Plustek Opticfilm 120 Pro

I've been using the 120 since close to it's introduction, and just left a detailed message with their Technical Support help number concerning "lens Calibration". Callback pending.
 
Hmm, lens calibration? Scanning with a digicam does not need that. It uses AF to focus on the grain and works perfectly 100% of the time. With software like negativelabpro.com, I don't see the need for scanners and their headaches.
I was excited about the Plustek 120 years ago until I figured things out.
 
Huss said:
Hmm, lens calibration? Scanning with a digicam does not need that. It uses AF to focus on the grain and works perfectly 100% of the time. With software like negativelabpro.com, I don't see the need for scanners and their headaches.
I was excited about the Plustek 120 years ago until I figured things out.
Click to expand...


How long does it take you to "scan" 10 6x7 negatives from start to finish with your set up? And where does your final resolution top out at when you go for maximum level?
 
Using a DSLR is fine for viewing things on the web but it can't touch the raw output of a multiple pass scan from a dedicated negative scanner. A DSLR can't match the bit depth of what a negative scanner can do. The AF module of the camera focuses on the surface of the emulsion, not the grain. It doesn't have that resolution and it is mostly focusing on the acetate. Up close with the best AF macro lens you can find is still not good enough to pull out grain focusing because camera AF sensors don't have that resolution. They probably can't tell the difference between the thickness of one sheet of acetate and two. So you have a built in error which can be the whole film itself. If the camera had active IR AF, it might be able to get a little closer. Then you have the issue of vignetting because there are no true process lenses made which fit a DSLR and have AF. You're still better off focusing by eye. In a nutshell, scanning negatives that way is good enough for the web but if one is wed to a DSLR, it would be best to wet print then take the photo of the print itself. Far more detail is available that way.
Phil Forrest
 
Phil_F_NM said:
Using a DSLR is fine for viewing things on the web but it can't touch the raw output of a multiple pass scan from a dedicated negative scanner. A DSLR can't match the bit depth of what a negative scanner can do. The AF module of the camera focuses on the surface of the emulsion, not the grain. It doesn't have that resolution and it is mostly focusing on the acetate. Up close with the best AF macro lens you can find is still not good enough to pull out grain focusing because camera AF sensors don't have that resolution. They probably can't tell the difference between the thickness of one sheet of acetate and two. So you have a built in error which can be the whole film itself. If the camera had active IR AF, it might be able to get a little closer. Then you have the issue of vignetting because there are no true process lenses made which fit a DSLR and have AF. You're still better off focusing by eye. In a nutshell, scanning negatives that way is good enough for the web but if one is wed to a DSLR, it would be best to wet print then take the photo of the print itself. Far more detail is available that way.
Phil Forrest
Click to expand...

And I disagree with you completely. I scan with a digicam - Nikon d850 and now Z7 - see none of the issues you mention and print and sell huge prints from them.
The only thing I’ve seen better is from drum scanning.
 
I don't doubt you have shown and sold prints from these scans, I'm just saying a DSLR cannot resolve microscopic film grain unless you're using a microscope. No macro lens/sensor combinations exist which can pull the detail of film grain. Without a microscope you don't have that resolution available that a good film scanner gives. You'd get closer if you could stick the film right to the sensor and scan it like a contact print but thats not a thing either
Phil Forrest
 
Phil_F_NM said:
I don't doubt you have shown and sold prints from these scans, I'm just saying a DSLR cannot resolve microscopic film grain unless you're using a microscope. No macro lens/sensor combinations exist which can pull the detail of film grain. Without a microscope you don't have that resolution available that a good film scanner gives. You'd get closer if you could stick the film right to the sensor and scan it like a contact print but thats not a thing either
Phil Forrest
Click to expand...




Scanners cannot resolve grain properly either, that's why scanned film suffers from grain aliasing that makes the image look grainier than it actually is.


I did a quick test a few weeks ago by photographing a 35mm black and white negative with my Olympus OM-d E-M1 mark II with the 60mm f2.8 Olympus Macro lens. This is a 20mp camera.


I then scanned the film with my Nikon LS-8000 scanner. I had the film in the glass neg carrier from my scanner for both the scan and the digital photo.


There was virtually no difference in resolution between the two images. When my scanner finally dies, I'll just 'scan' my 35mm negs with the OM-D E-M1mkII.
 
Phil_F_NM said:
I don't doubt you have shown and sold prints from these scans, I'm just saying a DSLR cannot resolve microscopic film grain unless you're using a microscope. No macro lens/sensor combinations exist which can pull the detail of film grain. Without a microscope you don't have that resolution available that a good film scanner gives. You'd get closer if you could stick the film right to the sensor and scan it like a contact print but thats not a thing either
Phil Forrest
Click to expand...

It focuses on the grain. It resolves the grain. The results are spectacular.


Have you tried scanning film with a FF high rez DSLR?

d850 set up and Nikon 60mm macro lens:

Full image:


1:1 enlargement from the middle left corner. You can see strands of hair on the lady's face in the foreground. And see detail everywhere:



And this is with Fuji C200, not some high end film. Hand held at low light as the sun had set.
 
Phil_F_NM said:
I don't doubt you have shown and sold prints from these scans, I'm just saying a DSLR cannot resolve microscopic film grain unless you're using a microscope. No macro lens/sensor combinations exist which can pull the detail of film grain. Without a microscope you don't have that resolution available that a good film scanner gives. You'd get closer if you could stick the film right to the sensor and scan it like a contact print but thats not a thing either
Phil Forrest
Click to expand...

You can have as much resolution as you want using a DSLR or mirrorless. You simply stitch as many images as you desire. That said, a state of the art DSLR or mirrorless sensor wipes the floor with any flatbed scanner...using one image. Dynamic range is superior as well in the DSLR or mirrorless setup...think 15 stops. As far as resolving grain, I use live view 20x magnification, and I focus manually **on the grain. **. The fact that i can see grain in the 20x live view is proof that the camera can resolve the grain.
 
scan with a digicam is not an issue for quality results.
the (BIG) problem is the time needed to do this.
I usually setup my scanner in the evening with 2 strips of 35mm and then I go to bed, leaving the scanner to do its job.
 
luuca said:
scan with a digicam is not an issue for quality results.
the (BIG) problem is the time needed to do this.
I usually setup my scanner in the evening with 2 strips of 35mm and then I go to bed, leaving the scanner to do its job.
Click to expand...

It takes me 1/2 second per image. And I get pin sharp perfectly focused scans that are 8300x5500.
 
"Camera scanning" of 35mm is much more convenient than with medium format film. Many people state that all you need to do is to take multiple shots of 120 film and use stitching. Having tried my best with getting good results from "camera scanning" of medium format film, I would much prefer to have a medium format film scanner. So I am looking forward to the Plustek OpticFilm 120 PRO, hoping it will be an improvement to the first generation Plustek OpticFilm 120 scanners.
 
Huss said:
It takes me 1/2 second per image. And I get pin sharp perfectly focused scans that are 8300x5500.
Click to expand...

mmh I doubt about it. but kudos for you, I'm not as fast as you and I prefer to scan strips with a dedicated scanner (both 35 and 120)
 
bjolester said:
"Camera scanning" of 35mm is much more convenient than with medium format film. Many people state that all you need to do is to take multiple shots of 120 film and use stitching. Having tried my best with getting good results from "camera scanning" of medium format film, I would much prefer to have a medium format film scanner. So I am looking forward to the Plustek OpticFilm 120 PRO, hoping it will be an improvement to the first generation Plustek OpticFilm 120 scanners.
Click to expand...

I dont do any stitching. Using today’s hi rez ff cameras is waaay plenty.

The pic I posted above is an example of that. It is a pano shot which in essence makes it medium format on the long side. Single capture no stitching. I can print that huge.
 
Huss said:
I dont do any stitching. Using today’s hi rez ff cameras is waaay plenty.

The pic I posted above is an example of that. It is a pano shot which in essence makes it medium format on the long side. Single capture no stitching. I can print that huge.
Click to expand...

I understand that the 45 mp Nikon D850 is very suitable for film duping. My main DSLR is a 16 mp Pentax K-5iis, consequently I have to use stitching when scanning medium format film, resulting in a very time consuming and cumbersome method. The Pentax K-5iis is a wonderful camera, no need for me to "upgrade". Therefore I am searching for a medium format film scanner, maybe a second hand Nikon or Minolta, or possibly wait and see how the new Plustek OpticFilm 120 PRO turns out when it materialises.
 
I'm on a mailinglist by Plustek and got this mail a couple of days ago.



8gNsOgB.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom