Best Dedicated Film Scanner?

The plustek comes with it's own version of ICE, which seems to work rather well, and you can calibrate the sensitivity of it (I'm not sure if ICE does that...). The 7200 DPI will give me poster sized results that I have no compliants ablout, I print 8x12's frequently at a lab from the scan, and you can't tell the difference between them, and something directly from the film, so again, I can't complain. One other thing I like about it is the film profiles. You just dial up what film you're using, and it gives you custom tailored results. There is also a simple version that let's you do quick scans for email-ables and quick results...

Thanks for the compliment on my B&W....btw... :)
 
Nice work, Jay, well done!

Those are definitely some high-quality scans from the Plustek, I might have to look into one to replace my flatbed. I'm curious... on average, how much tweaking do you usually have to do with the scanner output other than for creative effect?
 
In B&W, none, and if I'm the least bit curious, the scanner has it's own digital densitometer, so I can check whether parts are thinner or denser than I thought. The only tweaking I had to do was with a roll of Kodak Ultra Color 400. I couldn't find the profile for it in the menu, so I used Royal Gold 400, and tweaked saturation in Photoshop.

I've done Ilford HP5, FP4, Kodak Tri-X 400, and T-Max 400 with no tweaking. I can't wait to see hwat happens with a roll of Delta 3200... :)
 
Last edited:
Me, too, Jay. There's one on ebay right now for $182.50 new. Is that a good deal? What's the most I should pay for one, in your opinion?

Ted
 
There's no question that the Imacon's are the top untill you get into really expensive machines. Even then they hold their own. The specs aren't bloated like most other manufacturers and if you've used one all the others seem like toys. Even the software is really professional. The 343 is an excellent value new or used. I have my 343 on ebay at the moment http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7546372488 and it probably will only bring in the loe 3K dollars due to the low interest in scanners. All of my images in my gallery were scanned with it. I purchased it specifically for B&W but have scanned a number of color transparencies with stellar results. The only reason I am selling it is I needed a scanner to handle 11x14 film. I replaced it with a $25,000 fuji finescan 5000 but there is virtually no difference in results.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=5045

www.x-rayarts.com
 
Jay -- your scans look very good. I must admit I am a bit skeptical about the the plustek scanners. They seem to have far, far more features than the competition and are much cheaper. So I guess I am saying, what's the catch? Is there a catch? Have you used something like the Konica Minolta Scan Dual IV or some of the other models close to it in price? The only thing that I noted was a little low in the specs was Dmax...


edit: Ahh, so that's yours xray? I was interested in it, but I kind of want one that will do 4x5. I am also leaving to go to Japan on Tuesday, so I cannot really buy anything on ebay. Nice to put a name to an item though...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jay, that Plustek scanner sure is tempting. Can you please post some crops of scanned images at 100% (no resize) so that we can see how it really behaves ?
 
Alrighty, to answer everyone at once... here we go...

$182.50 is pretty much the going rate as I've seen it. I got mine from Tiger Direct for $189, and it came with a warranty from a reputable seller...my opinion is to go with Tiger Direct, where you can be sure everything is OK...better safe than sorry, especially when splitting hairs like a couple of bucks...

I haven't been able to try the Minoltas out...but I really haven't seen anything on the plustek that I didn't like. It comes with trays for slides, and negatives, which you have to load, and push through manually. It also has a mini light box on the top for viewing slides in their frames, but it'll do for negs in a pinch. I noticed the D-Max was a bit on the low side, but well within the margins for what I need... my negatives have looked fine, and I haven't seen any difference in blocking up of highlight or shadow between a print from the negative itself, and the scan of it. If you'd like, check out Tiger Direct, and click on the link for the scanner. You'll find a bunch of reviews from the magazines, and happy users. To be honest, I think the cheap price comes from lack of a name... hell, the unit comes with a carrying case, AND it's USB 2.0... so why not?

Ask and ye shall receive...here's a patch from the 100% scan at 3600 DPI of an image, and just for fun, I'm gonna throw in the image (scaled down of course) just so you can see where it's coming from...
 
Thanks Jay! I've been torn between your Plustek recommendation and things I've read on the internet about the Canoscan 8400. How relevant is the D-max rating on film scanners?
 
If you want a comparison, this is 3200 on the KM Dual IV. This is the one that I made an avatar file out of, but this is full size, I had to shrink it to the avatar limit. You can clearly see the detail of the film grain. This was Fuji 400 IIRC. This was cropped from the original which was about 82 megabytes, scanned 3200, 16 bit.

A sane-size copy of the original is on the right.
 
Here are two 100% crop examples from the minolta scan multi pro. 2400 dpi and 4800 dpi. I believe the film was Velvia 100F. Photoshop is not opening for me right this second (I am going to reboot, something is wrong), but when it is, I will post the full size of the photo.
 
From what I know about D Max, you want something in the 4.X ranges...beyond that, it's splitting hairs over slight details...
 
D-Max is a scanner's ability to show detail in extreme shadows and highlights. With a poor D-Max, although there may be detail in the negative, the scan will show blocked up highlights and shadows (in the extreme areas, not all over)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom