J. Borger
Well-known
Thanks ...this makes sense. I thought he refered to scanner focussing issues.
Photo_Smith
Well-known
Just looking on the larger one (3000px) in your Flickr account I noticed the poster in the centre front of the stage is sharp the one behind the singer is not, that with the sharp grain in the scan mean this is a camera focus point issue.
kanzlr
Hexaneur
brbo
Well-known
?! Why would he want to have a poster BEHIND the singer in focus?
The singer IS in focus.
XFer
-
I don't think so. A mechanical focus adjustment by way of an external wheel which acts on the carriage height would cost only a few dollars. Maybe 5% of the final price?
I did not write "autofocus" but "focus adjustment". Just to compensate once-in-a-while for offset issues (manifacture tolerances, wear, holder type, different season with different ambient temperature, etc.). You do a few scans with different wheel positions, you find the right height, and you're OK for some time (maybe even for the scanner's lifetime).
Fernando
XFer
-
It seems that your unit is working fine, I can't see any focus issue with your scanner.
If the grain is sharp without much unsharp masking, the scanner is in focus. Obviously, a sharp subject is another matter.
Fernando
louisb
Well-known
I don't want to troll but I have to say that so far I haven't seen results from this scanner which justifies a price which is four times the cost of an Epson V700, which to all practical intents and purposes is the only alternative at present for 120 scanning (and which I've been using for nearly two years with the 'betterscanning' holder and special glass).
Maybe a slight improvement but not the quality improvement I was expecting from a dedicated negative scanner. I can see a smoother rendition and possibly some slight improvement in sharpness but nothing quantum.
This is disappointing. Am I missing something?
LouisB
Maybe a slight improvement but not the quality improvement I was expecting from a dedicated negative scanner. I can see a smoother rendition and possibly some slight improvement in sharpness but nothing quantum.
This is disappointing. Am I missing something?
LouisB
Photo_Smith
Well-known
Er? surely you jest? The singer is out of focus, the poster behind out of focus; the point of focus is the poster in front of the singers.
Therefore the focus of the scanner is OK as the fault lies in the photographer focussing too close.
Not hard to understand!
rdocksey
Member
"...as the fault lies in the photographer..."
hey! let's not get personal
but seriously.. thanks for all the useful comments. I find it hard to tell from just looking at each picture if there is a clear fault or not.. the earlier post with the comparison against the Nikon made things crystal clear.
hey! let's not get personal
but seriously.. thanks for all the useful comments. I find it hard to tell from just looking at each picture if there is a clear fault or not.. the earlier post with the comparison against the Nikon made things crystal clear.
Ebertoni
Member
Hello Again, thanks for the positive attitude
Here we go with some tests.
I know that the Epson v750 is soft and for this reason i bought an Opticfilm 120, the tests i saw in the past were pretty good and the scans i see around (i.e. Fabio Ventura) are good, the grain is sharp enough for me and it is as i supposed it should be and honestly i'm more than upset.:bang:
here a crop from a 6x7 Pentax negative
and here you can check the big images
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/eptex4gwd0di5mm/RuD7Jo1Yml
Bye!
Here we go with some tests.
I know that the Epson v750 is soft and for this reason i bought an Opticfilm 120, the tests i saw in the past were pretty good and the scans i see around (i.e. Fabio Ventura) are good, the grain is sharp enough for me and it is as i supposed it should be
and honestly i'm more than upset.:bang:here a crop from a 6x7 Pentax negative
and here you can check the big images
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/eptex4gwd0di5mm/RuD7Jo1Yml
Bye!
Danlo
Established
I must say, that many of the results posted here look absolutely amazing in terms of resolution.. But I just bought the D600.. and now I have to live with the pain of not being able to afford the Plustek.. :'(
BOD
Member
here a crop from a 6x7 Pentax negative [/QUOTE said:
bwcolor
Veteran
I'm guessing that this will be done with a wet mount film holder and a price.
What would concern me is not that it is initially out of focus, but that after long use, the warranty lapses and the unit requires multiple service returns. I suppose by that time there will be a thread showing all of us how to make such an adjustment.
XFer
-
beezil
Established
A note here....
I have a Plustek120, and posted on the other "tricks, how-to" thread about two issues I was having. The first was a preview size and window issue. It seems the software was having trouble finding/recognizing the frame.
I was instructed to download the software directly from the plustek website, which I did. So far, so good.
Now, I also am having problems with focus. The mounted slides appear to be much worse than 6x6 and 6x7.
I will report that Mark Druziak and one of the engineers have contacted me, and has given me a list of things to check for him. This issue has certainly been given the attention it deserves, and these guys are as anxious to solve these problems as we are. I'm not trying to act as a spokesperson for Silverfast and Plustek, but I'd say it's doubtful that any of these folks have time to peruse the forums, and that anyone that is having problems with this scanner would do well to contact them directly. I am sure you will be given the same attention as I've gotten.
I did not get time during my busy weekend to verify and report on the things Mark and the engineer had inquired, but I will be providing those findings tonight.
One of those things was to send a comparative sampling, plustek120 vs. Nikon coolscan IV, but it will look exactly like the one Ebertoni has posted.
That's what my 120 looks like, the mounted slides are worse.
One possibilityt hat was offered was that some of us may have been shipped an early version of the film carriers.
more on that when I submit my findings and hear back from Plustek/silverfast
hanskerensky
Well-known
Mounted slides will allways be a problem with a fixed focus scanner. The mounts vary in thickness and so the position of the filmplane !
Saw this happen with my Nikon LS IV ED which thanks to his autofocus corrected that.
Saw this happen with my Nikon LS IV ED which thanks to his autofocus corrected that.
johnny.moped
Established
And seeing all these out-of-focus-problems I seriously doubt the great DOF the lens in this scanner is supposed to have.
philipus
ʎɐpɹəʇɥƃı&
Does anyone have access to both a 120 and, for instance, a Coolscan 8000 or 9000 and could post some comparisons? As a 9000 owner myself I looked to the 120 as a future replacement should my scanner break and Nikon refuse to service it. I think Bernhard (kanzlr) has one possibly? Or is this perhaps against the rules of the thread (apologies in that case).
gbpost
Newbie
I received my Opticfilm 120 last Thursday in Germany. It seems to be from the second batch and it also has a defective 35 mm filmholder. I scanned a 35 mm negative in the 35 mm holder and the 6 x 4,5 cm holder, the difference in sharpness is obvious, see attachment. The eye in the picture is unsharp by intention, the film grain is more visible in areas where the image itself is not sharp.
I contacted Plustek Germany tonight and asked for replacement of the defective 35 mm film holder.
Happy scanning
Guido
I contacted Plustek Germany tonight and asked for replacement of the defective 35 mm film holder.
Happy scanning
Guido
Attachments
hanskerensky
Well-known
Ok, so just out of curiosity i measured the filmplane height of 3 holders on my measurement bench with a micrometer with 0.01mm resolution. Measured on the edge were the film rests on at the position of a T crossing because there the material has the most stifness.
Results when i take the 6x9 holder as reference :
6x9 Holder 0
35mm Holder +0.03mm
6x6 Holder +0.04mm
This is quite a good result and surely not the cause of the approx. 0.6 mm focus error that i experience.
Results when i take the 6x9 holder as reference :
6x9 Holder 0
35mm Holder +0.03mm
6x6 Holder +0.04mm
This is quite a good result and surely not the cause of the approx. 0.6 mm focus error that i experience.