How much better is a Plustek vs my Epson V550

J

Joran

Member
Local time
12:13 AM
Joined
Jul 7, 2016
Messages
13
A couple of months ago I bought an Epson V550 to scan my negatives. Because I'd like the option of doing MF (I only have 35mm camera's for now). I use EpsonScan and scan the negs at around 3000dpi. The scans are ok for use on Instagram


Last couple of days I have been searching the web for the difference in quality between the Plustek scanners (8100 for example) vs the V550. And lots of people state that for 35mm the Plustek scanner are definitely a lot better. The site filmscanner.info even states that the effective resolution of the Plustek is 3800dpi and that of the Epson V600 (similar to V550) is only 1560dpi.

- How well is the info on filmscanner.info regarded?
- How much better (image quality) are Plusteks compared to my Epson scanner?
- I guess scanning at 3000dpi on my Epson V550 is knda useless. I can scan at 1600 dpi instead, right?

On my Flickr account I have some scans from the V550.
 
I scan with my Plustek at 3000dpi (or 3600?) and have printed up to A3 no problems. I wouldn't go bigger though. I'm not sure how much no resolution is left on the negs anyway... Never used an Epson.

I'm sure someone with both will chip in with more complete info.
 
The quote for the effective Plustek resolution of 3800 is pretty much spot on.

I guess it all comes down to what the intended use of the resulting scans is for. For posting to the web, I see plenty of great looking Epson scans, and Epson users can obtain glass custom film holders to maximize the flatness of the negatives on the scanner glass for better results, something a Plustek 8100 owner like myself cannot do.

Short of drum scanning a negative, there's a short-coming to any kind of amateur scanning process. No matter what I try, a scanned black & white negative shot with my M4 or M6 cannot resolve detail I can obtain with a raw file from my M262 processed in either Adobe Camera raw or Raw Therapee and converted to black & white. I enjoy 35mm photography and doing it all myself, from shot to processing to scanning, but I usually also have the digital body in the bag, using it when I run across something where I really want to maximize file quality.
 
There is a thread here on scanning with DSLR.

Like all computer stuff, scanners become software incompatible and I do not like Vuescan and Silverfast is scanner specific and expensive. All I have to do is lose a bulb on my Minolta and $300 worth of software is useless. The original software is already useless.

I gave up and went digital. Inexpensive DSLR preform better than film. Nikon D7200 plus 18/140 zoom is $1300.
 
I scanned with a home made DSLR 'scanner' for a few years. The results were better than any of the scanners I have used (all Flat Bed). I was able to do 120 as well as 35mm. It became too difficult to go through all the steps so I bought a V500 which is fine for 120 but a little soft with 35mm.

My DSLR scanner used a 50mm Macro lens which was really necessary for flat plane, and a Pentax slide copier. The negatives were fed through a milky plastic mount which you can see in the middle of the photo. I think the plastic pieces cost about $40 dollars.

Untitled by John Carter, on Flickr
 
I use an Epson V700. I have tested this myself, and have compared it to test reviews in View Camera Magazine, etc. The real rez of the V700 tops out around 2600ppi. DMax is lower than dedicated scanners as well. For color neg and b&w, I can get decent quality from the flatbed. Compared to my Minolta Scan Dual IV though, with 3200ppi scans, the Epson is a bit soft and lacks acutance. The V550 is going to have even lower rez and lower DMax.
 
I have Plustek, V550 and just let go the PI 7200 which teoretic in the OP link putted above of the Plustek (and it is total BS).
Plustek is small and nicely build. It needs software and none of it is ideal.
The Epson software is ideal. The scans from Epson are next to ideal and easy to get if you stay at 1800 dpi. This resolution is enough for 8x10 or slightly larger.
It takes longer to scan with Plustek, because you have to do each frame manually.
Epson software does very good job with problematic negatives. It would scan next to transparent negatives and give usable image. It is also scanning perfectly dark and highlights.
 
I scan 35mm with both a Plustek 7600i as well as the Epson V500. I don't see a lot of difference between the two. The Epson is much easier to use and I prefer the Epson software. The Plustek uses Silverfast 64 v8 which is not as intuitive for me, but it does work.

If I had to upgrade though I would probably upgrade to the Epson V850 because of the ability to scan 35, 120 and 4x5.

The reason I still have the Plustek is for the portability. It has a small footprint compared to the Epsons so I can pack it along with my laptop when I am traveling in my camper.
 
charjohncarter said:
...I was able to do 120 as well as 35mm. It became too difficult to go through all the steps so I bought a V500 which is fine for 120 but a little soft with 35mm.
Untitled by John Carter, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Interesting that you found this set up more time consuming than scanning. I've been considering doing the same set up with my D700. Was it the time to prep the negs or slides or time spent on the computer adjusting the image color balance etc?

Perhaps I'm better off with an old Nikon Coolscan.
 
fdarnell,

I had the 'scanner' in one room and the computer in another, I also felt that I had to do more post processing with the DSLR. It probably was the same amount of time it just felt like more work. I will say that if I had to do a 35mm B&W negative for an 8x10 I would pull the DSLR out.
 
That's a neat little setup you have. I've seen various user-designed systems employing a DSLR, some very, very fancy. More ingenuity than I would ever be able to create.
 
Thanks for the reactions. I mainly use Tri-X and most of the time push it to 1600. Scanned some last night at 1800 dpi, it looks somewhat soft compared to these for example: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2468496&postcount=29

Of course it's probably a different film, but it looks much sharper than what I get. The ones in this test are really looking great: http://www.frontallobbings.com/2013/12/plustek-opticfilm-8200i-review.html

I read that the glass inserts sometimes help to get a better result. As well as using Vuescan instead of EpsonScan. I did a test with the Unmask off (sharpening in Lightroom) en with the Unmask on. At the moment I'm not sure what I am looking for with sharpening (if more than EpsonScans Medium sharping is enough or if it has to be less or more).
 
When I was shopping the Plustek scanners, the main difference I noted between the 8100 I purchased and other models like the 8200i, the 8100 does not offer the infrared dust/scratch removal which is not usable with black & white film. Since that was all I was ever going to shoot, that made the 8100 a pretty easy choice.

The different software and settings used by all the users are what makes the different results often so variable. I like using Vuescan because you can use the multiscan function to create DNG (raw) files that are not nearly as bloated in size as TIFF files, which I then process in Adobe Camera raw.
 
Pioneer said:
I scan 35mm with both a Plustek 7600i as well as the Epson V500. I don't see a lot of difference between the two. The Epson is much easier to use and I prefer the Epson software. The Plustek uses Silverfast 64 v8 which is not as intuitive for me, but it does work.

If I had to upgrade though I would probably upgrade to the Epson V850 because of the ability to scan 35, 120 and 4x5.

The reason I still have the Plustek is for the portability. It has a small footprint compared to the Epsons so I can pack it along with my laptop when I am traveling in my camper.
Click to expand...

I have a 3 3/8 inch by 9 inch by 1/8 inch piece of plastic that I use to butt up against the edge of my V500. Then scan 2/3s of the 4x5 negative flip and do the other 2/3s. It is then stitched with Microsoft ICE freeware:

St. Elizabeths, Oakland, CA by John Carter, on Flickr

Edit: it appears here that I took this image. I did not.
 
That is an awesome idea. Do you use the plastic to space the film from the top or from the left edge? When you have an opportunity maybe you can show me a picture.

I will most definitely put this idea to work.
 
Pioneer said:
If I had to upgrade though I would probably upgrade to the Epson V850 because of the ability to scan 35, 120 and 4x5.
Click to expand...

Last week, I upgraded to the Epson V850 from a Canon 9900F. I need it to scan 35, 120, 4x5, and 8x10. So far, the V850 looks promising.
 
I butt the 9 inch edge (of plastic) to the left on the glass. Then I butt the 5 inch edge of the negative (emulsion up) so it shows on the preview and outline it with the manual out liner on Epson Scan. After scanning that section I flip so the other 5 inch edge is against the plastic. Then stitch as I said. The only problem I've had is with a non flat negative which is easy to correct by putting in a large book for a few days.

Again , not my photo, photographer unknown.

St. Elizabeths, Oakland, CA by John Carter, on Flickr
 
With a lot of effort and discipline I achieved surprisingly excellent results using a Plustek 7600 and VueScan. I had to spend hours researching the advice of others and experimenting with PS and LR, but in the end the results were pleasing. I only did this for an image that was curated for a museum show. It would be way too much work for casual use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom