rjstep3
Established
I agree with you about the slow process using a scanner like the 7600i.
I got the Plustek 120 and I have always been sort of disappointed with it: the software is terrible, and you need to use Vuescan, which is much better though still not exactly what you would call user-friendly. I suppose the real complaint is that I was expecting my scans to improve in some sort of quantum leap and, compared with an Epson 700, they are not. The only discernible difference is that the 120 really gets the grain out of a scan, whereas the V700 is just a creamy texture.
I am not sure I would buy a 120 again. In fact, looking at bits of the lengthy review someone posted in the thread above, the Epson 850 is not that bad, and not at all bad in comparison with the Plustek 120. So I might go back to using the V700 - the process is much faster overall and the results (which is what it is all about) are good, especially if you use some proper film holders rather than the ones supplied by Epson.
I got the Plustek 120 and I have always been sort of disappointed with it: the software is terrible, and you need to use Vuescan, which is much better though still not exactly what you would call user-friendly. I suppose the real complaint is that I was expecting my scans to improve in some sort of quantum leap and, compared with an Epson 700, they are not. The only discernible difference is that the 120 really gets the grain out of a scan, whereas the V700 is just a creamy texture.
I am not sure I would buy a 120 again. In fact, looking at bits of the lengthy review someone posted in the thread above, the Epson 850 is not that bad, and not at all bad in comparison with the Plustek 120. So I might go back to using the V700 - the process is much faster overall and the results (which is what it is all about) are good, especially if you use some proper film holders rather than the ones supplied by Epson.
lawrence
Veteran
Just to say that in the end I bought a Minolta Elite 5400 for 35mm scans and continue to use the V750 for 120. I simply don't do enough 120 to justify the cost of the Plustek and for 35mm the Minolta is excellent (much better than my previous Nikon Coolscan IV). As for software, I tried Vuescan but after much experimentation found that I get better results with Silverfast. Note that there is a huge difference between the bundled version of Silverfast that came with the V750 (which is horrible) and the latest version, which is available on their web site.
Kamph
Established
Just chiming in to say that I'm one of the happy Plustek 120 owners who hasn't experienced any problems. Mine has been working perfectly right from the start. I get much sharper scans than with the Epson scanners I had used before and a bit more DR too. Silverfast was admittedly a bit annoying in the beginning but updates to the software have since fixed the problems I had. The Plustek 120 and SF isen't slow by any means. A 5300 PPI scan of a 6x7 negative takes 2.45 min. including SF processing - how is that slow? My drum scanner takes well over 10 min. doing the same.
Ted Striker
Well-known
I am also very pleased with my Plustek OpticFilm 120. I just had a scanning session yesterday with it. It's nearly 3 years old and has performed flawlessly.
ptpdprinter
Veteran
I tried EsponScan, Silverfast, and Vuescan with an Epson V700 and Pacific Image Prime Film XE, and, while each is adequate, they all leave a lot to be desired. Without any meaningful demand oor competition among scanning software, I don't expect any significant improvements, so we are left with making do with what we have.
lawrence
Veteran
It would be interesting to know in what ways you find them lacking.
ptpdprinter
Veteran
The user interface primarily. Like I said, they all get the job done once you figure them out.
Ted Striker
Well-known
I wish Apple made scanning software. Their approach to user interface is sorely needed in the scanning world. I loathe SilverFast with every cell in my body.
Pioneer
Veteran
I have looked at both the Plustek Optic Film 120 and the Epson V800/850 longingly for some time but always have trouble shelling out the dollars for either of them.
I find that my old Epson V500 still handles all my 120 and 4x5 (with photo stitching) scanning needs while my old Optic Film 7600i does a really good job with 35mm though it is glacially slow to operate.
But now that I have read the write up on the Epson V850 that was linked I may begin to get more serious about one of these instead.
My primary problem with any of the flatbed scanners is how much desktop real estate they occupy. But, the 850 does sound promising.
I find that my old Epson V500 still handles all my 120 and 4x5 (with photo stitching) scanning needs while my old Optic Film 7600i does a really good job with 35mm though it is glacially slow to operate.
But now that I have read the write up on the Epson V850 that was linked I may begin to get more serious about one of these instead.
My primary problem with any of the flatbed scanners is how much desktop real estate they occupy. But, the 850 does sound promising.
ptpdprinter
Veteran
If you do spring for a V850, don't give up your Optic Film 7600i for 35mm film. It would be a step backwards.
Ted Striker
Well-known
Still no sign of a new, improved OpticFilm 120.
rjstep3
Established
I think the question is what "premium" they are going to charge for the new OpticFilm 120, the last one was expensive enough!
olifaunt
Well-known
I have the Minolta 5400 but a big problem with it are the flimsy holders that don't flatten the film, so often not all of the frame can be clearly in focus. May I ask if you found a workaround for this?
The in-focus part of the image is comparable to a drum scan so that is impressive (though at high res very very slow).
lawrence
Veteran
I don't have this problem at all, the image is sharp corner to corner. In fact the holder is the best I've used because it has bars between each frame that help to keep the film flat (see photo).
One thing to bear in mind is that there are two versions of the 5400 and the Mk.1, which I have, uses a cold cathode light source whereas the Mk.2 uses LEDs and personally I prefer a diffuse light source. Is it possible that you have the Mk.2 and that the holders are different? Alternatively, maybe you haven't noticed the two little tabs on the inside top that you need to slip the film under?
