Plustek or Pacific Image?

michaelwj said:
Interesting, I would like to see the VS autofocus results.
Click to expand...

The image above from VS is autofocus, so I guess that you must mean manual focus. I need to finish a couple of articles that have deadlines, but your suggestion sounds like a fun project, so I'll try to do it as soon as I have a real break.

michaelwj said:
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?
Click to expand...

I don't have access here to any Plustek models, and, in any case, I don't have the stomach to do that kind of comparison, which could lead to all kinds of consumer wars. LOL! But your idea is totally legitimate, and I'm sure that eventually somebody else with access to both will do that. Of course, we could refer to the tests done at http://www.filmscanner.info/FilmscannerRangliste.html , which show results that rank the XA significantly ahead of the Plustek models, but one could always suspect different sources of different biases.
 
I don't think that batch scanning is the make-or-break for me. Like Michael, I'll probably shoot 1-2 rolls per week (hopefully!) and will scan only those photos that I think are to my liking. For me, what it comes down to is which scanner produces the best scans for making 11"x14" prints, and which scanner is going to last for a few years without causing me ongoing issues.
 
I have since 2012 the Plustek 8200i and am happy with it. This scanner is the same model as the Plustek 7600, but with Silverfast 8.

Reflecta scanners often have many problems over time. This is something that can be read through the forums. The Plustek 8200i is a proven scanner and a safe purchase.

There is a group on flickr dedicated to this scanner where one can take a look of what it offers in terms of quality scan.
 
Red John said:
Reflecta scanners often have many problems over time.
Click to expand...

So do Nikon ones.
If durability were my primary concern, I would definitely consider a Pakon F135+.

Red John said:
This is something that can be read through the forums. The Plustek 8200i is a proven scanner and a safe purchase.
Click to expand...

Actually, one of the reasons that tipped my decision towards the Reflecta RPS 10 M was because of private correspondance with a member who had had access to both machines. But to be honest, as soon as my first Reflecta delivered a week ago turned out to be defective, I instantly knew that I would gladly take a Plustek model if the second example of the Reflecta had some problems, too.

As to what conclusive message can be gleaned from "the forums": What I've seen is that scanners from all makers have quirks, problems, and niggles, and that the only "safe purchase" is the one covered by warranty. Other than that, I don't think that the forums bear out any conclusive evidence about which is definitively better. Even the authoritative tests done by http://www.filmscanner.info/FilmscannerRangliste.html that show the Reflecta ranking well ahead of the Plustek do not cover all possible parameters for making a reasoned decision. The only other conclusion that I've garnered perusing on-line discussions and evaluations, is that many often look at gear in terms of "winning and losing", which to my mind is a REALLY big distraction from photography.
 
Well I took the plunge -- the Plustek 8200i. Believe it or not, I did initially order the Pacific Image scanner, and I got it two days ago. However, it seemed so 'buggie' and the automatic loading was so finicky, that I gave up in frustration and sent it back (if I was having issues right off the bat, I couldn't see myself enduring two more years of it). The Plustek arrived today, and already I like it infinitely better than the PrimeFilm. Plus, I might be some kind of weirdo, but I actually like the SilverFast software (I do also have the Vuescan software, so at least I have the possibility of switching if I so choose). I'm one of those people who likes all the options, and after having only worked with it for 10 minutes, it seems pretty straightforward.

I'll try to post some scanning results once I get the hang of all the options, but for now I'm a happy camper. Many thanks for all who weighed in here.
 
First scan!


Elijah by Vince.Lupo, on Flickr

So now let me ask -- what's the deal with 'wet' scanning? Is that to reduce dust and scratches, much like 'nose grease' in the darkroom? If so, what is the 'wet' scanning liquid that you use? Is it wise to use it with the Plustek?
 
looks good.
i had a "what if" moment - what if my LS-50 does not survive my next move (moving back to germany)?

this thread came in time ...
 
It's working out quite well, and I am actually liking the SilverFast software. Yes there are a lot of adjustments that one needs to consider with that software, but some of it you don't necessarily need to readjust from neg to neg, and I think it gives the user a lot of control. It's not at all hard to work with.
 
Vince Lupo said:
It's working out quite well, and I am actually liking the SilverFast software. Yes there are a lot of adjustments that one needs to consider with that software, but some of it you don't necessarily need to readjust from neg to neg, and I think it gives the user a lot of control. It's not at all hard to work with.
Click to expand...

Hey Vince, glad to hear that things are working out for you, finally! The second image that you posted looks very well scanned.

I don't understand the part in an earlier post about the finicky auto loading on the XA. I load it up, then do a manual spacing adjustment on the first frame. (But I did have problems with my first unit, as I had mentioned earlier in the thread. Second one is peachy).

The great strength of Silverfast in my preliminary usage is a MUCH better implementation of manual focus.
 
I think one of the issues I was having was with some negs that were slightly curved (it didn't like that), and that it tended to overshoot the frame, and then when you pushed 'reverse' it would overshoot it again and so forth. After going through that about a half-dozen times I finally threw in the towel and sent it back. I determined that I really don't need the batch-scanning option, and the Plustek is better for my particular workflow. So that's about the way it turned out, in a nutshell.
 
Hi Vince,

I bought the Plustek 8200i / Siverfast 8 SE bundle just about the time you started this thread. I had a Nikon 35mm scanner years ago, but found the autofeed very prone to framing errors. So the manual film holder approach is a step forward for me.

Using the USAF scanner target, I concluded that the Plustek produces a max resolution of about 4000 ppi. That's really very usable for prints up to 18" wide.

For my film work, I shoot BW exclusively. In terms of workflow, I have settled on using Silverfast to save a '16 bit HDR' image (in their terminology). This a straight scan of the negative, with no processing (other than setting a Gamma of 2.2 in the options). The result requires some work in post, but the big advantage is that you have a 16 bit grayscale file to work with - which gives you 65,536 levels of gray. So you can push the file very hard. The results are very satisfying.

If you don't go the HDR approach, then what is saved is an 8 bit grayscale file. This limits your post-processing options.

I tend to scan only the best few from a roll of film, so this labour-intensive workflow makes sense for my purposes. YMMV.

Cheers,
Kirk
 
KEH said:
Hi Vince,

I bought the Plustek 8200i / Siverfast 8 SE bundle just about the time you started this thread. I had a Nikon 35mm scanner years ago, but found the autofeed very prone to framing errors. So the manual film holder approach is a step forward for me.

Using the USAF scanner target, I concluded that the Plustek produces a max resolution of about 4000 ppi. That's really very usable for prints up to 18" wide.

For my film work, I shoot BW exclusively. In terms of workflow, I have settled on using Silverfast to save a '16 bit HDR' image (in their terminology). This a straight scan of the negative, with no processing (other than setting a Gamma of 2.2 in the options). The result requires some work in post, but the big advantage is that you have a 16 bit grayscale file to work with - which gives you 65,536 levels of gray. So you can push the file very hard. The results are very satisfying.

If you don't go the HDR approach, then what is saved is an 8 bit grayscale file. This limits your post-processing options.

I tend to scan only the best few from a roll of film, so this labour-intensive workflow makes sense for my purposes. YMMV.

Cheers,
Kirk
Click to expand...

Kirk, just a question about Silverfast. In order to use the 16 bit HDR file, I thought that it was necessary to do the conversion in Silverfast HDR 8 (a separate application). Does that come with Silverfast 8 SE Plus? If not, how are you making the conversion?
Jon

(I started a separate thread to discuss my experience with the Pacific Imaging XA).
 
Jon,

What the HDR scan does is just send a raw scan of the negative to disk. So you have to open the resulting file in PhotoShop, invert the image, set it to Gamma 2.2 using an exposure layer (if you forgot to do that at scan time), then use a levels layer to 'spread' the histogram. At that point you have a rather bright positive to work with. This all works fine because you have 65,536 levels of gray to work with.

The silverfast HDR application, as far as I can tell, takes the same input file and lets you apply the standard set of Silverfast image adjustments (including the NegFix conversion) after the fact.

Again, my workflow only works for BW - you really need the NegFix magic for colour negs because the films are so hugely variable in their characteristics.

Cheers,
Kirk

noimmunity said:
Kirk, just a question about Silverfast. In order to use the 16 bit HDR file, I thought that it was necessary to do the conversion in Silverfast HDR 8 (a separate application). Does that come with Silverfast 8 SE Plus? If not, how are you making the conversion?
Jon

(I started a separate thread to discuss my experience with the Pacific Imaging XA).
Click to expand...
 
Thanks, Kirk. I tried that out and it works well. Good to know in case I decide to get Silverfast. In my demo testing, it can be much easier with certain B&W negatives to manual focus using Silverfast as opposed to Vuescan. Awesome.
 
I've been using Vuescan lately, and I'm trying to figure out which settings will give me the best result for b+w negs.

I am currently saving them as RAW files (dng), and I've tried both the 48-bit RGB and the 64-bit RGBI settings. Is there in fact a difference? Or should I be trying another, better option?
 
I found this thread during a Google search and I happened to be considering the exact same two scanners - Pacific Image Prime Film XA scanner or Plustek 8200i Ai. I wonder if anyone could provide an update on their experience.

I have come to the conclusion that the main issue is reliability. I believe either scanner will do the job for me but how reliable have they been?

Also where were they purchased and what is your experience with the way returns and exchanges were handled.

Thanks
Tony
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Planning on getting my first medium format camera; need help with scanning!
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
Godfrey
Godfrey
Chriscrawfordphoto
Plustek Scanner Problems
Replies
6
Views
2K
JohnWolf
JohnWolf
froyd
New Pacific Image scanner?
Replies
19
Views
4K
jzagaja
J
Chriscrawfordphoto
Good Develop and Scan Lab For Color Negs
Replies
5
Views
1K
wlewisiii
W
J
  • Article Article
Movie Film to Digital Video Conversion: What you need depends upon your priorities and pocketbook!
Replies
6
Views
1K
EarlJam
E
Back
Top Bottom