Any news on the new Plustek 120 scanner?

[SaveKodak]

I don't post much, but lurk plenty, all I can say is... what? The samples were posted in this thread, do you have different samples? I want this scanner to succeed, but for a scanner that is supposed to ship to consumers next month, do you really feel that 3 arguably mediocre samples is enough information to make a $2000 decision? That wanting color samples or resolution results is in someway complaining? I'd also like to know how the film was developed, because I believe that might help me decide if the film, camera, and developer combo are being reproduced faithfully in the scan. Surely you don't really believe that wanting these things is "complaining"? 🙄

Anyway, back to my usual lurking.

This thread is 3` pages of complaining. I agree we are lucky to see samples at all. I don't particularly need them though because I simply look at the specifications and will wait for a review.

 

[Godfrey]

Originally Posted by joeswe
AFAIK it's quite unusual that a film scanner manufacturer posts any examples at all, so everyone please stop complaining and whining. You don't have to buy the scanner the day it pops up in the shops. As soon as it does, there will be enough first hand reviews and examples by users all over the web. And I am quite sure that filmscanner.info will have their usual review up a couple of days after the unit is available. They have reviewed more or less every consumer or semi-pro film scanner worth mentioning that came out in the last decade or so and these guys actually know what they're doing. So take a deep breath and wait a couple of weeks and you will be able to make an informed decision

+1

I agree with the above statement - just wait a few more weeks then we can all make a much more informed judgement on the scanner.
...

And for me too.

I am constantly perplexed by this call for "samples" from newly announced gear that has not yet been completed and shipped. I rarely find "samples" of much value even from production gear, never mind pre-release equipment that has not been finalized.

The only samples I use to evaluate equipment with are samples I generate from my own testing. Yes, that means I have to buy (or borrow) the equipment first ... and I return it if it is not up to snuff.

I plan to acquire this scanner in 2013. There are a few other purchases that take priority between now and the end of the years.

 

[BOD]

I've decided I can no longer wait for this scanner... and I've come up with an excellent, I would say, even better alternative.
I simply take a 120 frame, and I slice it lengthways down the middle.
Then, I meticulously create evenly spaced perforations along both edges, and save the bits that pop out when perforated.
Then I scan both pieces with my Coolscan V 35mm scanner, and simply merge them in photoshop. Then I scan all the tiny bits that I removed on my flatbed and I copy and paste the scan of these pieces into the holes on my merged image. Then I clone out the merge lines. The whole process takes only about 12 hours per frame. I really have no idea why anyone would still shoot digital!
Bren

 

[jtm6]

I've decided I can no longer wait for this scanner... and I've come up with an excellent, I would say, even better alternative.
I simply take a 120 frame, and I slice it lengthways down the middle.
Then, I meticulously create evenly spaced perforations along both edges, and save the bits that pop out when perforated.
Then I scan both pieces with my Coolscan V 35mm scanner, and simply merge them in photoshop. Then I scan all the tiny bits that I removed on my flatbed and I copy and paste the scan of these pieces into the holes on my merged image. Then I clone out the merge lines. The whole process takes only about 12 hours per frame. I really have no idea why anyone would still shoot digital!
Bren

FYI: Those of us that use the white theme can't read white text. :angel:

 

[Aristophanes]

I've decided I can no longer wait for this scanner... and I've come up with an excellent, I would say, even better alternative.
I simply take a 120 frame, and I slice it lengthways down the middle.
Then, I meticulously create evenly spaced perforations along both edges, and save the bits that pop out when perforated.
Then I scan both pieces with my Coolscan V 35mm scanner, and simply merge them in photoshop. Then I scan all the tiny bits that I removed on my flatbed and I copy and paste the scan of these pieces into the holes on my merged image. Then I clone out the merge lines. The whole process takes only about 12 hours per frame. I really have no idea why anyone would still shoot digital!
Bren

Why not just put the film in a blender on the chop setting, our the contents onto the scanner, and then use Photoshop?

I probably just knocked a little under 1 hour of meticulous cutting out of your workflow.

 

[BOD]

Why not just put the film in a blender on the chop setting, our the contents onto the scanner, and then use Photoshop?

I probably just knocked a little under 1 hour of meticulous cutting out of your workflow.

What an incredible suggestion 😛 keep them coming... With suggestions such as this I could be getting more than 1 frame scanned per week.

 

[silverbullet]

I've decided I can no longer wait for this scanner... and I've come up with an excellent, I would say, even better alternative.
I simply take a 120 frame, and I slice it lengthways down the middle.
Then, I meticulously create evenly spaced perforations along both edges, and save the bits that pop out when perforated.
Then I scan both pieces with my Coolscan V 35mm scanner, and simply merge them in photoshop. Then I scan all the tiny bits that I removed on my flatbed and I copy and paste the scan of these pieces into the holes on my merged image. Then I clone out the merge lines. The whole process takes only about 12 hours per frame. I really have no idea why anyone would still shoot digital!
Bren

Why not look for some LEGO bits to hold your frames?....🙄

http://www.digilightbox.de/index2.php?section=p_44

 

[venchka]

[QUOTE=BOD;1994501I've decided I can no longer wait for this scanner... and I've come up with an excellent, I would say, even better alternative.[/COLOR
[COLOR=white I simply take a 120 frame, and I slice it lengthways down the middle.[/COLOR
[COLOR=white Then, I meticulously create evenly spaced perforations along both edges, and save the bits that pop out when perforated.[/COLOR
[COLOR=white Then I scan both pieces with my Coolscan V 35mm scanner, and simply merge them in photoshop. Then I scan all the tiny bits that I removed on my flatbed and I copy and paste the scan of these pieces into the holes on my merged image. Then I clone out the merge lines. The whole process takes only about 12 hours per frame. I really have no idea why anyone would still shoot digital
Bren

Now then...

Wayne

 

[wblynch]

Easier just to ignore the inane.

 

[BOD]

Easier just to ignore the inane.

Must be a fun life you lead then, with having no sense of humour and stuff!

 

[Godfrey]

Must be a fun life you lead then, with having no sense of humour and stuff!

i'm with wblynch. a sense of humor is fine, but inane remarks are just inane.

 

[BOD]

i'm with wblynch. a sense of humor is fine, but inane remarks are just inane.

Inane and humerous are seperated only by subjectivity.
My 'inane' comment was supposed to be a somewhat satirical comment on the views some people who are exclusive to the digital world have on the efforts and lengths we will go to for film, hence the closing line.

I think you belong over on the humourfinderforum.com

Bren

 

[nonuniform]

What an incredible suggestion 😛 keep them coming... With suggestions such as this I could be getting more than 1 frame scanned per week.

I just discovered this really miraculous thing, it looks a lot like a camera, but it doesn't use film. It's got some kind of computer inside, and it saves images in some way that makes it easy to transfer to the computer for editing etc. Really cool, I think it might catch on....

 

[Aristophanes]

The first person to buy a $2,000 scanner, put their film in a blender, chop it up, and pour the contents into the brand new scanner...all on YouTube...

...will get a nod from us as being both humorous and inane.

Amongst other adjectives.

 

[cabbiinc]

The first person to buy a $2,000 scanner, put their film in a blender, chop it up, and pour the contents into the brand new scanner...all on YouTube...

...will get a nod from us as being both humorous and inane.

Amongst other adjectives.

Yeah, but with the $2k scanner you've got one nagging question. "Will it blend?"

 

[Godfrey]

Inane and humerous are seperated only by subjectivity.
My 'inane' comment was supposed to be a somewhat satirical comment on the views some people who are exclusive to the digital world have on the efforts and lengths we will go to for film, hence the closing line.

I think you belong over on the humourfinderforum.com

Bren

We don't have humours in the United States, and I'm not sure what a humeris is.

 

[BOD]

We don't have humours in the United States, and I'm not sure what a humeris is.

H-u-m-o-r-o-u-s...

Everyone else can play along with the joke... you replace your lack of humo(u)r with pedanticism..
You're correct, you have no humo(u)r in the US, and if you came to Ireland, you would have no humor there either, as you are humo(u)rless in every variation of the language! 🙂

Bren

 

[wblynch]

Some folks are rowing their own little boat. Can't understand them so you just smile and wave as they pass by.

 

[bigeye]

politics, religion, scanners.

.

 

[AusDLK]

I saw one of these scanners in NYC...