Plustek? Is it for real?

[IK13]

The advertised software resolution is 7200dpi and the 7500 series has a DMax of 3.5 (not that bad).

Is this for real? I mean software aside, how does it compare to the "king" Coolscan for example (with a REAL max resolution of 4000dpi and DMax around 4 if I'm not mistaken).

I also understand that it doesn't have auto or manual focus and it's basically fixed focus. How good is that?

 

[foto_fool]

I'm using the cheapo Plustek 7200 and feel it was $200 well-spent. The results have been quite satisfactory. I have never seen a side-by-side comparison with the output of a Coolscan. I recently got a flatbed Epson V-500 for medium format but have not tried to scan any 35mm on that unit for comparison to the Plustek.

I read somewhere that the real-world resolution on the Plustek was something like 3800 dpi. I don't know if it has auto-focus but it definitely does not have manual focus adjustment. The flim carriers are very average, but so far I don't feel like I need a "better" scanner. I'm not sure my eyes could discern differences in prints from scans at 3800 dpi and 3.5 Dmax and ones with 4000 dpi and 4.0 Dmax

 

[george1956]

The higher Dmax might be good for images that have a wide range of contrast. I think the Plustek came out in England first and does not have Mac Support. I'm wondering if it could be used on a Mac with Virtual PC for Mac software and Windows or Vista. It might be a good low priced scanner. I think there may be two models, one with Digital Ice and the lower priced one without, but I believe it has Silverfast software that might have a similar program.

 

[foto_fool]

Plusteks don't come with native Mac drivers. In another thread someone noted they were running the Plustek under dualboot on their Mac, but it would suck to have to buy Windows just to run a cheap scanner. Silverfast SE comes with the scanners and AFAIK it does have ICE. I upgraded to Silverfast Ai and don't regret it.

 

[amateriat]

Being a VueScan user (with a Minolta 5400), I checked out their site for info: VueScan does support the Plustek 7300 and 7500i scanners on the Mac, but requires SilverFast (presumably the bundled Ai version) to be installed first.

I rather doubted the 7200dpi rating in terms of optical/hardware resolution from the get-go with that Plustek model ("software resolution" sounds an awful lot like the "i" word that most manufacturers loathe mentioning), but for $200 it's probably not too bad a deal.


- Barrett

 

[goo0h]

Apparently they are now supporting the Mac:

http://www.photographyblog.com/index.php/weblog/comments/plustek_opticfilm_7500i_ai_se/

 

[pphuang]

Here's a review from Shutterbug, for what its worth. The review is generally positive.

 

[Prosaic]

I mean software aside, how does it compare to the "king" Coolscan for example (with a REAL max resolution of 4000dpi and DMax around 4 if I'm not mistaken).

Coolscan

Plustek


Source: http://www.filmscanner.info/PlustekOpticFilm7200.html

Effective dpi is rated 2900.

 

[M. Valdemar]

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/487000-REG/Pacific_Image_7250PRO3_PrimeFilm_7250Pro3_Film_Scanner.html

Look at this one. Very nice. My friend bought one to try and he reports it is excellent.

 

[foto_fool]

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Plustek-OpticFilm-7200i

This is the review that convinced me to cough up for the Plustek. I thought it did a good job of showing the strengths and weaknesses of the scanner. It's not a Coolscan, but at half the price I would not expect it to be. Here's a more recent review, that IMO is positive overall:

http://shutterbug.com/equipmentreviews/scanners_printers/0907plustek/index.html

 

[photobizzz]

I just recieved on a week ago ($189 at tigerdirect) and I like it. I am sure a scanner that costs 3X as much would be better but it works for me. It came with silverfast 6.5 and I would need to look at my software to be sure but I thought it came with mac drivers as well. I never scan at 7200 dpi, the file is somewhere near 350MB for each scan, wayyyyy to big. I keep it around 1200-1800 dpi and it is plenty big enought to print 8X10. The dust and scratch removal software kinda sucks in silverfast though. I am thinking about getting something else. I personally dont mind the silverfast by itself though, although I have nothing to compare it to.

 

[myoptic3]

Thanks Prosaic for posting the comparison scans of the Nikon vs the Plustek (sounds like some sort of dental tool or something). I was hoping to use one of these for B&W negs, but the sample here clearly shows loss of detail. Look at the cloud. It has lost all of it's tones. I doubt it would be recoverable in levels in PS either. Makes no sense to use great lenses and great film only to lose so much of the native neg information due to your scanner. A new Nikon is only around $550, and used ones can be got for $400 and up, so the minimal amount of savings in money doesn't seem to be worth it. In this case you seem to get what you pay for. The one caveat I have w/ the comparison scans is that I wonder if the contrast hasn't been set too high in the Plustek, or if the lack of tonal range is due to the poorer Dmax rating compared to the Nikon. I also wonder if you could turn the contrast down in the software and get a more detailed scan. In the end, I may buy one after all and tweak it to see how it compares to my previous Coolscan scans in B&W. If it fails, it goes on ebay and I haven't spent too much.

 

[photobizzz]

This is a scan at 1200 DPI and resized in PS from my R3A/50/2 Cron on Kodak BW400CN.

 

[pphuang]

This is a scan at 1200 DPI and resized in PS from my R3A/50/2 Cron on Kodak BW400CN.

Nice. The shutterbug review talks about how the machine does a good job dealing with film grain (less aliasing problems, perhaps because of sensor size/pixel pattern?), unlike other scanners where the grain can be over-accentuated. Do you find this to be an accurate assessment?

 

[photobizzz]

I dont have any problems with grain, only scratches (and the repair) but that is due to shotty developing by the only option I have here in Iraq. I have gone as far as to only let them develop the film, I take it from them in one long strip and cut it myself to avoid as many scratches as I can, but we are in the desert. I know my camera is clean as I only open it inside and use compressed air to blow it out periodically anyway. I have only seen a bit of grain in the sky of a few scans, but not too bad.

 

[juno_lau]

i want to buy a scanner
and i am targeting on the Epson V500
but the Plustek 7300 and the V500 are about the same price
can someone give me some opinion about which one to buy?

i will mainly scan 135 film
but may also scan other format if i get the v500

* this is the 1st film scanner for me

thanks

 

[photobizzz]

I bought the $200 Plustek 7200, cant comment on the 7300 or the V500.

 

[varjag]

Most of the shots in my blog and my RFF gallery were scanned with Plustek 7200. When it was new, in a mag test they scanned a target and found the true resolution in ballpark of 3800 dpi.

 

[Marsopa]

I have the 7200i, on the other side I don't have time to use it, just 10-15 scans up to now, here is one made quickly for the thread (Ilford XP2):

 

[foto_fool]

I was hoping to use one of these for B&W negs, but the sample here clearly shows loss of detail. Look at the cloud. It has lost all of it's tones. I doubt it would be recoverable in levels in PS either. Makes no sense to use great lenses and great film only to lose so much of the native neg information due to your scanner.

OK I should probably have left this at my last post, but IMO the comparison in the German review is just pure s**t. The guy obviously had an agenda, or maybe a hard-on for the Nikon. Or perhaps - he just had a single bad example of the Plustek to work with.

Whatever - so far as I can tell the clouds in the Plustek image in that review simply indicate a bad job of tweaking scan settings - not any inherent limitation of the scanner itself. Look in the other reviews or in any of the Plustek scans that have been posted to this site and you will see that the loss of detail in the cloud in that one picture is anomalous - to put it in the best light (no pun intended) - not to say just amateurish.

The reviewer suggests that the lower Dmax of the Plustek is to blame for the loss of detail in the clouds. This is just not the case. AFAIK lower Dmax leads to loss of shadow detail in the darkest areas - not the lightest.

Digitization is by definition a lossy process, and even the best drum scanners lose some information present on the negative. The question each of us have to answer for ourselves is - "how much do I need to spend to do what I want to do?" For me the answer was $500 for two scanners (Plustek and Epson V500) rather than one. Someone else's answer may be different.