Plustek Opticfilm 120 Pro

hanskerensky said:
Well, I did scan the Silverfast IT8 target, a 6x7cm color slide, both with and without Multi-Exposure. Frankly speaking I did not see and did not measure any differences in the 24-step greyscales present on the target scans.

Maybe I do something wrong ?
Perhaps I should scan in 48bit mode instead of 24bit mode ?
Maybe I should use a completely different target ?

I did measure in Photoshop Elements and see the grey scales in both scans go from the grey value 13% (step0, light) to 93% (step23, dark). No difference whatsoever.
Click to expand...
Isn't it primarily a color calibration? The grey scale is there to check it dosen't have any color tint? If all the colors are right then the grey scale are also right, namely plain black-white grey sacle without any color tint. Just a theory from my side..
 
rail said:
Isn't it primarily a color calibration? The grey scale is there to check it dosen't have any color tint? If all the colors are right then the grey scale are also right, namely plain black-white grey sacle without any color tint. Just a theory from my side..
Click to expand...


Yes, the IT8 target is for the color calibration of the scanner and in the standard delivery of the OF120 scanners.
But my guess is that the grey scale on it can be used to determine the darkest and lightest patches that can be differentiated and thus say something about the scanners dynamic range.


But maybe because the value i measure is in % I only have 100 steps. Will do some other scans in 48bit mode and see what happens.
 
48Bit scans performed. The PSE11 Histograms are still made when in 48bit mode but I had to convert to 24bit mode to publish the image.


Well, I cannot see any difference between the 2 scans, and neither do the Photoshop Elements histograms.


So this either means that the OF120 Pro is already good with a single scan pass

OR

that the Multi-Exposure feature just doesn't work at all.
When Multi-Exposure is selected the scanner does make a second pass at lower speed, so that part seems to work.





OpticFilm 120 Pro Multi Exposure Test (01) by Hans Kerensky, on Flickr
 
hanskerensky said:
Well, I cannot see any difference between the 2 scans, and neither do the Photoshop Elements histograms.
Click to expand...
I think all it shows is that the real life target that was photographed on the slide had not very wide brightness difference between its grey patches. I guess it was just paper print out placed on wall, lit and photographed. And we know paper has quite limited dr.

You need to test some dense slides, of real nature scenes, with deep shadows, to really see the benefit of ME, which I‘m almost sure will be present - at least that surely was my previous experience with an older plustek.
 
iliks said:
I think all it shows is that the real life target that was photographed on the slide had not very wide brightness difference between its grey patches. I guess it was just paper print out placed on wall, lit and photographed. And we know paper has quite limited dr.

You need to test some dense slides, of real nature scenes, with deep shadows, to really see the benefit of ME, which I‘m almost sure will be present - at least that surely was my previous experience with an older plustek.
Click to expand...


Actually the it8 target used is the one from Silverfast and is according to the international standard :
https://www.silverfast.com/show/it8-targets/en.html


I do measure in photoshop elements 11 the lightest part as being RGB value 248 / Greyvalue 3% and the darkest part as RGB value 5 / Greyvalue 98%. Guess these values are very good and no indication that Silverfast did photograph a print.


That said I agree with you that it would be worthwhile to do some testing with underexposed slides or overexposed negatives.
 
Hi! First thread or discussion that I find around this scanner. its been difficult to find information 🙂
anyway, I decided to get onboard and purchase it, it worked perfectly, goo speed and quality (tho a bit over-saturated, but this is something i need to change.)


But, after a couple of rolls the scanner started to fail, I cannot tell if it is the film holder or anything else but it makes a horrible noise and to not scan.
( https://youtu.be/C98THC42Ypo )

I hope this can be solved remotely by Plustek technicians.



Cheers!
 
hanskerensky said:
Just had a look at your video and that does not sound good at all !
Do you have this problem also with the other holders ?
If yes then I guess the scanner has to be send back to a Plustek service department 🙁
Click to expand...


Yeah, it was weird. it started out of nothing. after discussing it with Plustek technical support they said it was DOA. I went to the store and luckily was able to get a replacement, this weekend will test it with dozens of rolls to make sure it is ok.
 
Is this thread totally dead? OpticFilm 120 Pro have now been out for a while but no comments on it whatsoerver here....
 
Anyone have problems with the Pro and Vuecan on a Mac? I installed all of the drivers, etc., Silverfast works perfectly fine. No banding for now! 🙂. However, I got one 6x6 negative to scan correctly in Vuescan. On the next strip, Vuescan would preview the images just fine, but when scanning, it produces a smushed image taking up 1/8 of the frame and then the scanner starts making some horrible noise. I quit, restarted, restarted the scanner, etc. Again, when going back to Silverfast, everything works fine. But Silverfast is just HORRIBLE. I emailed Hamrick and waiting to hear back, but it appears that this has been a problem with Vuescan and the Opticfilm going back years, even before the Pro.

So far, the Pro creates absolutely wonderful scans. We'll see if it goes south, though.
 
I think I figured it out. Vuescan only seems to error if you attempt to crop the frame of the scan in any way in the program. If you have no crop, then it will scan just fine, but alot of extra out-of-frame space gets included. So far, so good.
 
davidde1000 said:
I think I figured it out. Vuescan only seems to error if you attempt to crop the frame of the scan in any way in the program. If you have no crop, then it will scan just fine, but alot of extra out-of-frame space gets included. So far, so good.
Click to expand...


Did you select the correct holder and did you set the preview area to maximum (crop tab) ?
 
Can I butt in and ask a maybe silly question. I've never owned a scanner but am interested in buying one in the next few months. The 120 pro is £2000 in the UK, the 8200I SE is about £340 on Amazon. The 8200 seems to have good specification including dust and scratch removal and as I'm retired I am not too worried if it takes a bit longer to scan the negatives. Can the experts please explain the advantages of the (much) more expensive machine ?
 
davidswiss said:
Can I butt in and ask a maybe silly question. I've never owned a scanner but am interested in buying one in the next few months. The 120 pro is £2000 in the UK, the 8200I SE is about £340 on Amazon. The 8200 seems to have good specification including dust and scratch removal and as I'm retired I am not too worried if it takes a bit longer to scan the negatives. Can the experts please explain the advantages of the (much) more expensive machine ?
Click to expand...

David - whereas the 8200 only scans 35mm negative strips and 35mm mounted slides, the 120 pro adds on top of that the possibility of scanning 120 roll film. Does this answer your question?
 
albireo said:
David - whereas the 8200 only scans 35mm negative strips and 35mm mounted slides, the 120 pro adds on top of that the possibility of scanning 120 roll film. Does this answer your question?
Click to expand...

Thank you. It answers it partly but I'm intrigued that the addition of hardware and software for 120 scanning really adds up to that difference in price ?

It has certainly answered me as far as what I'll be buying so thanks again.
 
davidswiss said:
Thank you. It answers it partly but I'm intrigued that the addition of hardware and software for 120 scanning really adds up to that difference in price ?

It has certainly answered me as far as what I'll be buying so thanks again.
Click to expand...
It's common when you step up to the 120 size the scanners become much more expensive.
 
davidswiss said:
Can I butt in and ask a maybe silly question. I've never owned a scanner but am interested in buying one in the next few months. The 120 pro is £2000 in the UK, the 8200I SE is about £340 on Amazon. The 8200 seems to have good specification including dust and scratch removal and as I'm retired I am not too worried if it takes a bit longer to scan the negatives. Can the experts please explain the advantages of the (much) more expensive machine ?
Click to expand...

Where can you buy the Opticfilm 120 Pro? That scanner was pulled from the market some time ago due to major quality problems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom