a 4000 DPI nice-working scanner can't resolve.
Now just think about "Leica Summicron" and "Velvia 50" or "Agfa Copex Rapid" and think again about a 3200 DPI scanner being "more than enough".
Fernando
Let's put things in the right perspective: if we talk about defending our low-budget purchase because we can't/don't want to buy a high end scanner, good.
We're not made of gold; I'd love to buy a Leica MM but can't and won't.
I'd also love to have an Hasselblad X1 for 35mm + a Kodak IQSmart3 for larger formats, but can't and won't.
But trying to push that a flatbed scanner is "perfectly fine", or even that 3200 DPI are all that's needed... frankly, let's be serious.
I won't publish scans of charts because I don't want to be boring; instead, I'll show you the pixel-level crop of a small portion of a scan of a 645 frame (Fujifilm Provia 100 positive film).
It's an old picture (10 years old) taken with a battered camera (Pentax 645, first version) which does not even have mirror lockup. So it's not the sharpest medium format shot ever made.
Even then, see how a drum scan (left) resolves more REAL DETAIL than a Nikon Super Coolscan 8000 ED (4000 real DPI).
An expert won't need any more information to understand my point.
For the less expert: yes, the 11000 DPI scan from the drum scanner shows more noise/grain, it's normal. And yes, it has some small defects due to the age of the machine.
Yet, the 4000 DPI (!) scan from the Nikon just CAN'T resolve the real details on the conditioner's shell.
This means, yes, that an average, not top-class medium format frame shot on 100 iso positive film CAN have real details a 4000 DPI nice-working scanner can't resolve.
Now just think about "Leica Summicron" and "Velvia 50" or "Agfa Copex Rapid" and think again about a 3200 DPI scanner being "more than enough".
Fernando
gavinlg
Veteran
The epson V series are pieces of junk, I agree with you. Mine had that line problem. Epson were uninterested. They all ship with crap in the sensor or in the actual light source that makes that line pop up at some point - I see it all the time in flickr photos and I know automatically which scanner brand its from. Disgraceful quality control.
My plustek 8100 is a far better product.
mani
Well-known
I despise this sort of snide provocative rubbish.
None of us WANT to pay more for a scanner, we are simply willing to pay more for a BETTER scanner.
ymc226
Well-known
I'm still on the fence about getting a dedicated film scanner for 135 as I do mostly wet prints but may change my mind if the new scanner would do both 135 and 120. Does anyone know if this is the case?
XFer
-
Yes, this was explicitely confirmed by Plustek.
And as expected, 135 and 120 film holders are included.
david.elliott
Well-known
morback
Martin N. Hinze
I like the option of scanning the edges too. It's a nice organic end to the picture area. I had to cut into the masks of the 9000ED and now I sometimes get bleeds from the LED lights. Please be careful with light bleeds, those are quite annoying and very hard to fix.
I'm very eager to see the Plustek 120 happen and see how it stacks to my my workhorse 9000ED! Though it might be hard to get it in my part of the world...
david.elliott
Well-known
Being able to scan the edges would be wonderful.
mani
Well-known
Is that seriously the best you can do?
No-one here is trying to prevent you from owning this scanner, as your persistent comments appear to imply. The unfortunate fact is that none of us has the right to own something simply because we want it very much - Plustek doesn't owe you a cheap scanner. The scanner is gonna cost whatever the market will bear, and I'm hoping, as I said, that it's positioned for quality rather than quantity - which is a sector that's already well served. With luck, we'll all be able to afford it. Plustek won't be lowering the price just because of your snide remarks about those of us hoping for a really great scanner.
david.elliott
Well-known
I suggest you look up the definition of snide and compare it to my posts -- none of them have been snide.
I am not sure whether you are confusing me with another poster or whether you have simply fundamentally failed to understand any of my previous posts.
I have stated, several times I believe, that plustek knows best how to price the scanner based upon their costs and their target audience. I also stated that there is no need to assume that it will be a $3000 scanner (a price point discussed in multiple posts earlier in this thread) simply based upon what nikon scanners have cost / do cost. I then pointed out that plustek has a track record of providing excellent products and affordable price points. I'm certain they will do the same with their upcoming scanner.
Despite your allegations, I have no wish to purchase a low cost, low quality scanner.
Naturally, all of this is simply my own personal opinion. Everybody is entitled to his or her own opinion and thoughts. It would be nice, however, if those thoughts and opinions were communicated with at least some decorum.
I have no quarrel with you. I would appreciate it if you kept your posts professional in future.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
XFer
-
Buzzarkid, all Plustek scanners are already ROHS compliant, no problem for the new model for sure!
Since many years every company selling stuff in EU has already redesigned its products to be ROHS-compliant, and Plustek is in Germany, maybe the first Country to have adopted ROHS laws.
mani
Well-known
I used the term 'snide' in its connotation of 'insinuating'. There's been way too much sniping in this thread at the people urging Plustek to price the scanner for the best possible quality, and this sentence: "Just because some of you want to pay a couple thousand dollars doesnt mean that one needs to pay that amount to get a quality scanner" was insinuating something about the people holding that view, which suggested we want to keep the scanner 'elitist' or expensive simply to exclude the majority from buying it. If I'm mistaken about this, then I apologize - but no-one is advocating an expensive scanner just to keep it out of reach of 'the masses', whatever else has been implied so persistently in the thread since that mythical $3000 was first mentioned.
Now I hope we can all calm down and look forward to the launch of what looks like a great scanner.
Athiril
Established
Because they have fraudulently marketed them as delivering professional quality results. And for professional usage. And made numerous other fraudulent claims.
gavinlg
Veteran
A lot of professionals DO actually use epson v700's. So technically, it could be considered a professional scanner by association. For 120 film, they're pretty decent, as much as I don't like them.
mdruziak
Established
Mark from Plustek here. Here is a brief update...
Yesterday I saw some scans of USAF 1951 test targets that were done with a pre-production OpticFilm 120 and Lasersoft 8. The results were impressive. If you compare them to the USAF 1951 targets on filmscanner.info for the 9000 and the Flextight X1, the OpticFilm 120 is closer to the Flextight X1 than the 9000.
If anyone has any scanned images of USAF 1951 targets made with either the X1 or 9000, please drop me a note: markdruziak@plustek.com I'd like to take a look at another set of scanned targets if possible.
There is much more to image quality than the results from a test target, but things are going in the right direction as far as resolution goes.
Yesterday I saw some scans of USAF 1951 test targets that were done with a pre-production OpticFilm 120 and Lasersoft 8. The results were impressive. If you compare them to the USAF 1951 targets on filmscanner.info for the 9000 and the Flextight X1, the OpticFilm 120 is closer to the Flextight X1 than the 9000.
If anyone has any scanned images of USAF 1951 targets made with either the X1 or 9000, please drop me a note: markdruziak@plustek.com I'd like to take a look at another set of scanned targets if possible.
There is much more to image quality than the results from a test target, but things are going in the right direction as far as resolution goes.
mdruziak
Established
Yes, this is very accurate. EU and Germany have been established Plustek regions long before the US and they are critical to our global success.
mdruziak
Established
Regarding vendors misleading customers by using marketing mumbo jumbo, fraudulent marketing or specs that are not universally agreed upon.
No legitimate manufacturer will mislead customers intentionally. Not Plustek, not Epson nor Canon will mislead customers intentionally. There is a rather large language difference between the product managers for these products and cultures where english is the first (or second language). I am not a linguist or fluent in Chinese, but I see many written documents from product managers proclaiming things like: "..best image quality in the world", "...this is the best for you". This is not done fraudulently. I believe that ideas/concepts get lost in the translation sometimes. Unless a native english speaker, or someone who really understands the product, edits these writings, they wind up on websites, sales slicks etc.
Regarding specs. There are no globally accepted specs and measurement techniques for scanners that all scanner manufacturers agree on. That goes for film scanners, document scanners or any scanner. So it is a bit of a free for all when it comes to specsmanship. I sit on a steering committee with a group of competitors that is trying to standardize specs for the document scanning community. It's very slow going because every manufacturer has legitimate reasons for doing things the way they do them.
When we publish specs for the OF120, not all of you will believe/agree with them. But please note that we are not trying to intentionally mislead anyone or set any false expectations. That kind of misrepresentation will only lead to customer returns ($$), unhappy customers and poor product reviews.
The OpticFilm 120 won't be perfect for everyone. We are trying to deliver the best quality product possible at a fair price. I think we have proven we can do that with our OpticFilm 7XXX and 8XXX scanners, our book, mobile and document scanners as well.
No legitimate manufacturer will mislead customers intentionally. Not Plustek, not Epson nor Canon will mislead customers intentionally. There is a rather large language difference between the product managers for these products and cultures where english is the first (or second language). I am not a linguist or fluent in Chinese, but I see many written documents from product managers proclaiming things like: "..best image quality in the world", "...this is the best for you". This is not done fraudulently. I believe that ideas/concepts get lost in the translation sometimes. Unless a native english speaker, or someone who really understands the product, edits these writings, they wind up on websites, sales slicks etc.
Regarding specs. There are no globally accepted specs and measurement techniques for scanners that all scanner manufacturers agree on. That goes for film scanners, document scanners or any scanner. So it is a bit of a free for all when it comes to specsmanship. I sit on a steering committee with a group of competitors that is trying to standardize specs for the document scanning community. It's very slow going because every manufacturer has legitimate reasons for doing things the way they do them.
When we publish specs for the OF120, not all of you will believe/agree with them. But please note that we are not trying to intentionally mislead anyone or set any false expectations. That kind of misrepresentation will only lead to customer returns ($$), unhappy customers and poor product reviews.
The OpticFilm 120 won't be perfect for everyone. We are trying to deliver the best quality product possible at a fair price. I think we have proven we can do that with our OpticFilm 7XXX and 8XXX scanners, our book, mobile and document scanners as well.
