Any news on the new Plustek 120 scanner?

[nightfire]

I guess full resolution samples are just too big to share

A cropped, 100% detail view of a small area of the negative scanned at full 5300dpi resolution would already be better than nothing.

Over at the German APHOG forum, this has been done already: Opticfilm 120 scan vs. Epson V700 scan.

I'm really concerned about the softness and lack of detail of the Opticfilm 120 scan at this point. I can only hope there was some problem with the workflow or the handling. As is, I've yet to see an example putting this scanner on a level similar to the CS 9000. And exactly this was suggested and anticipated throughout the last year - that it would be a fully adequate high-end replacement.

 

[bwcolor]

Wow, that is strange. I have a V-750 and a rarely used Plustek 7600i and I don't think that the Epson betters the cheap Plustek. I bet some stellar scans will be available within the next month and perhaps some more reviews.

 

[BOD]

A cropped, 100% detail view of a small area of the negative scanned at full 5300dpi resolution would already be better than nothing.

Over at the German APHOG forum, this has been done already: Opticfilm 120 scan vs. Epson V700 scan.

Wow.. very worrying. Also unfortunate that the Opticfilm 120 example follows a flextight example, but still no excuse for the softness. Here's hoping it's operator error!!
😉

 

[bigeye]

I doubt the Plustek business model is to spend a couple years developing a product that can't beat a $500 flatbed developed 10 years ago and sell it for $2000.

Scanning is tricky; I'll wait until there are a lot more users and experience before judging how it well it performs. Given the time since the Coolscans were made, there should be some tech advancement and I'd expect this product to at least match them.

-Charlie

 

[Bille]

Would like to see some official samples...

 

[johnny.moped]

Wow.. very worrying. Also unfortunate that the Opticfilm 120 example follows a flextight example, but still no excuse for the softness. Here's hoping it's operator error!!
😉

I think it's "just" a focus error. But I don't understand why this 2000$ scanner doesn't have autofocus. even the 700$ Coolscan V did have autofocus.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I think it's "just" a focus error. But I don't understand why this 2000$ scanner doesn't have autofocus. even the 700$ Coolscan V did have autofocus.

Without autofocus AND a good lens, it is no better than an Epson flatbed. Unless you use a glass negative carrier, which is not made for this scanner, you cannot get consistent image sharpness scanning film with a fixed focus scanner. Film is not usually perfectly flat.

Another issue is the lens. The Nikons used highly corrected lenses with ED glass elements. One of the reasons flatbeds suck is not the CCD sensors in them, its the poor lenses they include. What kind of lens does the Plustek have? Even if it is a good lens, without AF, its not going to give the best results. Sorry...that's the hard facts.

 

[bwcolor]

I suspect no autofocus.
Clearly, we have a good photographer and most likely a good bit of experience scanning. That said, what do you see with this 35mm Acros scan?

 

[nightfire]

I suspect no autofocus.
Clearly, we have a good photographer and most likely a good bit of experience scanning. That said, what do you see with this 35mm Acros scan?

Unfortunately no upload with full resolution (image dimensions more or less equivalent to 2400dpi, so I guess that's what a V750 scan would look like too). But then again, it would be futile to judge image resolution by looking at the branches or other tree details, because the camera was likely focused on the nearest patch of the road and not on the trees anyway.

Regarding dynamic range, it's hard to tell how much detail was in the tree stems without knowing more about the negative. In summary, the photo has much more aesthetic rather than pixel-peeping qualities 😉

 

[Matus]

As far as I know the scanner has indeed no AF.

I know this scanner should be able to deliver 5300 spi (who in earth needs that). And I do not really expect a scanner for 2000 bucks to be able to actually deliver that kind of resolution.

What I would like to see is what it can do at 3600 spi - that is 10x enlargement with 360 dpi inkjets.

A comparison to Imacon X5 or X1 would be useful, as those are the gauges of what can be done with todays technology (resolution and Dmax) which is on the upper edge of what one can afford (at least for those few negs you want to print really large).

It seems that will will have some first adopters around here soon - it would be great to hear from them once they get comfortable with the scanner (and do not send it for a refund)

 

[johannielscom]

Without autofocus AND a good lens, it is no better than an Epson flatbed. Unless you use a glass negative carrier, which is not made for this scanner, you cannot get consistent image sharpness scanning film with a fixed focus scanner. Film is not usually perfectly flat.

Another issue is the lens. The Nikons used highly corrected lenses with ED glass elements. One of the reasons flatbeds suck is not the CCD sensors in them, its the poor lenses they include. What kind of lens does the Plustek have? Even if it is a good lens, without AF, its not going to give the best results. Sorry...that's the hard facts.

For a while I was active in this thread since I was hoping for terrific results from the Plustek. But Chris in the above comment has nailed it here and since I saw it coming, I sold my Rolleiflexes and got into a digital body for the RF lenses.

Regarding the bold print above, there might be some hope. There's a thread going here on custom made lens hoods for several lenses and in it there's a fellow active who 3D-prints them in plastic. I could imagine somebody creating Plustek OpticFilm 120 negative carriers that could hold ANR glass from betterscanning.com to improve on the sub-standard negative holders that come with the scanner.

Until I've either been proven wrong or those negative holder appear, I'm not starting to save up for the scanner.

I do hope one of those two events happens, though! 🙂

 

[nightfire]

A comparison to Imacon X5 or X1 would be useful, as those are the gauges of what can be done with todays technology (resolution and Dmax) which is on the upper edge of what one can afford (at least for those few negs you want to print really large).

• Flextight X1
• Opticfilm 120

 

[Matus]

• Flextight X1
• Opticfilm 120

I guess I needed to see that twice to take not of it, so thank you.

OK. Based on these the Plustek 120 is a disappointment in particular that nasty CA reminds me of my late Microtek F1. I am actually impressed by the Imacon scan and by the resolution in that negative. I think I have never seen a 6300 api scan from Imacon 🙂

Still - test at around 3600 spi could give us a better impression as that is more realistic range. I know one could just scale the posted results down, but scanning at 5300 spi and then scaling down would be a painful process in daily life.

 

[bwcolor]

IF, Plustek is considering a glass mount and the 120 doesn't have autofocus, then Plustek must have some confidence that the holder would stay within tight tolerances as it scans. Perhaps, just like the Better Scanning holder for my V-750, the holder could have some micro height adjustment. Short of this, it isn't looking like this scanner is going to be a strong candidate for replacing the Nikon 9000ED.

 

[J. Borger]

I have seen so many crappy scans from Epson flatbeds and Plustek 35 mm scanners in online discussions about scanners that i do not trust those reports anymore. Because in the case of the above mentioned scanners i know i can get way better scans from them compared to what i see on a regular base posted on the net. Based on my experience with the Plustek 7600i I still have high hopes about the Plustek 120.

 

[BenJT]

Even if it could do as good a job as the 7400/7600/8100 but do medium format as well, I would call that a success, but not for $2000.

 

[kanzlr]

OK. Based on these the Plustek 120 is a disappointment in particular that nasty CA reminds me of my late Microtek F1. I am actually impressed by the Imacon scan and by the resolution in that negative. I think I have never seen a 6300 api scan from Imacon 🙂

really looks like out of focus, this would also explain the CA.
examine the small sign from the corner, it is just as detailed as the drum scanner, but the center of the image is completely out of focus.

a glass carrier COULD help here. Or maybe his specific sample is not up to spec, who knows? I ordered mine a while ago and cannot wait to test it.

 

[kanzlr]

The samples over here look nice:

http://photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00ZpLQ?start=210

 

[mdruziak]

There is something strange about the OpticFilm 120 scan on the German site. The resolution is 1767 dpi which explains why it looks like the V500 scan.

 

[bwcolor]

Mark: The Nikon 9000ED benefits from the high quality optics and autofocus. Chris' concern posted previously is with reference to the '120' lacking autofocus and thus negating the claimed resolution advantage of this scanner. I think that most here recognize that it is too early to start judging the few results posted, but this concern about obtaining precise focus is valid, otherwise having a high resolution CCD is somewhat overkill and will not benefit the final image. Also, manufacturing variability comes into play without autofocus. I'm sure that all of this was discussed by Plustek engineers long ago, but how does, or will (glass mount) this scanner get the high resolution that the enthusiast end user is hoping for?