lawrence
Veteran
This is the question I was going to ask and an essential one for any prospective purchaser.
The OFFICIAL Plustek 120 post your scans
- Thread starter beezil
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 757
- Views 214K
This is the question I was going to ask and an essential one for any prospective purchaser.
rjstep3
Established
Using Vuescan 9.4.05 on this scanner - and loving it. I even emailed a personal thanks to Ed Hamrick to express my appreciation, he has made it work better than the Silverfast which ships with the thing. Being able to do batches makes the whole process faster.
This scanner is capable of truly great scans, worth every penny. It has horribly exposed my basic and fundamental inability to focus my cameras - something I do better now, but I am scanning in old slides at the moment and I am shocked.
Really glad I stuck with this scanner now even though its original software was, shall we say, somewhat lacking,
rjstep3
This scanner is capable of truly great scans, worth every penny. It has horribly exposed my basic and fundamental inability to focus my cameras - something I do better now, but I am scanning in old slides at the moment and I am shocked.
Really glad I stuck with this scanner now even though its original software was, shall we say, somewhat lacking,
rjstep3
hanskerensky
Well-known
For comparison sake here is the serial number of my first OP120 which had a focus issue. I did send that unit back to Plustek and in the end Plustek did send me a new unit from the second batch that they received in Germany.
1A312B0011948
Please bear in mind that not all units of the first batch have this issue. There are also perfectly working units from that batch.
lawrence
Veteran
Thanks but do you know what the first S/N of the first 'good' batch is?
hanskerensky
Well-known
No, i don't and guess Plustek will not answer that question too :angel:
I received my second batch scanner mid March 2013.
Guess that most first batch scanners (when they had a problem at all) are either exchanged or fixed by now so don't think that you run much of a risk.
Would like to hear the personel experience of more first batch buyers !
kanzlr
Hexaneur
Well, I am a first batch buyer, bought the very first one I found in a store and it is easily sharp as my LS-4000.
mob81
Well-known
I hesitated to much before I bought mine. Then decided that I would go for it regardless if it's from the first or second batch, I couldn't locate one until I saw it at adorama (Online) and thought it would be new batch as it was out of stock for a while. My initial thought was to buy it and not to worry about it much, if it has issue I will return it to Adorama or send it to plustek for exchange.
If you want to buy, my suggestion to buy from reputable store (better local within reach) with return in mind after good testing (Try all holders).
Mine thankfully has no issues and it scan beautifully.
If you want to buy, my suggestion to buy from reputable store (better local within reach) with return in mind after good testing (Try all holders).
Mine thankfully has no issues and it scan beautifully.
JasonCA
Newbie
Hello Everyone,
This is my first post on here. 🙂
For the last 2 to 3 years, I've been looking for a way to transfer my negatives and slide to digital. My goal: to transfer them into a digital format that closely represents the originals; extracting everything worth extracting down to the grain of the film. Why? Well, in the event something bad happens to the film, albeit negatives (such as 35mm, medium format, ...etc) or slide film, I have a copy that closely represents the originals. Catastrophic events do happen in life. So there are many reasons why one would want to transfer/copy their film.
I have surfed through many websites in search of a good scanner, visited many forums, and read many articles the last many years. Sadly and to my discovery, of course I was disappointed with what I found. There seems to be extremities in the film scanner business world and a even a void.
On the one hand, the best way to transfer film is by a drum scanner (one of my secret favorite drum scanner enthusiasts on here that i admire is tsiklonaut). The problem: the cost is astronomically expensive to own one. The drum machine is typically large (older ones), expensive, and one typically need technical expertise to operate one. Or, the ones that are modern, like the Hasselblad Flextight X5, is expensively priced. In the case of the Hasselblad Flextight X5, it costs $25,000. The average film enthusiast is therefore priced out of the league. What about paying to have copies made on a drum scanner? A single slide/negative can cost nearly $100 per slide/negative. That's just ridiculous from the perspective of a typical home-bodied consumer!
Fine....so I am unwilling to pay $25,000 to have the top of the line drum scans of my slides and negatives. How about something that closely rivals or comes close to a drum scanner in general. Everyone's favorite seems to be the Nikon CoolScan 9000 ED. Right? So there 'is' a scanner that exists or once existed that decently comes pretty close to a drum scanner! The problem: it's 10 years old and is no longer sold brand new. Sure, Nikon still services them. So yes I could get a 10 year old Nikon CoolScan 9000 ED that is newly serviced by Nikon. But, it's 10 years old! And they seem to vary in price anywhere from $2,000 to upwards of $4,000 in their used form.
In the case of the Nikon CoolScan 9000 ED and the quality it produces, I'd happily pay even up to $3,000+ for one. After all, why not? I pay as much for Digital SLR's. Expensive...yes... but they SLR's work well and are of high quality; it's a good product. Likewise, in the case of the Nikon CoolScan 9000 ED...it seems to do the job pretty well; and, it's much cheaper than $25,000 for a modern drum scanner system.
Now comes along the Plustek OpticFilm 120 in 2013. I would have gladly laid down $3,000+ IF they would have built a quality product. My biggest beef with the Plustek OpticFilm 120 is the missing autofocus. How could they have not factored that into their design? Cost prohibitive...come on. If the company is unwilling to make a quality product, then please please ...don't make a product that everyone has to suffer with. Second, the Plustek OpticFilm 120 seems to be slow in it's ability to scan. Although, I'm sure VueScan helps in the area of batch scans to make up for the OpticFilm's flawed design. But my point is, what was Plustek thinking when they came up with the design? If Plustek is close enough to perform like a Ferrari, then make a Ferrari killer. Don't fuss around!
My biggest frustration, is that after 10 years, you'd think a company such as Plustek could look at the Nikon CoolScan 9000 ED, learn from it, and come out with a product that kills it. Why? Because Plustek would then own the market or a segment of it that a company 10 years ago still holds. If the Plustek OpticFilm 120 was a Nikon CoolScan 9000 ED killer....I'm sure they would get a descent amount of customers that would gladly pay $3000 for bringing forth such current technology. It's like Plustek built a Ferrari and then put a pinto engine in; it doesn't perform. Instead they cut corners. Just please, don't make a scanner if you are not going to make a good one! Afterall, the Plustek OpticFilm 120 is no CanoScan 9000F Mark II. It's not in the same league!
To me, there just seems to be a void in the market for a good scanner these days that does what the Nikon CoolScan 9000 ED was capable of. Hungry customers that have a legacy of 35mm and medium size film, still to this day have no modern scanner that can (without hesitation and doubt) rival the Nikon CoolScan 9000 ED that was built 10 years ago and in the same price range! Simply amazing!
Do I continue to wait another year or two to see if Plustek finally introduces a scanner that at least confidently exceeds the Nikon CoolScan 9000 ED? Or, do I just buy a used Nikon CoolScan 9000 ED or Plustek OpticFilm 120? That's my dilemma. I'm just still not convinced of the Plustek OpticFilm 120. Although, I think the technology is getting closer to catching up to what Nikon did years and years ago. Nikon must have had geniuses working for them since no other company seems to have the technology (or will???) to come up with a product that exceeds it.
There are many reviews online of the OpticFilm 120. I would say this is the most interesting forum I've come across that is currently discussing the OpticFilm 120. I respect and enjoy everyone's input on how this scanner works, operates, and performs. So this is a big shoutout and thank you to everyone here.
And, please forgive my frustration with Plustek for their design of the OpticFilm 120. I wanted to be impressed! I really did. And, I wanted to be inspired. But I am just not! It's like they are close...but just not there yet. What I am hoping, is that they revamp this OpticFilm 120 and put a product out with a auto-focus feature. I hope they release a second generation OpticFilm 120. Maybe Plustek OpticFilm 120 X2 which I hope will be a Nikon CoolScan 9000 ED killer.
Meanwhile, I'm crossing my fingers and sitting back. Why? If I am going to transfer my film....I want to do it one time...and I want to do it with a product worthy of my time and effort.
As Margus (tsiklonaut) would say, all IMHO of course. 🙂
Jason
This is my first post on here. 🙂
For the last 2 to 3 years, I've been looking for a way to transfer my negatives and slide to digital. My goal: to transfer them into a digital format that closely represents the originals; extracting everything worth extracting down to the grain of the film. Why? Well, in the event something bad happens to the film, albeit negatives (such as 35mm, medium format, ...etc) or slide film, I have a copy that closely represents the originals. Catastrophic events do happen in life. So there are many reasons why one would want to transfer/copy their film.
I have surfed through many websites in search of a good scanner, visited many forums, and read many articles the last many years. Sadly and to my discovery, of course I was disappointed with what I found. There seems to be extremities in the film scanner business world and a even a void.
On the one hand, the best way to transfer film is by a drum scanner (one of my secret favorite drum scanner enthusiasts on here that i admire is tsiklonaut). The problem: the cost is astronomically expensive to own one. The drum machine is typically large (older ones), expensive, and one typically need technical expertise to operate one. Or, the ones that are modern, like the Hasselblad Flextight X5, is expensively priced. In the case of the Hasselblad Flextight X5, it costs $25,000. The average film enthusiast is therefore priced out of the league. What about paying to have copies made on a drum scanner? A single slide/negative can cost nearly $100 per slide/negative. That's just ridiculous from the perspective of a typical home-bodied consumer!
Fine....so I am unwilling to pay $25,000 to have the top of the line drum scans of my slides and negatives. How about something that closely rivals or comes close to a drum scanner in general. Everyone's favorite seems to be the Nikon CoolScan 9000 ED. Right? So there 'is' a scanner that exists or once existed that decently comes pretty close to a drum scanner! The problem: it's 10 years old and is no longer sold brand new. Sure, Nikon still services them. So yes I could get a 10 year old Nikon CoolScan 9000 ED that is newly serviced by Nikon. But, it's 10 years old! And they seem to vary in price anywhere from $2,000 to upwards of $4,000 in their used form.
In the case of the Nikon CoolScan 9000 ED and the quality it produces, I'd happily pay even up to $3,000+ for one. After all, why not? I pay as much for Digital SLR's. Expensive...yes... but they SLR's work well and are of high quality; it's a good product. Likewise, in the case of the Nikon CoolScan 9000 ED...it seems to do the job pretty well; and, it's much cheaper than $25,000 for a modern drum scanner system.
Now comes along the Plustek OpticFilm 120 in 2013. I would have gladly laid down $3,000+ IF they would have built a quality product. My biggest beef with the Plustek OpticFilm 120 is the missing autofocus. How could they have not factored that into their design? Cost prohibitive...come on. If the company is unwilling to make a quality product, then please please ...don't make a product that everyone has to suffer with. Second, the Plustek OpticFilm 120 seems to be slow in it's ability to scan. Although, I'm sure VueScan helps in the area of batch scans to make up for the OpticFilm's flawed design. But my point is, what was Plustek thinking when they came up with the design? If Plustek is close enough to perform like a Ferrari, then make a Ferrari killer. Don't fuss around!
My biggest frustration, is that after 10 years, you'd think a company such as Plustek could look at the Nikon CoolScan 9000 ED, learn from it, and come out with a product that kills it. Why? Because Plustek would then own the market or a segment of it that a company 10 years ago still holds. If the Plustek OpticFilm 120 was a Nikon CoolScan 9000 ED killer....I'm sure they would get a descent amount of customers that would gladly pay $3000 for bringing forth such current technology. It's like Plustek built a Ferrari and then put a pinto engine in; it doesn't perform. Instead they cut corners. Just please, don't make a scanner if you are not going to make a good one! Afterall, the Plustek OpticFilm 120 is no CanoScan 9000F Mark II. It's not in the same league!
To me, there just seems to be a void in the market for a good scanner these days that does what the Nikon CoolScan 9000 ED was capable of. Hungry customers that have a legacy of 35mm and medium size film, still to this day have no modern scanner that can (without hesitation and doubt) rival the Nikon CoolScan 9000 ED that was built 10 years ago and in the same price range! Simply amazing!
Do I continue to wait another year or two to see if Plustek finally introduces a scanner that at least confidently exceeds the Nikon CoolScan 9000 ED? Or, do I just buy a used Nikon CoolScan 9000 ED or Plustek OpticFilm 120? That's my dilemma. I'm just still not convinced of the Plustek OpticFilm 120. Although, I think the technology is getting closer to catching up to what Nikon did years and years ago. Nikon must have had geniuses working for them since no other company seems to have the technology (or will???) to come up with a product that exceeds it.
There are many reviews online of the OpticFilm 120. I would say this is the most interesting forum I've come across that is currently discussing the OpticFilm 120. I respect and enjoy everyone's input on how this scanner works, operates, and performs. So this is a big shoutout and thank you to everyone here.
And, please forgive my frustration with Plustek for their design of the OpticFilm 120. I wanted to be impressed! I really did. And, I wanted to be inspired. But I am just not! It's like they are close...but just not there yet. What I am hoping, is that they revamp this OpticFilm 120 and put a product out with a auto-focus feature. I hope they release a second generation OpticFilm 120. Maybe Plustek OpticFilm 120 X2 which I hope will be a Nikon CoolScan 9000 ED killer.
Meanwhile, I'm crossing my fingers and sitting back. Why? If I am going to transfer my film....I want to do it one time...and I want to do it with a product worthy of my time and effort.
As Margus (tsiklonaut) would say, all IMHO of course. 🙂
Jason
stormy_weather
Member
From what Plustek have disclosed so far, I read that if you are in doubt whether or not your scanner is in order, it is in order.
If it is affected by the early problem (whatever is was) you would immediately notice.
From personal experience, the biggest grief with the 120 still is the incredibly bad Silverfast software (I don't know Vuescan).
If your slides or negatives are reasonably flat, the scanner works fine and I don't see why it would need an autofocus.
If the film buckles, the sharpness indeed goes down. I have come to not scan anything that does not lie flat, I rather press or spool in the opposite direction before scanning, as necessary.
Regards,
Sven
Kamph
Established
JasonCA, I understand where you're coming from, but many of your points are simply not true. You really need to have worked, or at least seen someone work, with this scanner before you can judge it as you do.
In many ways this IS a step up from the Coolscan 9000.
I hear a lot of people complain about the lack of AF in the plustek 120, but I wonder if these people have ever tried one for themselves. For the coolscan 9000 AF was a must, because the standard film holders were cheap and flimsy, and so failed to hold the film critically flat. This is simply not the case with the plustek. The holders are the best I have ever seen for this type of filmscanner. With the exception of the odd extremely curly film, I can't imagine any problems with these holders. I have scanned hundreds of negatives now, and I only encountered a focus issue once, but that film was so curly that I doubt AF would have made a difference, unless you focus stacked or something like that. Resolution wise this is by all means in the same league as the Coolscan 9000, actually I think my copy resolves more than my friends Coolscan, but I haven't made any side-by-side comparison, but I honestly belive it would fall in favour of the Plustek. When you say it's slow, what are you comparing it to then? I don't find it slow at all. SF is another matter though, but Vuescan is an option now as well.
This IS a quality product much in the same way as the Coolscan was.
This scanner is being judged way too harshly because of the few bad scanners in the first batch I think.
In many ways this IS a step up from the Coolscan 9000.
I hear a lot of people complain about the lack of AF in the plustek 120, but I wonder if these people have ever tried one for themselves. For the coolscan 9000 AF was a must, because the standard film holders were cheap and flimsy, and so failed to hold the film critically flat. This is simply not the case with the plustek. The holders are the best I have ever seen for this type of filmscanner. With the exception of the odd extremely curly film, I can't imagine any problems with these holders. I have scanned hundreds of negatives now, and I only encountered a focus issue once, but that film was so curly that I doubt AF would have made a difference, unless you focus stacked or something like that. Resolution wise this is by all means in the same league as the Coolscan 9000, actually I think my copy resolves more than my friends Coolscan, but I haven't made any side-by-side comparison, but I honestly belive it would fall in favour of the Plustek. When you say it's slow, what are you comparing it to then? I don't find it slow at all. SF is another matter though, but Vuescan is an option now as well.
This IS a quality product much in the same way as the Coolscan was.
This scanner is being judged way too harshly because of the few bad scanners in the first batch I think.
kanzlr
Hexaneur
Jason, I can only repeat what I said. It replaced my Coolscan 4000 and it resolves just as much, I have never any focus issues. See, I have a few very curly films, because I dried them too fast, most likely. AF does not help there, with AF you can just tell the scanner WHAT part of the image has to be in focus, that does not help that much, really.
VueScan is fine, I love my scanner now even more, but you can get around with silverfast if you figure out a workflow for you.
Even for the same money I would most likely pick the Plustek over the Nikon, if for warranty alone. The Quality is there, thats for sure.
VueScan is fine, I love my scanner now even more, but you can get around with silverfast if you figure out a workflow for you.
Even for the same money I would most likely pick the Plustek over the Nikon, if for warranty alone. The Quality is there, thats for sure.
mob81
Well-known
I can only add to two above that My plustek 120 actually sharper than my Coolscan 4000ED which I think is close if not the same as Coolscan 9000 ED! I haven't try the 9000 ED so no direct comparison but did compare the 4000 ED to the plustek 120.
I'm sure the Coolscan 9000 ED is wonderful scanned BUT it's discontinued!
My suggestion is to try one if store has it or a friend and judge. It's not a drum scanner but for CCD scanner it's great option 🙂
I'm sure the Coolscan 9000 ED is wonderful scanned BUT it's discontinued!
My suggestion is to try one if store has it or a friend and judge. It's not a drum scanner but for CCD scanner it's great option 🙂
James1
Established
Finally decided to buy a Plustek 120 after a few months of dithering, and with the help of a couple of forum members. Scans are awesome, much better than the Canon FS4000US and Epson 4490 I used previously. These examples are at 5300dpi.
Only problem is that it has shown that I need to get better at focussing, especially with medium format!
Leica IIIa / Elmar 5cm, Orwo NP55 (expired), Orwo A49 developer:
Leica IIIa / Elmar 5cm, Orwo UN54, Calbe R09 stand - overdeveloped, and one of the few times I tried stand development:
Only problem is that it has shown that I need to get better at focussing, especially with medium format!
Leica IIIa / Elmar 5cm, Orwo NP55 (expired), Orwo A49 developer:
Leica IIIa / Elmar 5cm, Orwo UN54, Calbe R09 stand - overdeveloped, and one of the few times I tried stand development:
Kamph
Established
Congratulations on your purchase James! The scans look great as far as I can tell from looking at them at this size, really like the second one. And yes, tell me about it, achieving sharp focus just got that much harder!
rjstep3
Established
welcome, with the updates and now Vuescan the Plustek 120 is looking like a fine scanner.
like you, it has cruelly exposed my sloppy focusing, in fact my lack of knowledge how to handle MF kit after all these years. so much so I have gone back to 35mm for the moment.
rjstep3
like you, it has cruelly exposed my sloppy focusing, in fact my lack of knowledge how to handle MF kit after all these years. so much so I have gone back to 35mm for the moment.
rjstep3
James1
Established
Thanks Kamph, rjstep 3. As I say, I am seriously seriously impressed with the scans - my examples are at 5300dpi.
I used Vuescan, as my usual workflow is to scan everything as a colour image - output as RAW, then invert in ColorPerfect (with B&W, I use the Green channel, throwing away the other two before inverting).
The only thing I have noticed, as have others, is that IR cleaning does not work very well at all. I would imagine that Ed Hamrick will fix this at some point. When he does, I'll probably use Vuescan exclusively for both colour and black and white.
I used Vuescan, as my usual workflow is to scan everything as a colour image - output as RAW, then invert in ColorPerfect (with B&W, I use the Green channel, throwing away the other two before inverting).
The only thing I have noticed, as have others, is that IR cleaning does not work very well at all. I would imagine that Ed Hamrick will fix this at some point. When he does, I'll probably use Vuescan exclusively for both colour and black and white.
mbohara
Member
This may be obvious, but worthy of a reminder as it may save you some heart ache: use the supplied power cable for the Plustek. There is no Plustek branding on it, so maybe attach a label.
I have about six 24v power supply cables around my desk for various external hard drives. They all share the same male end and will plug in to each device and power it. Last night the scanner would power on, go through its motions, but produce blank frames with RGB bands in the overview dialogue. I went through every driver and software reinstall imaginable only to find I was using a power cable for my external hard drive.
I have about six 24v power supply cables around my desk for various external hard drives. They all share the same male end and will plug in to each device and power it. Last night the scanner would power on, go through its motions, but produce blank frames with RGB bands in the overview dialogue. I went through every driver and software reinstall imaginable only to find I was using a power cable for my external hard drive.
smilem
Established
Can Plustek 120 scan framed slides with AN Glass like ones that reflecta sells?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Reflecta-GL...ktoren_Diamagazine_rahmen&hash=item23272c6eca
I would like to make the film flat.
Would you recommend ordering the scanner from scandig.de ?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Reflecta-GL...ktoren_Diamagazine_rahmen&hash=item23272c6eca
I would like to make the film flat.
Would you recommend ordering the scanner from scandig.de ?
kanzlr
Hexaneur
Where are you located?
conrad.de seems to offer a good price.
Scandig == filmscannerinfo and they are pretty negative about the scanner and do not respond to mails about their review.
I would think that you can scan these, as it has a holder for framed slides. I'd be surprised if the reflecta ones wouldn't fit.
conrad.de seems to offer a good price.
Scandig == filmscannerinfo and they are pretty negative about the scanner and do not respond to mails about their review.
I would think that you can scan these, as it has a holder for framed slides. I'd be surprised if the reflecta ones wouldn't fit.
beezil
Established
wow!
vuescan……
nuff said.
thanks Mr. Hamrick!
vuescan……
nuff said.
thanks Mr. Hamrick!
