konicaman
konicaman
cabbiinc
Slightly Irregular
Well, it's supposed to help with noise, not so much grain. Noise is introduced by the scanner's electronics. Grain is ingrained
in the film, all pun intended. If you see noise, multi-colored dots or obvious chromatic noise, then a multi-pass SHOULD help with that. The more samples you take, the less the noise should show through. If you don't see much noise to begin with there's not much to get rid of.
konicaman
konicaman
Ohh, right - does not seem to be much noise in the scans. So that is probably the reason why I don't see much difference.
brbo
Well-known
Declared mechanical resolution is not optical resolution. Optical resolution for Plustek 7600 is around half of the declared resolution (3300 dpi).
Color scans in your review are quite noisy, imho.
Rangeman133
Established
i have this film scanner, which i might sell if i keep my newly acquired m8. but i just wanted to say that the photo captioned 'BW film IR dust removal is a no-go' looks absolutely amazing to me!
konicaman
konicaman
Yes funny effect - the girl in the photo is not an ET however. As far as I know she is not born with antennas
konicaman
konicaman
Hmm - I mainly see grain from the 200 ISO colour negative film, but I must say that it can be hard to tell apart.
The official specs. for the 7600 says 7200x7200 optical res. Could you please elaborated on the difference between mechanical and optical resolution?
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Many cheap scanners have poor quality lenses in them that reduce the real resolution quite a bit. The scanner has 7200 pixels per inch in its sensor, but the lens isn't good enough to actually capture that much detail from the film. One reason the Nikon scanners cost so much new, and why they're still in high demand is the fact that they use very sharp Nikkor lenses with ED lens elements. They capture the full resolution.
anerjee
Well-known
I've compared scans from Nikon 9000 and the Plustek 7600 at 4000 dpi. While the Nikon clearly resolves more, the difference is small and visible only at 100% magnification.
For 35mm, the Plustek is quite good, when you add in a little bit of sharpening and noise reduction from Lightroom.
I am waiting for the reputed plustek 120 scanner -- which may have automated the feeding process, which is the pain of the 7600.
For 35mm, the Plustek is quite good, when you add in a little bit of sharpening and noise reduction from Lightroom.
I am waiting for the reputed plustek 120 scanner -- which may have automated the feeding process, which is the pain of the 7600.
ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
Beware of "optical resolution." I think it means the theoretical resolution of one part of the system. I have no idea how they get away with this.
It's a good scanner, but you are never going to resolve 7200x7200 of anything with it. Where's the consumer protection agency when we need it!
Nikon quotes 4000ppi resolution for the Coolscan V and I think we actually get that.
brbo
Well-known
Here is a proper test of this scanner.
Regarding the noise (I wasn't talking about grain or 'grain' in color film), take a look at scans of dark scenes in the review I linked. Can you see green pixels in deep shadows when MultiExposure is not enabled? Can you see green pixels (and magenta) in your scan on the dark face of the rock? Try MultiExposure, it might help.
anerjee
Well-known
In scanned negatives, the noise you see in the darker parts of the image come from the lightest part of the negative, where the scanner has the least difficulty "seeing". Multi-exposure won't help here.
Look at this for the cause and cures for this kind of noise.
http://www.colorneg.com/noise.html?lang=en
Multi-exposure is usually best suited for transparencies. I've never seen any real benefits for negatives, and hence I've stopped using it.
Look at this for the cause and cures for this kind of noise.
http://www.colorneg.com/noise.html?lang=en
Multi-exposure is usually best suited for transparencies. I've never seen any real benefits for negatives, and hence I've stopped using it.
cabbiinc
Slightly Irregular
From what I've seen, multi-exposure gives a second exposure to the film/slide that's brighter (longer exposure I believe) than the regular exposure. With that said it can help with blown highlights if there's still detail not being reproduced in negatives and help lots with shadows in positives. If you just don't care that the clouds look a little less like clouds then it won't help much at all with a properly exposed negative.
brbo
Well-known
I think MultiExposure can help with reducing noise, even in negative/print film. It depends on the scene and scanner software. So, I said 'it might' help.
On the other hand, multisampling will probably always help as it helps to eliminate outliers (noise).
On the other hand, multisampling will probably always help as it helps to eliminate outliers (noise).
Sometimes this cure is something you don't want, so you have to take that other pill (ME, MS).
mdarnton
Well-known
Reading scanner reviews has me convinced that I'm on the right path not buying one, and using my Nikon D300, instead: 2800 honest resolution with equipment I already own.
Chris101
summicronia
It's a well written piece Koni. You didn't try to cover all aspects, just some practical aspects you actually use. Multiscan/exposure is a tricky thing to use effectively. For web posting, it's a complete waste of time. For printing, especially large printing, it's indispensable. (I scanned several 645 negatives a year ago and printed them at 30"x40" and the NR capability of multiscanning made all the difference.)
The numeric ppi value of the scanner's resolution is immaterial. The look and sharpness of the scans is why it's important to have high ppi. Your 100% crop example looks plenty detailed and sharp. You could photograph a chart, then scan it to get an idea of the actual resolution if the numbers are important to you.
IR dust removal is great for color negatives, but as silver grains also reflect IR, it is not designed for b&w negatives.
You may wish to publish updates in your blog as you gain insights and experience. As Plustek is positioning itself to be THE film scanner (now the Nikon, like Minolta is out of the business) the need for pre-purchase information is building. And keeping that information current and corrected would improve the (already good) usefulness of your piece.
The numeric ppi value of the scanner's resolution is immaterial. The look and sharpness of the scans is why it's important to have high ppi. Your 100% crop example looks plenty detailed and sharp. You could photograph a chart, then scan it to get an idea of the actual resolution if the numbers are important to you.
IR dust removal is great for color negatives, but as silver grains also reflect IR, it is not designed for b&w negatives.
You may wish to publish updates in your blog as you gain insights and experience. As Plustek is positioning itself to be THE film scanner (now the Nikon, like Minolta is out of the business) the need for pre-purchase information is building. And keeping that information current and corrected would improve the (already good) usefulness of your piece.
konicaman
konicaman
Thanks Chris101. Now the actual resolution is not that important to me, but it obviously is to some
. The idea of using a resolution chart sounds interesting though. I am not quite sure how to get any results from that - would the results not also be dependent on the resolution power of the film and the lens used?I am in the process of scanning some multiscans from colour and B/W negatives and currently have a slide film in the camera, so I'll update in a short time (as long as it takes to have an E6 dipped; about 10 days here in Denmark).
Cheers
Henrik
brbo
Well-known
If actual resolution doesn't matter why buy a Plustek 7600 over Epson V700 (which is, apart from the actual resolution, better or at least equal in every other aspect)?
Why would you want to store and work on a file that is 5 times as big but have same amount of captured detail?
konicaman
konicaman
Easy now (hope you noticed the smiley?). I am not a Plustek evangelist, nor am I a a pro tech reviewer; just trying to convey my personal observations on the scanner. That is why I called it a mini review...
brbo
Well-known
I'm easy and I didn't mean any harm.
Just saying that actual resolution does matter. Plustek 7600 has 3250dpi of real resolving 'power' if you scan at 7200dpi, 2600 real dpi if you scan at 3600dpi. Since you use Vuescan with a scanner that has less than 50% of nominal resolution it's wise to use Vuescan's 'size reduction' option (set it to 2). You will get sharper scan that has all the detail the scanner is able to pull from film and a file 4 times smaller (if you store as .TIFF).
Just saying that actual resolution does matter. Plustek 7600 has 3250dpi of real resolving 'power' if you scan at 7200dpi, 2600 real dpi if you scan at 3600dpi. Since you use Vuescan with a scanner that has less than 50% of nominal resolution it's wise to use Vuescan's 'size reduction' option (set it to 2). You will get sharper scan that has all the detail the scanner is able to pull from film and a file 4 times smaller (if you store as .TIFF).