Any news on the new Plustek 120 scanner?

Sanders McNew said:
Why? I don't have a V700 so I'm not sure of the reasoning here.
Click to expand...

V700 has a dual lens setup. You can fool it to use higher resolution lens, but V700 doesn't have any focus control and dof is not big enough to get the maximum resolution out of the negative when it is placed directly on the glass surface.

In that case it would be better not to trick the scanner into thinking you are using the holder when in fact you are not. Just let it use it's somewhat lesser lens when you place your material directly onto the glass. Most of the time you can get better results that way unless you can make your negatives stay flat in the original holder (which is pretty much impossible).

Best results are still achieved with a good holder that can keep your negative flat and above the glass.
 
brbo said:
V700 has a dual lens setup. You can fool it to use higher resolution lens, but V700 doesn't have any focus control and dof is not big enough to get the maximum resolution out of the negative when it is placed directly on the glass surface.

In that case it would be better not to trick the scanner into thinking you are using the holder when in fact you are not. Just let it use it's somewhat lesser lens when you place your material directly onto the glass. Most of the time you can get better results that way unless you can make your negatives stay flat in the original holder (which is pretty much impossible).

Best results are still achieved with a good holder that can keep your negative flat and above the glass.
Click to expand...

Yet another good reason for choosing a 4990 over a V700.
 
I've scanned 120 directly on the glass of a v700 and quite honestly had better results scanning prints from 120 compared to scanning the negatives.
 
Sanders, using your coin-weighting technique, how do you keep the picture area flat? The edges of 6x6 negs are very narrow. You clearly are making it work, but you don't lay anything over the neg to hold it down?
I've given up on the prospect of a Plustek 120 now, but not going to pack my Rolleis away just as I've got back into them again.
 
print44 said:
Sanders, using your coin-weighting technique, how do you keep the picture area flat? The edges of 6x6 negs are very narrow. You clearly are making it work, but you don't lay anything over the neg to hold it down?
I've given up on the prospect of a Plustek 120 now, but not going to pack my Rolleis away just as I've got back into them again.
Click to expand...

I'm uploading a snapshot of the negative now on my scanner. When the
negative is at the end of the strip, you have to take care to lay the coin
on the very corner of the strip, as shown in the uploaded file. I'm also
linking the scanned image I made from the negative, to give an idea of
the results I get with this method. It's not a great scan but maybe that
makes it a good illustration for present purposes.

On the few occasions I've scanned really curly negatives, I've laid
six-inch metal rulers across the negative in place of the coins, usually
with coins laid on top to provide enough weight to force the strip into
submission. Lead would probably work but coins are always lying
around and 99 percent of the time they are heavy enough.


Poolside, Boca Raton. by sandersnyc, on Flickr
 

Attachments

  • photo[2].JPG
    photo[2].JPG
    39 KB · Views: 0
On an Epson 4990, yes.

I've found the Epsons to be good machines, provided you find
an approach to them that works. I even like and use the Epson
scanning software -- again, you have to toss the defaults and
find the settings that work best, but I've never felt the need to
use a third-party solution. (But then I use PS Elements 5.0 so
I'm hardly on the bleeding edge of hardware and software.)

For me, the make-or-break question for the Plustek is whether
it will allow me to scan out into the film rebates. If the Plustek
cannot make the scan in my last post, I'll be staying with Epsons.
 
Sanders McNew said:
If so, then a really shortsighted approach by Plustek,
and I've wasted my time following this thread.
Click to expand...

Why is that approach shortsighted exactly? Scanning the frame edges would certainly come at the expense of fllm flatness or sharpness (if another glass surface is introduced). Scanning the frame edges might be a fun thing for a few people but most care more about getting the best quality from their scans.
 
Sanders McNew said:
If so, then a really shortsighted approach by Plustek,
and I've wasted my time following this thread.
Click to expand...

I know. I liked being able to scan the edge of the film on the flatbed. Plustek man here said that the lead developer on this scanner is an avid film photographer so this feature would be a no-brainer. Who doesn't like to have the frame scanned, right?!

But I can understand Plustek. A holder that doesn't involve glass and can keep film flat AND scan the edge of a frame is a tough order. Maybe they will make a separate glass holder to enable that later (if this scanner becomes a success)...
 
Jamie123 said:
Why is that approach shortsighted exactly? Scanning the frame edges would certainly come at the expense of fllm flatness or sharpness (if another glass surface is introduced). Scanning the frame edges might be a fun thing for a few people but most care more about getting the best quality from their scans.
Click to expand...


"Might be a fun thing for a few people"? That's rather condescending,
don't you think? I've a lifetime of work, shooting full-frame -- "fun"?
I guess Richard Avedon and Irving Penn were just having a giggle, eh?
I am hardly alone in printing full-frame, and in presenting my photo-
graphs to the rebates.

It is not an issue of scan quality. It is a simple matter of (1) offering
scanner hardware capable of covering the entire area, and (2) designing
a film carrier that extends out past the inner edge of the rebate. (A
dimension, by the way, that changes from camera to camera.)

This is not rocket science. We've been using filed-out carriers in
the darkroom for decades without any loss of image quality. Don't
tell me that it becomes harder just because the carrier is going into
a different sort of "enlarger."

I once bought a Microtek 120tf, another high-end MF scanner. I
filed out the edges of the carrier to get to the rebates -- no problem
there. But the scanner could not get me to my goal, because the
scanner optics would not extend to the rebates. I sold it and went
back to the Epson flatbeds.

If Plustek is aiming at the niche of dedicated film shooters, then it
should reconsider this limitation. People who choose to remain with
film embrace the medium, and that embrace includes its artifacts
-- the rebates included. When was the last time you saw a Type 55
shooter crop out the telltale Polaroid margins?
 
Well, there are always compromises. One must make their choice based on the best fit.

I am not likely to purchase a Plustek 120 due to the mysterious pricing.

I am convinced they will try to get $3,000 US for these things which I consider ridiculous. (but that's just me)

So, it leads me back to the Epson V700/V750 to replace my 4490. The results I see from the Epson are fine and less than 1/4 the cost of the upcoming Plustek 120.

I'm out.
 
Check Plustek's Facebook page (listed in this thread). When asked why their 120 scanner was being priced so expensively when compared to their 35mm scanners the reply was that it was because the 120 scanner compared more closely to a $12,000 drum scanner. To those thinking of spending $12,000 I suppose it does represent a substantial saving. To the Plustek customers who have less money to spend, but hoped for a 120 scanner somewhere close to the price range of a 35mm scanner it's very bad news.
 
wblynch said:
Well, there are always compromises. One must make their choice based on the best fit.

I am not likely to purchase a Plustek 120 due to the mysterious pricing.

I am convinced they will try to get $3,000 US for these things which I consider ridiculous. (but that's just me)

So, it leads me back to the Epson V700/V750 to replace my 4490. The results I see from the Epson are fine and less than 1/4 the cost of the upcoming Plustek 120.

I'm out.
Click to expand...

Ditto. But I'm out at over $1500. :p

Would be nice to be able to scan the film rebates though... I'm going to try Sanders' method on my v500 and see how it goes.
 
Sanders McNew said:
"Might be a fun thing for a few people"? That's rather condescending,
don't you think? I've a lifetime of work, shooting full-frame -- "fun"?
I guess Richard Avedon and Irving Penn were just having a giggle, eh?
I am hardly alone in printing full-frame, and in presenting my photo-
graphs to the rebates.

It is not an issue of scan quality. It is a simple matter of (1) offering
scanner hardware capable of covering the entire area, and (2) designing
a film carrier that extends out past the inner edge of the rebate. (A
dimension, by the way, that changes from camera to camera.)

This is not rocket science. We've been using filed-out carriers in
the darkroom for decades without any loss of image quality. Don't
tell me that it becomes harder just because the carrier is going into
a different sort of "enlarger."

I once bought a Microtek 120tf, another high-end MF scanner. I
filed out the edges of the carrier to get to the rebates -- no problem
there. But the scanner could not get me to my goal, because the
scanner optics would not extend to the rebates. I sold it and went
back to the Epson flatbeds.

At the end of the day, if Plustek is aiming at the niche of dedicated
film shooters, then it should reconsider this limitation. As time
goes on, I suspect more people who choose to remain with film
are embracing the medium, and that embrace includes its artifacts
-- the rebates included. When was the last time you saw a Type 55
shooter crop out the telltale Polaroid margins?
Click to expand...

It's only as condescending as you want it to be. I don't see anything bad in the word 'fun'. Personally I wouldn't do photography if it wasn't fun. And I take photography very seriously. I didn't say 'funny' so I don't know why you're talking about Avedon and Penn 'having a giggle'.
What I meant was that it is a specialty that only few people have as a priority and it's not worth sacrificing the scan quality for it.

The fact is that it is a scanner, not a sort of enlarger. It's not the same. If you know how scanners such as the Nikon CS9000 or the Microtek work you know that there's no way how they could have a glassless carrier that holds the neg fllat, lets you scan multiple images in one go and scan the neg edge to edge.
And I'm having trouble understanding what you mean by 'rebate' (I'm not a native English speaker). If you're just talking about having a little bit of the black frame edges in the scan then it will probably let you do that (the Nikon does). If, however, you're talking about scans that include all the edge markings on the film (brand, frame number, etc.) then you're out of luck.

Type 55 wasn't a medium format film. Besides, if you want to go retro (which I'm not trying to belittle) at a certain point you gotta ask yourself if it's not just better to make a darkroom print and then scan that. And if that's not a possibility because you want really big enlargements then you're going to need drum scans anyways.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom