Vince Lupo
Whatever
I'm looking at both the Pacific Image Prime Film XA scanner and the Plustek 8200i. Are either one of these any good? Any preference?
I'm only interested in scanning 35mm negs, and hopefully making nice 11"x14" prints, if that's not asking too much of these scanners.
Any advice you can provide would be greatly appreciated!
I'm only interested in scanning 35mm negs, and hopefully making nice 11"x14" prints, if that's not asking too much of these scanners.
Any advice you can provide would be greatly appreciated!
noimmunity
scratch my niche
I haven't had a chance to use both of them, but decided on the RPS 10 M (what the XA is called in Europe) because of the possibility to scan a whole roll.
My experience with the XA has been limited so far because the one that I got had vertical banding similar to what looks like a dead pixel line. I sent it back for exchange and am waiting for a new one.
Although the XA can batch scan, you will inevitably have to redo some rolls or strips sometimes because the machine is very poor at automatically detecting frames. But really this isn't a problem, since you can just redo the scan at night.
The results that I could get from it in the two days that I played with it, barring the vertical line, were pretty good. Film curling seemed to be a problem on certain strips more than others, probably due to the type of film used. It is definitely capable of producing scans that can bring out more detail than what lab technicians were getting out of scans made on the same negatives using Fuji Frontier or Noritsu scanners. But I cannot yet endorse the machine since I haven't used it enough to figure out all of its quirks and a workflow, etc.
I used it with Vuescan and CyberView, the manufacturer's software. Didn't try Silverfast. Vuescan works better if you start up first with CyberView. In the end, I found it much easier to tame the scanner with CyberView then with Vuescan, but those results are again, like I said, inconclusive.
The XA has manual focus, which ought to be a huge advantage, but I couldn't see any difference within the focus parameters allowed by Vuescan. Cyberview is completely AF only. Another RFF member who used the scanner with Silverfast told me that he didn't find the manual focus on that any better than the results available from CyberView, and finally after much effort, just settled on using CyberView overall.
I used to have a Nikon Coolscan LS-5000. The XA has some design details that surpass that scanner. If everything worked as it should, it would be better, but as it is, I don't think so.
I think that http://www.filmscanner.info/ thinks that the XA is no better than the previous 7200 Pro model, but that one is hard to get and priced almost the same here in Europe. Scandig claims much better results with Silverfast, but I am skeptical of a German scanner site pushing German software.
Whichever one you get, get it from a place with a generous return policy in case you get a lemon.
My experience with the XA has been limited so far because the one that I got had vertical banding similar to what looks like a dead pixel line. I sent it back for exchange and am waiting for a new one.
Although the XA can batch scan, you will inevitably have to redo some rolls or strips sometimes because the machine is very poor at automatically detecting frames. But really this isn't a problem, since you can just redo the scan at night.
The results that I could get from it in the two days that I played with it, barring the vertical line, were pretty good. Film curling seemed to be a problem on certain strips more than others, probably due to the type of film used. It is definitely capable of producing scans that can bring out more detail than what lab technicians were getting out of scans made on the same negatives using Fuji Frontier or Noritsu scanners. But I cannot yet endorse the machine since I haven't used it enough to figure out all of its quirks and a workflow, etc.
I used it with Vuescan and CyberView, the manufacturer's software. Didn't try Silverfast. Vuescan works better if you start up first with CyberView. In the end, I found it much easier to tame the scanner with CyberView then with Vuescan, but those results are again, like I said, inconclusive.
The XA has manual focus, which ought to be a huge advantage, but I couldn't see any difference within the focus parameters allowed by Vuescan. Cyberview is completely AF only. Another RFF member who used the scanner with Silverfast told me that he didn't find the manual focus on that any better than the results available from CyberView, and finally after much effort, just settled on using CyberView overall.
I used to have a Nikon Coolscan LS-5000. The XA has some design details that surpass that scanner. If everything worked as it should, it would be better, but as it is, I don't think so.
I think that http://www.filmscanner.info/ thinks that the XA is no better than the previous 7200 Pro model, but that one is hard to get and priced almost the same here in Europe. Scandig claims much better results with Silverfast, but I am skeptical of a German scanner site pushing German software.
Whichever one you get, get it from a place with a generous return policy in case you get a lemon.
michaelwj
----------------
Hi Vince,
I'm currently using the Plustek 8100 and recommend it. Its small and easy. I've had no problems with it, except the software it comes with (SilverFast) is horrible. Switched the Vuescan and haven't looked back.
No experience with the Pacific though, it might be fantastic?
I'm currently using the Plustek 8100 and recommend it. Its small and easy. I've had no problems with it, except the software it comes with (SilverFast) is horrible. Switched the Vuescan and haven't looked back.
No experience with the Pacific though, it might be fantastic?
Vince Lupo
Whatever
Thanks for the replies -- yes, I've heard that the SilverFast isn't a great interface and that Vuescan is a better way to go.
Of course, the one number that jumps out at me is the '10,000 dpi optical resolution' that the Pacific Image claims -- not sure if it would actually give you that in practice.
Both scanners are priced about the same (around $450-$500), so perhaps it might be a tossup (BTW B&H is where I'd likely purchase it, and they are great about returns if there's an issue). But here is where I get a bit confused -- the Pacific Image PF120 Multi-Format scanner is $1400, and is capable of 3200 dpi and has a dynamic range of 3.6. The Prime Film XA is (supposedly) capable of 10,000 dpi and has a dynamic range of 4.2. So for the PF120, am I paying that extra $950 for the benefit of being able to scan medium format, or is it just a much better scanner than the Prime Film XA, even though the specs are supposedly lower?
Of course, the one number that jumps out at me is the '10,000 dpi optical resolution' that the Pacific Image claims -- not sure if it would actually give you that in practice.
Both scanners are priced about the same (around $450-$500), so perhaps it might be a tossup (BTW B&H is where I'd likely purchase it, and they are great about returns if there's an issue). But here is where I get a bit confused -- the Pacific Image PF120 Multi-Format scanner is $1400, and is capable of 3200 dpi and has a dynamic range of 3.6. The Prime Film XA is (supposedly) capable of 10,000 dpi and has a dynamic range of 4.2. So for the PF120, am I paying that extra $950 for the benefit of being able to scan medium format, or is it just a much better scanner than the Prime Film XA, even though the specs are supposedly lower?
noimmunity
scratch my niche
The 10,000 dpi on the XA is BS. It probably has an effective max of 3,900 dpi, but in order to get that you will have to scan at max resolution and then downsize the huge files. IN general, on any of these scanners, you will always get a better scan by scanning at the max possible and then downsizing. This is not according to my own testing, but I am persuaded by what others have done and shown (some in fact are here on RFF). But for doing just a quick contact sheet, the batch scans in lower resolution mode on the XA are incredibly fast and easy.
The D-Max on the XA (4.2) is really good--noticeably better than what the lab gives you with those Fuji/Nortisu scans of 135.
The PF120 was reviewed quite favorably on the review linked in my last post, but it is not as good for 135 as other options. It might be better, IMHO, to get a dedicated 135 scanner, and then figure out a dedicated 120 option, either an Epson flatbed with all the aftermarket stuff, or a used Coolscan 8000, if you've got the courage to buy a unit that is no longer serviceable (from what I've heard).
Silverfast has recently had a UI update, hasn't it? It might be a lot more user-friendly now. But it's awfully expensive. I think that you can download a trial version once you decide on your hardware.
noimmunity
scratch my niche
Hey Michael,
Sounds like a viable option.
The big difference I think comes with the batch scan capability of the XA. If that's not important, it probably doesn't make a lot of sense to pay the extra $$$. I've heard of quality issues with scanners from both makers--in fact, a lot more quality issues than is good for sound sleep at night.
I just pray that a really reliable excellent 135 scanner eventually comes one day into production...
Cheers,
Jon
Filzkoeter
stray animal
I use the cheaper version of the Plustek 8200i, the 8100. Main difference: the 8100 has no ICE and it's cheaper (1/2 of the cost). Otherwise it's the same scanner.
It's a great scanner, I love it. It's capable of real ~4000dpi (you have to scan at 7200dpi and downsize). But the difference between scanning at 3600dpi and 7200dpi is not really big and get's to 99% lost after downsizing (but scanning at 3600dpi is more then twice as fast).
It comes with bundled Silverfast... it's okay, but I'm using Vuescan.
EDIT: the 7200dpi setting is as far as I know not interpolated... so in theory the scanner is capable of real 7200dpi... in practice the optics only max out at around 4000.
It's a great scanner, I love it. It's capable of real ~4000dpi (you have to scan at 7200dpi and downsize). But the difference between scanning at 3600dpi and 7200dpi is not really big and get's to 99% lost after downsizing (but scanning at 3600dpi is more then twice as fast).
It comes with bundled Silverfast... it's okay, but I'm using Vuescan.
EDIT: the 7200dpi setting is as far as I know not interpolated... so in theory the scanner is capable of real 7200dpi... in practice the optics only max out at around 4000.
Vince Lupo
Whatever
So are you guys making prints with these scans? If so, are they capable of comparing favorably to a darkroom print?
Vince Lupo
Whatever
I have to say a big thanks to our friend Miko (Filzkoeter) here -- he sent me a full-sized 7200 dpi scan from his 8100. No adjustments, no sharpening, no nothing. Just straight from the scanner.
I printed it straight from the online link he sent me on 13"x19" Exhibition Fiber paper with my Epson 3880 (the image pretty well filled the entire sheet). Very nice! The image had that kind of 'soft sharpness' that one might expect to see from an ISO 400 35mm negative printed at this size, and the grain looked like real grain, and generally pretty darned good!
So maybe the Plustek is the way to go.
I printed it straight from the online link he sent me on 13"x19" Exhibition Fiber paper with my Epson 3880 (the image pretty well filled the entire sheet). Very nice! The image had that kind of 'soft sharpness' that one might expect to see from an ISO 400 35mm negative printed at this size, and the grain looked like real grain, and generally pretty darned good!
So maybe the Plustek is the way to go.
rhl-oregon
Cameras Guitars Wonders
Vince, I just bought an 8200 from Adorama's eekBay store for $315, compared to their $299 8100. NIB, returnable, etc. It'll be mostly for BW, but paying a slight premium for the occasional infatuation with Ektar seemed sensible. I studied the RFF threads on this extensively, being a timorous miser, and testimony is mostly positive for Plustek for 135, and find a different solution for 120. My friendly one-person lab uses a Plustek for 135, and an Epson 750 / liquid mount for 120 and beyond. He was in the one-hour development biz for many years, and I trust his experience.
jschrader
Well-known
I have a Reflecta RPS 7200, which is obviously the Pacific Imaging in Europe.
I am OK with the quality. You can see the grain (Delta 400 in D76, so not too much grain), and more resolution is not needed (I scan at 3.600 dpi).
I have been printing up to A3+ (~12 by 18'') and that is fine.
What I am not happy about is that the transport is not reliable. It should be able to transport frame by frame, but this works rarely. So typically, I scan either frame by frame (then, I can easily adjust manually) or I let it work automatically ("scan all") when I am sitting by the scanner. When I hear it transporting, I quickly check and correct, if needed.
(I do not shoot much, just hobby; so I do not need the perfect workfolw. Which surely do not have
)
I am OK with the quality. You can see the grain (Delta 400 in D76, so not too much grain), and more resolution is not needed (I scan at 3.600 dpi).
I have been printing up to A3+ (~12 by 18'') and that is fine.
What I am not happy about is that the transport is not reliable. It should be able to transport frame by frame, but this works rarely. So typically, I scan either frame by frame (then, I can easily adjust manually) or I let it work automatically ("scan all") when I am sitting by the scanner. When I hear it transporting, I quickly check and correct, if needed.
(I do not shoot much, just hobby; so I do not need the perfect workfolw. Which surely do not have
)noimmunity
scratch my niche
A quick follow up
A quick follow up
I received the replacement XA (RPS 10 M in Europe) today.
Initial use suggests it's a peach.
Batch scanning so far has been easy. Framing, no problemo.
No dead pixel lines or other banding that I can see, but it is still early.
I downloaded a demo of Silverfast SE Plus 8. Manifestly better than either Vuescan or CyberView X for this particular unit. The manual focus tool is very useful, and it really works compared to the stunted functionality of manual focus in Vuescan (completely non-existent in CyberView).
Costly, but I expect to purchase a key.
The XA has been tested capable of effective 4300dpi and a 4.2 Dmax.
High quality when needed plus batch scanning capability looks to make this a suitable solution for home use.
I made enough to buy a couple of really nice lenses by selling my Nikon Cooslcan LS-5000 and trading it for the XA, but some of that will go to buying Silverfast. The best thing is that as Nikon's service for the Coolscans fades into history, the Reflect RPS 10 M (Pacific Image XA) is new, under warranty, and serviceable if needed.
Hopefully the good news will continue.
A quick follow up
I received the replacement XA (RPS 10 M in Europe) today.
Initial use suggests it's a peach.
Batch scanning so far has been easy. Framing, no problemo.
No dead pixel lines or other banding that I can see, but it is still early.
I downloaded a demo of Silverfast SE Plus 8. Manifestly better than either Vuescan or CyberView X for this particular unit. The manual focus tool is very useful, and it really works compared to the stunted functionality of manual focus in Vuescan (completely non-existent in CyberView).
Costly, but I expect to purchase a key.
The XA has been tested capable of effective 4300dpi and a 4.2 Dmax.
High quality when needed plus batch scanning capability looks to make this a suitable solution for home use.
I made enough to buy a couple of really nice lenses by selling my Nikon Cooslcan LS-5000 and trading it for the XA, but some of that will go to buying Silverfast. The best thing is that as Nikon's service for the Coolscans fades into history, the Reflect RPS 10 M (Pacific Image XA) is new, under warranty, and serviceable if needed.
Hopefully the good news will continue.
Pioneer
Veteran
I have the Plustek 8200ai. Nice scanner and works better than my Epson for 35mm. It is slow though and only scans one frame at a time. If you are not in a big rush it is great.
Silverfast isn't that bad. I prefer Epson's UI to any of them, but once you get used to it Silverfast works fine.
Can't compare it with the Pacific Image as I don't use it.
Silverfast isn't that bad. I prefer Epson's UI to any of them, but once you get used to it Silverfast works fine.
Can't compare it with the Pacific Image as I don't use it.
Vince Lupo
Whatever
Right now it's still a tossup -- I am tempted by that 4.2 Dmax that the XA provides, but I'm also swayed by the generally favourable comments about the 8200ai that I've read here and elsewhere. So I'm back on the fence!
Just to confirm -- the Pacific Image doesn't use a 'film holder', does it? You just feed the negative strip right into the scanner, right?
Just to confirm -- the Pacific Image doesn't use a 'film holder', does it? You just feed the negative strip right into the scanner, right?
noimmunity
scratch my niche
No film holder required, Vince.
I would just repeat that the manual focus capability of the XA used with Silverfast puts it *way* ahead of the curve.
Batch scanning is huge plus, too.
Joe Vitessa
Well-known
The batch scanning makes this scanner more attractive than the Plustek for me, but many reviews state it doesn't actually work. Or work well.
It's a tough call...
noimmunity
scratch my niche
Yes, I've seen those, too.
I've also seen a lot of comments about how Silverfast is a nightmare, as well. But in the first hours of using the software on this machine, I can say that the results it has given me are MUCH better than what Vuescan and CyberView can give, solely because of the manual focus function.
With the Nikon Coolscan LS-5000, I always used Vuescan, and learned how to use it well. I've only had the XA for a very short time, so it is really too early to reach any definitive conclusions, but what I've seen so far has convinced me that I must eventually pay the price and buy a licensed copy of Silverfast (I'm only using a demo version right now).
I will say that the first machine I had (returned last week; see above) was not as smooth in use as the one I just received today. Batch scan framing on the new one has been fine.
michaelwj
----------------
Hi Vince,
I'd be wary of the claims they all make. Like Filzkoeter says, the Plustek claim 7200 dpi, but it really maxes out at ~4000. I find it better (less artefacts) at 3600 dpi. I fear the same about quoted Dmax values, which probably only comes into play if you are shooting slide film - I've never run into a Dmax limit scanning B&W on my 8100. AFAIK they're all using similar tech in the guts.
I think it may come down to batch vs no batch and if that matters. I average 1-2 rolls a week, and preview then all, but only actually scan the good ones (maybe 10%). I don't want to batch as I don't want to have the junk on my computer. I probably spend 30 min per roll (with a beer or glass of wine) in the evening per roll. Its quite relaxing.
Good luck with your choice.
noimmunity
scratch my niche
The advantage of Manual Focus
The advantage of Manual Focus
Let's reconsider that statement.
I'm reluctant to make definitive statements because it is so early in my use of the RPS 10 M (XA), but I'll share some preliminary findings.
Here are two scans of the same frame. The first is done by Silverfast SE Plus in demo mode, using manual focus. The second is done in Vuescan Pro using auto focus. Why use manual on one and auto on the other? Apples to oranges, you will say. The reason is because Vuescan's manual function only allows adjustment across a 2mm range, while Silverfast allows it over a 3mm range. In my preliminary testing, the Vuescan range is not sufficient for this scanner. To be fairer to Vuescan, I probably should show comparisons of MF and AF both using Silverfast, and then Vuescan, but I didn't save the results. (I only saved what were the best results from each software within the limitations of my experience and knowledge about each).
Silverfast MF Full Image by areality4all, on Flickr
VueScan Pro AF Full Image by areality4all, on Flickr
Here are two crops. Silverfast has internal profiles for Delta 400, which I used. On Vuescan, I made a scan as flat as possible, and added work in LR. Besides contrast and clarity sliders, the sharpening slider was also used on the Vuescan image, whereas none was applied on the Silverfast image.
Autofocus VueScan crop by areality4all, on Flickr
Manual Focus Silverfast crop by areality4all, on Flickr
By the way, that restaurant in Tainan, Taiwan, is famous for it's "Wah-gwhey" (Hokkienese pronunciation), a local delicacy of rice porridge steamed with pork fat and other goodies.
The advantage of Manual Focus
Let's reconsider that statement.
I'm reluctant to make definitive statements because it is so early in my use of the RPS 10 M (XA), but I'll share some preliminary findings.
Here are two scans of the same frame. The first is done by Silverfast SE Plus in demo mode, using manual focus. The second is done in Vuescan Pro using auto focus. Why use manual on one and auto on the other? Apples to oranges, you will say. The reason is because Vuescan's manual function only allows adjustment across a 2mm range, while Silverfast allows it over a 3mm range. In my preliminary testing, the Vuescan range is not sufficient for this scanner. To be fairer to Vuescan, I probably should show comparisons of MF and AF both using Silverfast, and then Vuescan, but I didn't save the results. (I only saved what were the best results from each software within the limitations of my experience and knowledge about each).
Silverfast MF Full Image by areality4all, on Flickr
VueScan Pro AF Full Image by areality4all, on Flickr
Here are two crops. Silverfast has internal profiles for Delta 400, which I used. On Vuescan, I made a scan as flat as possible, and added work in LR. Besides contrast and clarity sliders, the sharpening slider was also used on the Vuescan image, whereas none was applied on the Silverfast image.
Autofocus VueScan crop by areality4all, on Flickr
Manual Focus Silverfast crop by areality4all, on Flickr
By the way, that restaurant in Tainan, Taiwan, is famous for it's "Wah-gwhey" (Hokkienese pronunciation), a local delicacy of rice porridge steamed with pork fat and other goodies.
michaelwj
----------------
Interesting, I would like to see the VS autofocus results.
On the other hand, I've never had an issue with sharpness on the Plustek, the holder keeps on pretty steady. Do you have access to a Plustek (or another scanner) and of course time and the will to do further comparisons?
The other side of the coin is of course if you need/want batch scanning then the choice is obvious, regardless of focus.
On the other hand, I've never had an issue with sharpness on the Plustek, the holder keeps on pretty steady. Do you have access to a Plustek (or another scanner) and of course time and the will to do further comparisons?
The other side of the coin is of course if you need/want batch scanning then the choice is obvious, regardless of focus.