kanzlr
Hexaneur
I just use it. not every day as I do not have time to shoot that much, but I use it regularly and I am very happy with the results. I just need Vuescan support to arrive to be in scan heaven 🙂
The OFFICIAL Plustek 120 post your scans
- Thread starter beezil
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 757
- Views 214K
rdocksey
Member
I've been using it regularly until tonight when it appears to have crapped itself. when I power it on it emits a loud buzz and silverfast is unable to operate it.
tried a few obvious things (e.g. rebooting, removing power cable etc) but nothing work so far.
will let you know how I get on with plustek support...
tried a few obvious things (e.g. rebooting, removing power cable etc) but nothing work so far.
will let you know how I get on with plustek support...
vytasn
Established
I had the same problem with the loud buzzing/alarm like noise that would not go away in my first week. This may sound crazy, but the way I solved it was by unplugging it and then I turned it upside down to look if it had a reset button anywhere on the bottom, there was none, but when righted it again, plugged it back in, and fired it up the buzzing noise had stopped and all was good again. Obviously something rejigged itself when I turned it upside down. Sorry if this doesn't sound like a very technical explanation, I have no idea what happened but it is scanning again.
smilem
Established
fventura could you post the scan with new firmaware you had on post 113, http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2067974&postcount=113
This is very bad news, the scanner seems unreliable if it breaks the first month it is being used. No more can anyone claim it is as durable as Nikon, lemmons happen anywhere but we can't consider this a lemmon it worked fine.
This is very bad news, the scanner seems unreliable if it breaks the first month it is being used. No more can anyone claim it is as durable as Nikon, lemmons happen anywhere but we can't consider this a lemmon it worked fine.
gmikol
Member
New RFF member here. Even though I don't own a rangefinder.....this seems to be where all the Plustek 120 discussion is.
Looking at Guido's (gbpost) scan results, they look pretty good. Guido, based on the cyan dots, it looks like it is a film-based USAF 1951 target. Is this correct? Did it come from Lasersoft (Silverfast) or somewhere else?
I have my doubts about using a film-based target to accurately measure this high of a resolution. It may actually understate the resolution to some extent. I think I read that the Lasersoft targets are shot on Agfa RSX 50, but take a look at the MTF curve of any slide film, and note where it is around 104 lp/mm (5300 dpi equivalent). The film itself isn't accurately recording the test chart at that high of a spatial frequency.
Anyway, I wanted to share that thought, and note that my 120 arrived badly out of focus. The folks at Plustek USA were helpful in trying to diagnose the issues, and it ultimately went back to them. The repaired or new (not sure which, yet) Plustek 120 should be on it's way back to me from Plustek today or tomorrow.
--Greg
scottyb70
Well-known
Please post some results when you get it back.
gbpost
Newbie
Hi Greg,
the target is from Lasersoft and it seems to be film based. It came as mounted 35mm slide and I could easily unmount it. But it is not made from 35 mm film as it has no perforation on its sides.
I agree that for a measurement of the scanner's resolution the target must be much better than the scanner. My aim with this target was to compare the resolution between different settings or different film holders. You can see the result with the holder for 35 mm film.
My scanner will be replaced due to the delay in working of the green and red channels. I will compare the resolutiuon of the new unit with the old one using the target and hope for no focus problems.
Happy scanning
Guido
the target is from Lasersoft and it seems to be film based. It came as mounted 35mm slide and I could easily unmount it. But it is not made from 35 mm film as it has no perforation on its sides.
I agree that for a measurement of the scanner's resolution the target must be much better than the scanner. My aim with this target was to compare the resolution between different settings or different film holders. You can see the result with the holder for 35 mm film.
My scanner will be replaced due to the delay in working of the green and red channels. I will compare the resolutiuon of the new unit with the old one using the target and hope for no focus problems.
Happy scanning
Guido
smilem
Established
Good to hear that it will be replaced, seems like plustek did a bad soldering job obviously using the crap ROHS solder.
hanskerensky
Well-known
Greg, that's an interesting point ! What kind of target would you advise, maybe a glass target ?
gmikol
Member
A glass target is what I own. I bought it from Edmund Optics in the US. They are quite expensive now, almost US$160. It has markings up to Group 7, Element 6 (228 lp/mm) that are clearly visible under 50x magnification.
Another option, if you can find one, is a target shot onto high-resolution litho film or microfilm. Since there need to be no shades of gray in this particular target (USAF 1951), a high-contrast film would work. Maybe not quite as high resolution as the glass target, but should be better than the color reversal film it appears that silverfast is using. I would imagine it would also be less expensive.
The problem (aside from affordability) with a glass target is that the markings are on one face of the glass, and therefore not at the right plane of focus when put into the slide carrier. It would be like having film mounted to the outside of a slide mount. The self-centering design of the Plustek carrier makes it very hard to try and shim it to the proper height. It is physically the right size, though (2" square), so it will fit into anything designed to take a mounted slide. Not a problem for auto focus scanners, but an issue for a fixed-focus scanner.
Another option for measuring the resolution would be to calculate the spatial frequency response from a slanted-edge target. This sort of target is easy to make. You can take a double-edge razor blade (approx. 0.007" thick, and glue it into a slide mount (where the film would go), with it tilted at an angle of approximately 5.74 degrees (a 1:10 rise:run ratio). Make the scan, and then use Imatest, QuickMTF or ImageJ with the slanted-edge MTF plugin, to analyze the image.
--Greg
Another option, if you can find one, is a target shot onto high-resolution litho film or microfilm. Since there need to be no shades of gray in this particular target (USAF 1951), a high-contrast film would work. Maybe not quite as high resolution as the glass target, but should be better than the color reversal film it appears that silverfast is using. I would imagine it would also be less expensive.
The problem (aside from affordability) with a glass target is that the markings are on one face of the glass, and therefore not at the right plane of focus when put into the slide carrier. It would be like having film mounted to the outside of a slide mount. The self-centering design of the Plustek carrier makes it very hard to try and shim it to the proper height. It is physically the right size, though (2" square), so it will fit into anything designed to take a mounted slide. Not a problem for auto focus scanners, but an issue for a fixed-focus scanner.
Another option for measuring the resolution would be to calculate the spatial frequency response from a slanted-edge target. This sort of target is easy to make. You can take a double-edge razor blade (approx. 0.007" thick, and glue it into a slide mount (where the film would go), with it tilted at an angle of approximately 5.74 degrees (a 1:10 rise:run ratio). Make the scan, and then use Imatest, QuickMTF or ImageJ with the slanted-edge MTF plugin, to analyze the image.
--Greg
hanskerensky
Well-known
Thanks Greg. Very useful information !
When searching for USAF 1951 glass targets i also found a shop called Amoyca. But the price there is also steep, $ 129,--. Guess i have to study the theory behind the slanted-edge target a bit more as that sounds like a cheaper option.
When searching for USAF 1951 glass targets i also found a shop called Amoyca. But the price there is also steep, $ 129,--. Guess i have to study the theory behind the slanted-edge target a bit more as that sounds like a cheaper option.
bwcolor
Veteran
Why not share the cost of a target.. or rent it out?
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I was very keen to get this scanner immediately but Oz is a long way from the supplier and getting one with a problem would be frustrating.
When focus and reliability issues are settled ... for sure because I think the potential is there.
When focus and reliability issues are settled ... for sure because I think the potential is there.
gmikol
Member
SURF
Member
Hi Guido,
the scans are very interesting and the results are higher than I expected. But if the focus will be perfect we can expect even better results. From my experience to get that perfect focus will not be an easy thing cause one has to make steps of about 30um and keep the found position rock stable all times after.
As is it scanes on pair with Nicon 9000 and can scan better.
Also I noticed a misregistration of the blue channel (rather small though).
I agree. No advantage at all scanning 10600 dpi.
Best luck
Al
the scans are very interesting and the results are higher than I expected. But if the focus will be perfect we can expect even better results. From my experience to get that perfect focus will not be an easy thing cause one has to make steps of about 30um and keep the found position rock stable all times after.
As is it scanes on pair with Nicon 9000 and can scan better.
Also I noticed a misregistration of the blue channel (rather small though).
I agree. No advantage at all scanning 10600 dpi.
Best luck
Al
smilem
Established
Until someone like lensmate who are specialized in precision manufacturing from aircraft aluminum 6060 T6 or similar will make glassless, and perhaps with ANR glass holders for this scanner you can't be serious to achieve
CNC machining will be too expensive to use, we need a form to be made so that molten aluminum can be injected under pressure into it. Making a perfect copy every time.
The aluminum needs to be anodized black color to make sure there are no reflections.
If Plustek would come up with this type of holders as a FIX to this misalignment problem then that would be best for everyone !!
Come on Plustek make normal holders !
CNC machining will be too expensive to use, we need a form to be made so that molten aluminum can be injected under pressure into it. Making a perfect copy every time.
The aluminum needs to be anodized black color to make sure there are no reflections.
If Plustek would come up with this type of holders as a FIX to this misalignment problem then that would be best for everyone !!
Come on Plustek make normal holders !
lawrence
Veteran
Even if you're near a supplier it would be pain to have to take it back. Like you, I want one but only when it works properly. Having gone so far it would be a shame if Plustek doesn't sort these issues out because there's clearly a demand.
Fernando2
Well-known
Hi Hans,
I use the FSR1 Transmissive resolution chart from danes-picta.
It's an excellent chart, on clear film: we purchased a couple even at the office.
Up to 250 lp/mm, absolutely reliable and not too pricey (I think I paid Eur 100). It's in Europe so no customs fees.
Fernando
bigeye
Well-known
smilem
Established
Could you make a test, there is an alternative to purchasing expensive target. The alternative is strip that used in any modern printer for print head positioning. It has very thin markings impossible to see without magnification.
It would be nice to see comparison of this strip scanned and compared to a known target. Then those who do not have the target could get this inexpensive strip and test their scanner.
It would be nice to see comparison of this strip scanned and compared to a known target. Then those who do not have the target could get this inexpensive strip and test their scanner.
