How much better is a Plustek vs my Epson V550

[Erik van Straten]

When you want high quality scans, you need to scan each negative seperately. The Epson 600 is superb for this. You just lay the negative on the glass plate (emulsion down) and cover it with a piece of anti-newton glass (available from Better Scanning). You can frame the negative of your choice precisely on your monitor. With the aid of the built in densitometer you can adapt the histogram. This works fabulous. The finishing (retouching, editing etc.) can be done in photoshop. This method takes some time, but the results are superb.

Leica M5, Summilux 35mm f/1.4 pre asph v1, Tmax400.

Erik.

 

[BrooklyNYC]

Epson V500 v. Plustek 7600i

Epson V500 v. Plustek 7600i

Before I bought a Plustek 7600i a few years ago, I used an Epson V500. I liked the Silverfast software and quality of the Plustek, but when I recently pulled it out to scan, the power wouldn't come on. I rarely use my scanner, so it isn't abused, so I don't know what happened. I think it's been two years since I last used it. I e-mailed Plustek technical support, and I'm awaiting an answer.

In the meantime, I've been using my Epson V500. It's easier to use than the Plustek, but prefer the quality of the scans on the Plustek. I downloaded a demo of Silverfast 8 software for the Epson, and the quality of the scans improved immediately. I don't think the quality is as good on the Epson, but at least I have a working scanner now. I'm interested in seeing how Plustek is going to resolve my trouble with their scanner. I'll give an update when I hear back from them.

 

[s_zemliakov]

When you want high quality scans, you need to scan each negative seperately. The Epson 600 is superb for this. You just lay the negative on the glass plate (emulsion down) and cover it with a piece of anti-newton glass (available from Better Scanning). You can frame the negative of your choice precisely on your monitor. With the aid of the built in densitometer you can adapt the histogram. This works fabulous. The finishing (retouching, editing etc.) can be done in photoshop. This method takes some time, but the results are superb.

Leica M5, Summilux 35mm f/1.4 pre asph v1, Tmax400.

Erik.

I always admired your scans Erik, they are so sharp!
I'm currently using an Epson V500 and I've not been really satisfied with the results lately (those default plastic masks are a pain) so I was thinking about getting a piece of this anti-newton glass and proceed as you described.
Just wondering if 30€ would be well spent for just a 35mm strip of it 🙄

 

[Gregm61]

Eric's scans are definitely the Gold Standard. Really nice.

 

[helen.HH]

love LOVe love Plustek
have gone from the 7600 to 8100

Compact, easy to use, Wonderful results !

 

[SaveKodak]

Get a Pacific Image/Reflecta. My Pacific Image XA is fantastic. Autofocus, 5000ppi, works great with vuescan, and a batch feeder.

 

[brennanphotoguy]

Get a Pacific Image/Reflecta. My Pacific Image XA is fantastic. Autofocus, 5000ppi, works great with vuescan, and a batch feeder.

This. I use VueScan with mine and find it easy to use. Some people try and get flat files to adjust in PS but I like to get mine as close in scan and then final adjustments in PS. I love the fact that the XA doesn't need trays or anything like that, it just autofeeds the negs into the scanner for you.

 

[MIkhail]

Get a Pacific Image/Reflecta. My Pacific Image XA is fantastic. Autofocus, 5000ppi, works great with vuescan, and a batch feeder.

My old (but still perfectly usable) COOLSCAN V ED gives me up to 4000 dpi true optical resolution. Plenty for 35mm film I think.
I wonder if there is a difference / additional quality from Plustek OpticFilm 8100's claimed 7200 dpi optical resolution.
Did anybody compared it? Just curious.

 

[charjohncarter]

When you want high quality scans, you need to scan each negative seperately. The Epson 600 is superb for this. You just lay the negative on the glass plate (emulsion down) and cover it with a piece of anti-newton glass (available from Better Scanning). You can frame the negative of your choice precisely on your monitor. With the aid of the built in densitometer you can adapt the histogram. This works fabulous. The finishing (retouching, editing etc.) can be done in photoshop. This method takes some time, but the results are superb.

Leica M5, Summilux 35mm f/1.4 pre asph v1, Tmax400.

Erik.

I tried this with better scanning ANG and the results were better than using the plastic holder with the Better Scanning glass. He is right it does take more time but if you have something you really want quality; it is worth it.

 

[SaveKodak]

My old (but still perfectly usable) COOLSCAN V ED gives me up to 4000 dpi true optical resolution. Plenty for 35mm film I think.
I wonder if there is a difference / additional quality from Plustek OpticFilm 8100's claimed 7200 dpi optical resolution.
Did anybody compared it? Just curious.

I think the difference you'll see is that the images at interpolated resolutions have softer edges on detail areas. You're probably right on some level that 4000ppi is 'enough' in a way. But with a higher optical PPI then you're more likely to be able to print to those larger sizes without details falling apart. If we were to use an Imacon for instance I think that even though we wouldn't see more actual detail revealed in a 35mm scan, the scan at whatever-huge-number PPI would look better than an upsampled 4000ppi scan from a Nikon. IMO, your scan should just get you to whatever print size you are likely to use. The XA's 5000ppi scan slightly out-sizes a 13x19, and that's my current max print size. Therefore, my prints from scans look great! They probably would look pretty good upsampled too, but if I were to do a show I might pay to have some drum scans done of my image selections.

That's one of the many benefits of film to me. You can always print, or rescan your original. Digital files just are what they are.

 

[MIkhail]

I think the difference you'll see is that the images at interpolated resolutions have softer edges on detail areas. You're probably right on some level that 4000ppi is 'enough' in a way. But with a higher optical PPI then you're more likely to be able to print to those larger sizes without details falling apart. If we were to use an Imacon for instance I think that even though we wouldn't see more actual detail revealed in a 35mm scan, the scan at whatever-huge-number PPI would look better than an upsampled 4000ppi scan from a Nikon. IMO, your scan should just get you to whatever print size you are likely to use. The XA's 5000ppi scan slightly out-sizes a 13x19, and that's my current max print size. Therefore, my prints from scans look great! They probably would look pretty good upsampled too, but if I were to do a show I might pay to have some drum scans done of my image selections.

That's one of the many benefits of film to me. You can always print, or rescan your original. Digital files just are what they are.

Yes, that's what I was driving at... I was reading some time ago that really if you scan 35mm with anything beyond 4000 you are basically scanning a space between grains… which supposedly adds nothing.
But I see your point as well.
Also, if I wanted the highest “quality” possible I would probably go with digital anyway. Digital files are what they are, as you say, but they are much higher than my 35mm to start with, I feel.
But the maximum resolution is not what I am after on the first place..

 

[SaveKodak]

Yes, that's what I was driving at... I was reading some time ago that really if you scan 35mm with anything beyond 4000 you are basically scanning a space between grains… which supposedly adds nothing.
But I see your point as well.
Also, if I wanted the highest “quality” possible I would probably go with digital anyway. Digital files are what they are, as you say, but they are much higher than my 35mm to start with, I feel.
But the maximum resolution is not what I am after on the first place..

Yeah, I just stopped defining quality that way. I remember people used to compare film with MP counts and you'd have people saying these insane things like, "35mm is equivalent to 100mp!" Now that I've been shooting so much film and digital I know that comparison is just absurd haha. Film just looks how it looks IMO, I've had to redefine my basis of quality. I just consider the grain as part of the whole aesthetic now. Sure digital files mostly don't have grain and that makes them seem sharper, but often my 33mp scans of Provia aren't revealing much more detail than the smoother looking 25mp files from my D750. Then with grainer films, like D3200, again it's just the aesthetic. Heck I have a dedicated 120 scanner and there are times when my 120 scans look MUCH better than D750 files, and times when they don't. Delta 100 for instance, or most chrome files, scan like a dream. You'd think they were digital files when i'm done (if you're looking at them from a perspective of low-grain). With traditional grained Ilford films they scan much chunkier, but OTOH they have a really nice tonal structure. I basically come at it from a workflow-first perspective. My client work requires digital most of the time, but I force myself to shoot film for non-client work for the rest of the time.

 

[A.S.]

The site filmscanner.info even states that the effective resolution of the Plustek is 3800dpi

If I remember correctly, it's 3200, but only at 7200 dpi. Regardless, the Plusteks (8200, 8100, 120) I've used were substantially better in capturing the grain structure of film than Epson's consumer flatbeds. The latter's software, even in Professional Mode, seemed to have some sort of noise reduction at work.