David_Manning
Well-known
I've been trying to learn new software all day...trying to decide whether I prefer SilverFast SE Plus or Vuescan better. I'm still struggling, trying to decide...I'm leaning towards SilverFast.
Here's a quick scan...I like the sharpness I'm getting from the Plustek as opposed to my flatbed Epson 4990...worlds apart.
Here's a quick scan...I like the sharpness I'm getting from the Plustek as opposed to my flatbed Epson 4990...worlds apart.
Bobonli
Established
Nicely done. Do you have any experience using a flatbed scanner, such that you can compare the two?
I'm looking to get back into scanning and cannot decide on flatbed vs dedicated film scanner. The Plustek reviews I've read are critical of it because it can't batch scan.
I'm looking to get back into scanning and cannot decide on flatbed vs dedicated film scanner. The Plustek reviews I've read are critical of it because it can't batch scan.
egor
Member
I think I can take a shot at answering your questions. I've had/used a lot of scanners. Most recently, I've been using an Epson V600 (with VueScan). Good for medium format. So-So for 35mm.
The things I like about the V600 flatbed are 1) good D-max (I never have to scan a negative twice to capture the whole dynamic range). 1-pass gets me a nice scan with full tonality in the histogram. 2) fast (can scan 12 negatives per batch rather quickly).
The thing I didn't like about the V600 is that the negs were just too soft for my liking. Much softer than dedicated film scanners I'd used before. The V600 scans could be sharpened to a reasonable level, but I never really could see the actual grain in any negative.
So, I just bought a 7600i. Here are my thoughts:
1. The scans are much sharper. At least at a grain level. This is both good and bad. It's good because you get some increased resolution. It's bad because you need to spend more time in photoshop minimizing the grain (unless you want the grain look).
2. The 7600i's limited D-max is a real problem for me. I shoot black and white negative film. 90% of the negatives I've scanned have had a dynamic range that exceeds the scanner's. This necessitates performing two scans and doing an exposure-merge. Technically, VueScan is supposed to do this automatically -- but it's not working. VueScan's multi-exposure options gives a TIFF file identical to a single-exposure. I can work around the VueScan problem by manually capturing two different exposures and merging them in Photomatix Pro... but this is VERY time consuming. I haven't heard back from Hamrick to find out if this is a bug in their software, or if it's something I'll have to live with. (FYI, I'm on a Mac).
3. Nearly every scan on the Plustek 7600i has a black vertical line that runs from the very top of the scan to the very bottom. It's in every scan, and in exactly the same place. I've tried blowing some air into the scanner in case it was dirt -- no luck.
For me, right now, the Plustek is looking like a VERY bad buy...
But, if 1) Hamrick fixes VueScan so that the multi-exposure option actually works with the 7600i, and 2) Plustek tells me how I can prevent having an annoying line superimposed on every scan, then I'd be inclined to prefer the 7600i to the V600. Of course, those are two big "ifs." In any event, the V600 workflow is (and will always be) faster than the 7600i work flow.
-egor (http://photography.ultrasomething.com)
The things I like about the V600 flatbed are 1) good D-max (I never have to scan a negative twice to capture the whole dynamic range). 1-pass gets me a nice scan with full tonality in the histogram. 2) fast (can scan 12 negatives per batch rather quickly).
The thing I didn't like about the V600 is that the negs were just too soft for my liking. Much softer than dedicated film scanners I'd used before. The V600 scans could be sharpened to a reasonable level, but I never really could see the actual grain in any negative.
So, I just bought a 7600i. Here are my thoughts:
1. The scans are much sharper. At least at a grain level. This is both good and bad. It's good because you get some increased resolution. It's bad because you need to spend more time in photoshop minimizing the grain (unless you want the grain look).
2. The 7600i's limited D-max is a real problem for me. I shoot black and white negative film. 90% of the negatives I've scanned have had a dynamic range that exceeds the scanner's. This necessitates performing two scans and doing an exposure-merge. Technically, VueScan is supposed to do this automatically -- but it's not working. VueScan's multi-exposure options gives a TIFF file identical to a single-exposure. I can work around the VueScan problem by manually capturing two different exposures and merging them in Photomatix Pro... but this is VERY time consuming. I haven't heard back from Hamrick to find out if this is a bug in their software, or if it's something I'll have to live with. (FYI, I'm on a Mac).
3. Nearly every scan on the Plustek 7600i has a black vertical line that runs from the very top of the scan to the very bottom. It's in every scan, and in exactly the same place. I've tried blowing some air into the scanner in case it was dirt -- no luck.
For me, right now, the Plustek is looking like a VERY bad buy...
But, if 1) Hamrick fixes VueScan so that the multi-exposure option actually works with the 7600i, and 2) Plustek tells me how I can prevent having an annoying line superimposed on every scan, then I'd be inclined to prefer the 7600i to the V600. Of course, those are two big "ifs." In any event, the V600 workflow is (and will always be) faster than the 7600i work flow.
-egor (http://photography.ultrasomething.com)
David_Manning
Well-known
Egor,
Sorry to hear about your experience with the Plustek. Although I'm no Plustek cheerleader, I'm swooning over the increased sharpness and resolution I've gained over the Epson 4990 flatbed I was using.
I'm testing both the SilverFast SE Plus software and Vuescan. My impression is that I like the SilverFast interface a bit better, although it's cluttered. But I feel I'm getting sharper images from SilverFast too. I like it's auto-sharpening algorithm. The Vuescan scans are a bit softer and I have to sharpen more aggressively afterwards. I'm sure it's user-adjustable, but I'm getting used to SF faster...and the less time I spend on the computer, the better.
Sorry to hear about your experience with the Plustek. Although I'm no Plustek cheerleader, I'm swooning over the increased sharpness and resolution I've gained over the Epson 4990 flatbed I was using.
I'm testing both the SilverFast SE Plus software and Vuescan. My impression is that I like the SilverFast interface a bit better, although it's cluttered. But I feel I'm getting sharper images from SilverFast too. I like it's auto-sharpening algorithm. The Vuescan scans are a bit softer and I have to sharpen more aggressively afterwards. I'm sure it's user-adjustable, but I'm getting used to SF faster...and the less time I spend on the computer, the better.
Bobonli
Established
Thanks for sharing your assessment. I had a Nikon Coolscan (the SCSII interface version) many years ago. I ditched it when Apple stopped supporting SCSII and regret it. The images were wonderful. The CS9000 is out of my price range for what I want to do with a scanner, hence my interest in either the Plustek or a flatbed.
The black bar issue sounds like a defect or warranty issue. Are they willing to look at it for you?
David_Manning
Well-known
Bobonli,
Sorry I missed your post.
I think that black bar HAS to be a defect for warranty.
I've found the Plustek to be quite a bit more capable than the flatbed...much sharper. The negative holders, especially, are very solid and hold the film perfectly flat (the Epson holders were terrible, and exaggerated the soft-focus issue).
Feeding single negatives at a time is not an issue for me...I don't scan every neg on the roll. In fact now I contact-scan an entire roll on the flatbed to view on-screen, then scan selects using the higher-performance film scanner.
Hope that helps.
Sorry I missed your post.
I think that black bar HAS to be a defect for warranty.
I've found the Plustek to be quite a bit more capable than the flatbed...much sharper. The negative holders, especially, are very solid and hold the film perfectly flat (the Epson holders were terrible, and exaggerated the soft-focus issue).
Feeding single negatives at a time is not an issue for me...I don't scan every neg on the roll. In fact now I contact-scan an entire roll on the flatbed to view on-screen, then scan selects using the higher-performance film scanner.
Hope that helps.
David_Manning
Well-known
By the way...I haven't really run into a D-max issue for negative film yet. I adjust the histogram so the scan looks a bit flat, then set the levels where I want them in Photoshop or Aperture (I'm a Mac guy too). The only time I've multiple-scanned is in my underexposed slide film...the black is black, whether I meant it or not!
user237428934
User deletion pending
I'm glad that you like it 
egor
Member
David:
I'm currently investigating Silverfast SE Plus. I've been using VueScan for a decade, so I'm quite comfortable with it... but its failure to create a true multi-exposure blend with the 7600 has me looking at alternative solutions.
Since you're getting quasi-comfortable with SE Plus, maybe you can answer me this: have you found a suitable work-around to SE's inability to render 16-bit grayscale files? The option is disabled and, from what i can tell, is not available unless one coughs up the money for the Ai version. Scanning B&W into what amounts to 8-bits of resolutions is, for me, a bigger problem than working around VueScan's multi-expose shortcomings with Photomatix Pro.
As you suggest, I also believe my 7600 may be defective (permanent black scan line)... unfortunately, no one from Plustek has responded to my emails. They might be on vacation with Ed Hamrick, since my VueScan emails have also gone unanswered. ;-)
-egor (http://photography.ultrasomething.com)
I'm currently investigating Silverfast SE Plus. I've been using VueScan for a decade, so I'm quite comfortable with it... but its failure to create a true multi-exposure blend with the 7600 has me looking at alternative solutions.
Since you're getting quasi-comfortable with SE Plus, maybe you can answer me this: have you found a suitable work-around to SE's inability to render 16-bit grayscale files? The option is disabled and, from what i can tell, is not available unless one coughs up the money for the Ai version. Scanning B&W into what amounts to 8-bits of resolutions is, for me, a bigger problem than working around VueScan's multi-expose shortcomings with Photomatix Pro.
As you suggest, I also believe my 7600 may be defective (permanent black scan line)... unfortunately, no one from Plustek has responded to my emails. They might be on vacation with Ed Hamrick, since my VueScan emails have also gone unanswered. ;-)
-egor (http://photography.ultrasomething.com)
David_Manning
Well-known
Egor (by the way...nice website and work),
I'll check about 16-bit b&w scanning. I'll let you know when I find something out.
In either case, you should be able to just scan silver halide b&w with 48-bit color and then desaturate any color cast, right? The tonal info will be there.
----David.
I'll check about 16-bit b&w scanning. I'll let you know when I find something out.
In either case, you should be able to just scan silver halide b&w with 48-bit color and then desaturate any color cast, right? The tonal info will be there.
----David.
David_Manning
Well-known
Okay,
In SilverFast SE Plus, you CAN scan b&w in 16-bit grayscale, OR color in 48-bit, but you have to select NORMAL (FILE) in the general preferences...only then will the high-bit option be available. If you scan in the NORMAL general preferences pane, then all you're offered is 16->8-bit grayscale OR 48->24-bit color. So, yes...you can scan b&w in 16-bit.
Also, multi-exposure is available at any time.
In SilverFast SE Plus, you CAN scan b&w in 16-bit grayscale, OR color in 48-bit, but you have to select NORMAL (FILE) in the general preferences...only then will the high-bit option be available. If you scan in the NORMAL general preferences pane, then all you're offered is 16->8-bit grayscale OR 48->24-bit color. So, yes...you can scan b&w in 16-bit.
Also, multi-exposure is available at any time.
egor
Member
Thanks for checking on that David. No luck on my end... No matter what I do (including the "NORMAL (FILE)" option, as you suggest), I can't get SE plus to display the "16 Bit Grayscale" option. I tried chanting a few magic incantations from some dusty old 20th century scanning tomes, but they didn't work either. Note that I *can* access the "16 Bit HDR Grayscale" option, but this isn't the same thing. That's a RAW format that requires the purchase and use of an additional program (SilverFast HDR) in order to actually extract the full 16 bits from SilverFast's propriety data format.
I might, of course, just be particularly dense this week -- it's been known to happen. ;-)
Anyway, not my intention to hijack your thread. I think, in this day and age of diminishing scanner choice, the Plustek shows merit. It's definitely capable of delivering a sharper, more focused scan than a flatbed (as we've both noted), but not as much dynamic range (which has work-arounds depending on software choices).
Also, to further address bobonli's concerns about choosing between a flatbed and a Plustek, that's a tough call -- it depends very much on your needs and/or expectations.
On the, um, "plus" side of the Plustek V7600:
1. The scans are sharper. Ultimately, I'd rather capture a sharply focused scan and diffuse it (if need be), than capture a soft scan and try to sharpen it.
2. The Plustek's slide carrier and negative carrier (as David pointed out) are nicer and more sturdy that the Epson's. The Plustek negative carrier has a little window for each of the six images on a negative strip, rather than one long window for the entire strip. Obviously, this helps hold the film flatter in the carrier. There are, however, a couple downsides. A) the design of the carrier prevents you from getting 100% edge-to-edge scans of each negative. You might only loose a fraction of a percent, but (surprisingly) I'm finding that a bit annoying. B) if you shoot an old panoramic film camera, you won't be able to scan the negatives with the Plustek. Note that I "beefed up" my Epson V600 carriers by using anti-newton glass strips (which I bought from betterscanning.com). These keep the negatives nice and flat in the scanner (though I can only scan 5 negs in a strip, not 6).
3. Takes up very little desk space. Much smaller than my old 1992 SCSI Nikon, and way smaller than a flatbed.
On the plus side of the flatbed:
1. It can scan multiple formats, not just 35mm
2. It can batch scan negatives (12 images with a V600, 24 with a V700), meaning you don't have to baby sit your scanner.
3. Higher D-max means less need to resort to multi-exposure scanning and exposure merging.
There is no doubt (for me) that scanning with the Epson is much faster. Batch scanning plus single-pass scans make quick work of a roll of film. If your goal is to digitize a large collection, the Epson is more than up to that task (at the expense of sharpness). If your goal is to extract maximum quality from each slide, the Plustek is definitely the better choice (at the expense of speed and tedium).
I've been using the V600 for a year, but have had the Plustek for only a week -- so it's a little early for me to draw any personal conclusions. Let's just say that I bought the Plustek because I was dissatisfied with the sharpness of the flatbed scans. The Plustek solved that problem nicely, but introduced a few wrinkles of its own.
I suspect, as time goes on, I'll adopt a workflow in which I make lower-res digital "contact sheets" with the Epson. Using Lightroom, I'll then be able to organize and find scanned images. When I see one that requires the "gold treatment," I'll rescan it, using multiple exposures, with the Plustek.
Like you (and most everyone else), I'd much prefer to have the Coolscan 9000... ain't gonna happen without a little lottery luck (note to self: buy lottery ticket today).
-egor (http://photography.ultrasomething.com)
I might, of course, just be particularly dense this week -- it's been known to happen. ;-)
Anyway, not my intention to hijack your thread. I think, in this day and age of diminishing scanner choice, the Plustek shows merit. It's definitely capable of delivering a sharper, more focused scan than a flatbed (as we've both noted), but not as much dynamic range (which has work-arounds depending on software choices).
Also, to further address bobonli's concerns about choosing between a flatbed and a Plustek, that's a tough call -- it depends very much on your needs and/or expectations.
On the, um, "plus" side of the Plustek V7600:
1. The scans are sharper. Ultimately, I'd rather capture a sharply focused scan and diffuse it (if need be), than capture a soft scan and try to sharpen it.
2. The Plustek's slide carrier and negative carrier (as David pointed out) are nicer and more sturdy that the Epson's. The Plustek negative carrier has a little window for each of the six images on a negative strip, rather than one long window for the entire strip. Obviously, this helps hold the film flatter in the carrier. There are, however, a couple downsides. A) the design of the carrier prevents you from getting 100% edge-to-edge scans of each negative. You might only loose a fraction of a percent, but (surprisingly) I'm finding that a bit annoying. B) if you shoot an old panoramic film camera, you won't be able to scan the negatives with the Plustek. Note that I "beefed up" my Epson V600 carriers by using anti-newton glass strips (which I bought from betterscanning.com). These keep the negatives nice and flat in the scanner (though I can only scan 5 negs in a strip, not 6).
3. Takes up very little desk space. Much smaller than my old 1992 SCSI Nikon, and way smaller than a flatbed.
On the plus side of the flatbed:
1. It can scan multiple formats, not just 35mm
2. It can batch scan negatives (12 images with a V600, 24 with a V700), meaning you don't have to baby sit your scanner.
3. Higher D-max means less need to resort to multi-exposure scanning and exposure merging.
There is no doubt (for me) that scanning with the Epson is much faster. Batch scanning plus single-pass scans make quick work of a roll of film. If your goal is to digitize a large collection, the Epson is more than up to that task (at the expense of sharpness). If your goal is to extract maximum quality from each slide, the Plustek is definitely the better choice (at the expense of speed and tedium).
I've been using the V600 for a year, but have had the Plustek for only a week -- so it's a little early for me to draw any personal conclusions. Let's just say that I bought the Plustek because I was dissatisfied with the sharpness of the flatbed scans. The Plustek solved that problem nicely, but introduced a few wrinkles of its own.
I suspect, as time goes on, I'll adopt a workflow in which I make lower-res digital "contact sheets" with the Epson. Using Lightroom, I'll then be able to organize and find scanned images. When I see one that requires the "gold treatment," I'll rescan it, using multiple exposures, with the Plustek.
Like you (and most everyone else), I'd much prefer to have the Coolscan 9000... ain't gonna happen without a little lottery luck (note to self: buy lottery ticket today).
-egor (http://photography.ultrasomething.com)
Bobonli
Established
No perfect tool. Shocking :bang:
I'm a quality over speed type, so the Plustek probably meets my needs better than what I'm doing now which is paying thru the nose for min-lab scans that really look mediocre. I figure buying the tools to develop my own B&W and a scanner will work out cheaper than the $20-33 (depending where I take it) a roll I'm paying a lab.
I'd be more than satisfied with a result like David achieved in his first post. The stuff I get now looks like it was rolled in coarsely-ground black pepper and I'm not sure if its due to crappy development or inadequate scanning.
Thanks again,
Bob
I'm a quality over speed type, so the Plustek probably meets my needs better than what I'm doing now which is paying thru the nose for min-lab scans that really look mediocre. I figure buying the tools to develop my own B&W and a scanner will work out cheaper than the $20-33 (depending where I take it) a roll I'm paying a lab.
I'd be more than satisfied with a result like David achieved in his first post. The stuff I get now looks like it was rolled in coarsely-ground black pepper and I'm not sure if its due to crappy development or inadequate scanning.
Thanks again,
Bob
David_Manning
Well-known
Egor,
I have to do lots more reading. I also arrive at the 16-bit HDR selection. I was under the impression that iHDR was the proprietary RAW format and HDR was high-bit depth. Looks like it's back to the books for me. Sorry I couldn't be more help.
On the plus side--Bob--I'm happy with the sharpness and performance of the Plustek. Did I mention it was much faster than the Epson flatbed too?
--Dave.
I have to do lots more reading. I also arrive at the 16-bit HDR selection. I was under the impression that iHDR was the proprietary RAW format and HDR was high-bit depth. Looks like it's back to the books for me. Sorry I couldn't be more help.
On the plus side--Bob--I'm happy with the sharpness and performance of the Plustek. Did I mention it was much faster than the Epson flatbed too?
--Dave.
Daud
Newbie
For anyone interested in using antinewton glass in their Plustek scanner: I have cut a GEPE 6x6 glass insert to fit the holder, it is thin enough not to give problems with holders top cover and long enough so that it covers one frame with some overlap.
A lot less cost than any other method I have looked into.
David.
http://davidalockwood.wordpress.com
A lot less cost than any other method I have looked into.
David.
http://davidalockwood.wordpress.com
user237428934
User deletion pending
For anyone interested in using antinewton glass in their Plustek scanner: I have cut a GEPE 6x6 glass insert to fit the holder, it is thin enough not to give problems with holders top cover and long enough so that it covers one frame with some overlap.
A lot less cost than any other method I have looked into.
David.
http://davidalockwood.wordpress.com
What's that good for? Please explain.
Daud
Newbie
I find that some of my negatives do not sit perfectly flat in the holder so the anti-newton glass on top prevents this and will increase sharpness.
Ordinary glass will produce newton rings because the film clings to the glass were as the etching on anti-newton prevents this.
David.
http://davidalockwood.wordpress.com
egor
Member
David, Bob:
Been doing more analysis of the VueScan/SilverFast options with the Plustek. As mentioned previously, I've got about a decade's worth of experience with VueScan, but it's not working as expected with the 7600 (multi-exposure isn't working properly). Taking multiple exposures manually and merging in Photomatix Pro works (but is cumbersome).
SilverFast SE Plus was doing a better job of capturing a negative's entire dynamic range, BUT the SE version only lets you output scans with 8-bits of luminance (not 16, like VueScan).
I didn't know this prior to purchasing the product. If I had known, I would have purchased the Ai version.
For the benefit of David (who's doing his own analysis concurrent with mine) and Bob (who doesn't want his scans to look like they've been rolled in pepper), I can assure you the quality of 16-bit output is much better. SilverFast SE Plus will let us capture 16-bit HDR grayscale scans, but it won't let us output them at a full 16 bits of luminance. So, I downloaded a demo of SilverFast HDR, which I used to process and output 16-bit grayscale TIFF files from the data captured in SilverFast SE.
Here's an overview of the entire Tri-X image (ISO 1600, processed in Diafine):
Here's a 100% crop of SilverFast SE's output of a tiny section:
And here's the same section as output in 16bit from SilverFast HDR (Note that the demo version adds some watermarking to the image which isn't present in the SE version):
As you can see the gradations between shades of gray are much smoother with the 16bit HDR processed file, than the SE file... meaning it doesn't look "like it was rolled in pepper."
Bottom Line: I should have bought the 7600i Ai... it's MUCH cheaper than what ImageSoft charges to upgraded from SilverFast SE to SilverFast Ai.
Been doing more analysis of the VueScan/SilverFast options with the Plustek. As mentioned previously, I've got about a decade's worth of experience with VueScan, but it's not working as expected with the 7600 (multi-exposure isn't working properly). Taking multiple exposures manually and merging in Photomatix Pro works (but is cumbersome).
SilverFast SE Plus was doing a better job of capturing a negative's entire dynamic range, BUT the SE version only lets you output scans with 8-bits of luminance (not 16, like VueScan).
I didn't know this prior to purchasing the product. If I had known, I would have purchased the Ai version.
For the benefit of David (who's doing his own analysis concurrent with mine) and Bob (who doesn't want his scans to look like they've been rolled in pepper), I can assure you the quality of 16-bit output is much better. SilverFast SE Plus will let us capture 16-bit HDR grayscale scans, but it won't let us output them at a full 16 bits of luminance. So, I downloaded a demo of SilverFast HDR, which I used to process and output 16-bit grayscale TIFF files from the data captured in SilverFast SE.
Here's an overview of the entire Tri-X image (ISO 1600, processed in Diafine):
Here's a 100% crop of SilverFast SE's output of a tiny section:
And here's the same section as output in 16bit from SilverFast HDR (Note that the demo version adds some watermarking to the image which isn't present in the SE version):
As you can see the gradations between shades of gray are much smoother with the 16bit HDR processed file, than the SE file... meaning it doesn't look "like it was rolled in pepper."
Bottom Line: I should have bought the 7600i Ai... it's MUCH cheaper than what ImageSoft charges to upgraded from SilverFast SE to SilverFast Ai.
egor
Member
P.S. First time trying to post w/images. Don't know why these appear only as thumbnails, but you can click the image to open it full size (where the 8 vs 16-bit differences actually become apparent).
Bobonli
Established
Interesting stuff. So if I understand it correctly, the Ai version of the scanner comes with the more robust version of Silverfast, compared to the SE version...which appears to be more of an entry level version of the software according to the Silverfast site.
Price difference is about $100 buck at B&H. I hadn't even taken notice of the two different models until you pointed out the difference in software. Thank you.
Price difference is about $100 buck at B&H. I hadn't even taken notice of the two different models until you pointed out the difference in software. Thank you.