wintoid
Back to film
You should be able to click through and see full size versions of these. Not the best test negative in the world, as it's not thoroughly sharp, but even so I'm interested to know what people think. I used Vuescan on the 8000 which I know quite well, and Silverfast on the Plustek which I am not familiar with.
Plustek 120
Hot dogs rescan by wintoid, on Flickr
Nikon 8000
Hot dogs by wintoid, on Flickr
Plustek 8100
Hot dogs rescanned with Plustek 8100 by wintoid, on Flickr
Plustek 120
Hot dogs rescan by wintoid, on Flickr
Nikon 8000
Hot dogs by wintoid, on Flickr
Plustek 8100
Hot dogs rescanned with Plustek 8100 by wintoid, on Flickr
Last edited:
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
They look virtually identical! This is great. I have an 8000, and live in fear of it dying, since it cannot be repaired now, and they sell for such silly prices used. The Plustek looks like it might be a good replacement, if that ever becomes necessary.
ChrisLivsey
Veteran
The Nikon has a slightly higher contrast and/or a touch more sharpening on super close examination but that is the processing not the scan. (On examining the Flickr- original) I personally lost interest in the 120 when the price was announced, not in comparison to the direct competition but to their other products. I had hoped for for lower as my 120 shooting is now with a Phase One digital back but it would have been nice to run film as well.
I was further "put off" when seeming inconsistencies in QC emerged in early production. As with any such product there are going to be sample variations, I am delighted with my 8100 and I think you should be with the 120 you have.
I was further "put off" when seeming inconsistencies in QC emerged in early production. As with any such product there are going to be sample variations, I am delighted with my 8100 and I think you should be with the 120 you have.
rodt16s
Well-known
Curious one is offset L-R to the other.. is this post cropping or scanner indexing
wintoid
Back to film
Probably just me not lining up the negs very well in the holders.
I didn't do very much processing (I never do with film) so these are close to straight out of the scanners. Certainly no sharpening.
I'm surprised by the responses. I felt the Nikon looked quite a lot better.
seblock
Established
To me it looks like the Nikon gives a little more sharpness. Both scans are very good imo.
Joosep
Well-known
I like Nikon alot more.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Much prefer the result from the Nikon ... there's a lot more detail to my eyes. The Plustek scan has a slightly mushy look IMO.
froyd
Veteran
I see that too, but I agree with ChrisLivsey: it's probably due to the different processing rather than the resolving ability of the scanner.
wintoid
Back to film
Yeah that's the big question for me. If I was as familiar with Silverfast as I am with Vuescan, could I get a better result?
joeswe
Well-known
Well, looking at the original full res files, "detail" is a relative concept when doing high resolution scans of a 35mm negative with boulder sized grain. I would say, both scanners are outperforming the scanning target by a considerable margin.
@wintoid
For a more meaningful comparison, I would suggest using a sharp, highly detailed color positive with a full tonal range and well defined shadow and highlight detail. This will usually expose the weaknesses or strengths of a film scanner mercilessly.
Kenj8246
Well-known
Kenj8246
Well-known
zauhar
Veteran
Ditto - they look dramatically different to me, at full size. The Nikon scan is impressive.
That said, at smaller size they are comparable.
I still don't feel too unhappy with my cheap Canon 9000, and the Plustek looks cumbersome to use.
Randy
froyd
Veteran
Here is the 120 after a quick and dirt curve adjust. Not much detail is lost so I think most of the noticeable differences (higher luminosity and contrast of the Nikon) would be negated if the same software and settings were used during the capture.
Aristophanes
Well-known
Maybe it's the setting but the Plustek is handling the shadows better. I see folds in the black t-shirt on the Plustek whereas the Nikon is a monolithic, less detailed black.
bobbyrab
Well-known
The Nikon looks sharper as it's a higher contrast scan, I think here some are mistaking punch for sharpness. I would say the plustek has retained more detail in the midtone and is a better scan, but a lower contrast setting for the Nikon might give the same results. Difficult to call it without seeing more examples.
wintoid
Back to film
Sorry I don't shoot colour, and I've actually never shot slide in my life
So for me, I'm very much interested in BW performance.
wintoid
Back to film
Yeah, the whole test is a bit unscientific, and the loss of detail in the black could easily be my original adjustments. The Nikon scanner stopped working last week, so I don't have the opportunity to do a completely unadjusted rescan.
Having said that, I am finding that my Plustek scans are often coming out much lighter, with a longer scale in the shadows, but prone to losing detail in the highlights (not just as simple as turning down the exposure, unfortunately). I'm guessing this is Silverfast, and my ineptness with the software
The mush, however, is the main thing that concerns me. I can learn to scan better if the information is getting captured, but the mushiness of the grain makes me feel like it's half way between a flatbed and a Nikon. The resolution I have selected, at 5300 dpi, is quite a lot higher than the Nikon though, so that might be a bit unfair.
Merlijn53
Established
Don't know, the Nikon looks tp have a bit more contrast (written prices in the background left and the basket in the middle). But in both I don't seem to find the film grain, so it's not really sharp. Maybe adjustments in the software or the scanners.