mexipike
Established
I have a nikon coolscan iv and am pretty satisfied by it but wonder if I could get more. It also doesn't allow me more then 8 bit per channel. How would the plustek stack up against it?
plustek 7400 vs nikon coolscan iv
- Thread starter mexipike
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 17
- Views 6K
craygc
Well-known
Coolscan IV is a 12-bits per channel device when saved as 16-bit TIFs. If saving as JPEGs it will always be 8-bit per channel. The CS IV is a very good scanner - I used to have one but replaced with the CS 4000 only because I was often getting posterisation when I pushed the tonality hard in B&W.
Mablo
Well-known
My previous scanner was a Coolscan 5000 ED which can do 16bit. Now I have a Plustek 7400 + Vuescan. I sincerely think my scans are slightly better now compared to Coolscan.
Joosep
Well-known
Wow. You are making my GAS go wild !
Michalm
Well-known
I wish it was true, coolscan 5000 is regarded to be the best 35mm scanner ex-aequo with minolta 5400, i do have coolscan v and have seen plusteks 35mm scanners tests and samples , as far as i can see plusteks will produce huge files with the effective resolution lower than nikons not to mention lack of ICE and lower dynamic range . I would look for a second hand coolscan v.
Mablo
Well-known
According to this widely acclaimed test [http://filmscanner.info/PlustekOpticFilm7400.html] the Plustek 7400 cranks out effective resolution of 3800 ppi, about the same the Coolscan 5000 can do.
Michalm
Well-known
Perhaps if u scan at the max resolution which is 7600 - sadly i have not seen that from samples provided on the web so far.
malcD
Well-known
why stop at 7400
The manufacturer's data also certify the OpticFilm 8100 as well as their predecessor a sensational optical resolution of 7200ppi. The scan of a 35mm-diapositive or -negativs at this resolution results in an image-file of 70 megapixels. Such an image at color depth of 24 bit has an uncompressed file size of about 210 MB!
The manufacturer's data also certify the OpticFilm 8100 as well as their predecessor a sensational optical resolution of 7200ppi. The scan of a 35mm-diapositive or -negativs at this resolution results in an image-file of 70 megapixels. Such an image at color depth of 24 bit has an uncompressed file size of about 210 MB!
Mablo
Well-known
A second opinion of 7400: http://blog.metrix-x.com/2011/12/my-first-look-plustek-7400-scanner.html
I have used the Coolscan 5000 ED for years and have a fairly good understanding what it can do. I've now used the Plustek 7400+Vuescan for about a year and I'm still very satisfied with it. My next scanner will definitely be a Plustek.
I have used the Coolscan 5000 ED for years and have a fairly good understanding what it can do. I've now used the Plustek 7400+Vuescan for about a year and I'm still very satisfied with it. My next scanner will definitely be a Plustek.
mexipike
Established
That's what I thought, however for whatever reason when I scan as a 16 bit tiff using silverfast se, they always end up as 8 bits per channel. Maybe I have to figure something out, but I seem to have exhausted all options. Also when I select 32 bit for color, I still get 8 b per channel. Any tips?
Michalm
Well-known
I don't have any expierience with silverfast as i use Nikon Scan but check this website
http://www.colorneg.com/scanning_slides_and_negatives/scans/Lasersoft_Imaging/SilverFast_8/SE/Ai/
mexipike
Established
I guess I just need to figure a way to irk the full 12 bits out of it with Silverfast. From reading that it almost seems like I need to pay more for the next upgrade! Lame. But I can't seem to get scans I like from vuescan.
jaimiepeeters
Well-known
I would love to get in touch with people using the 7400 because I have never gotten consistent quality prints from it. The colors are always way off! No success with Vuescan nor Silverfast SEplus 8.
joeswe
Well-known
You need the more expensive, full-fledged versions of Silverfast (Ai Studio) to be able to save as 16 bit TIFF. The only workaround in Silverfast SE is to scan as HDR, than it is possible to save as 16 bit tiff.
joeswe
Well-known
The effective resolution of the Plustek 7xxxx/8xxxx devices is about half of that in the spec sheet. You have to scan at the 7.200 ppi setting to get ~ 3.800 ppi effective resolution. Then you have to resize the resulting huge file to 3.6000 ppi to get rid of all the "interpolated" pixels. Very slow and tedious. If you scan at 3.6000 ppi setting, the efffective resolution will drop below 3.000 ppi.
That being said, we tend to forget that resolution is not everything when it comes to film scans. (Perceived) sharpness of a scan, color fidelity and especially dynamic range have a huge impact on the quality of the result. Especially when scanning slides, the scans from a scanner with relatively low dynamic range like most cheap consumer dedicated film or flatbed film scanners will mostly be disappointing because of their lack of brilliance.
V-12
Well-known
Let us all remember the Plustek 7400 only differs from all the other Plustek scanners, up to the very latest model number, in the lack of IR dust removal, something you don't need for B&W anyway. Otherwise ALL the model numbers refer to versions of Silverfast that come with the scanner. The low end versions have limits on what the user can do, like preview resolution or maybe bit depth, in the hope that the software is so frustrating that you pay for an upgrade. But with like for like settings 7600 dpi and how it interpolates is the same for the 7400 as the 8100 model.
thereabouts
Established
I'm a bit puzzled by this. And I've read the review on a website which appears to says similar things.
A couple of questions/thoughts.
1. Where does the information come from that the Plustek scanners don't scan optically at 72000 ppi? They claim that it is the optical scan rate. Most scanner manufacturers for some time have stated on their literature (even on the box) the figures for both the optical and interpolated scan resolutions.
2. Within that context, what is meant by 'effective' resolution? Are we talking about the optical resolution - the rate at which the hardware scans the image, rather than the pixels being resampled upwards via interpolation? Or something else?
3. What is said above seems to be saying that whatever resolution the Plustek scans at, it is always using interpolation to add pixels (and therefore increase the file size). If that were the case, then resizing the scan downwards will do nothing to affect the interpolated pixels. All it will do is throw away the same amount of pixels - both 'real' (optically scanned) and interpolated ones. So we would end up with a smaller scan, with the same quality of detail and information. It might 'appear' sharper, but that's just the visual effect of reducing the size of any scanned image.
But, I'm mainly interested in question 1. Most things I've read seem to indicate an optical resolution of 7200ppi on the scanners. And it was on this basis that I bought one of them
lewis44
Well-known
I can't compare the Coolscan iv to the Plustek, however:
I've owned or used the LS-4000, 5000 & 8000 along with the Plustek. The Nikon's are all better in every way, mostly because they will focus where you want. The Plustek has a fixed lens.
The 2 other scanners that I would recommend are the Minolta 5400's (hard to get repair) or the Canon FS4000.
Similar threads
- Sticky
