fventura
Established
Hey, I am not not going to argue about iSRD not being perfect, people with much greater experience in the subject have already pointed out. But I do want to learn where its shortcomings are, and how to better adjust it, since it is at the moment, the only option. It worked pretty well on my boat shot.
in my experience, it has worked better than ok, and has caught some scratches that were missed by a Noritsu scan. The sample you linked was fuji superia 200, it is not the greatest film for detail.
But it seems it has been determined that that scanner was faulty. Mis aligned optics or something of that nature.
Thanks
Maybe I will upload the boat shot to flickr in full resolution. I am developing some rolls of Acros 100, lets see how that goes!
johnny.moped
Established
You are better of to switch iSRD off and do a proper film cleaning before the scan. Scratches then can easily be repaired in photoshop (as long as there aren't to many of it).
There is a reason why professional scanners like the Flextights do not have any kind of infrared cleaning.
fventura
Established
Hey, not disputing that, for ultimate quality I am sure it is better to turn it off. But it works pretty well for those vacation/trip/family shots scanned at 2650
When I ran into the right negative I will scan both ways, and post the results.
Bellow the link to the boat shot, full resolution. Minimal sharpening, and LR adjustments, exported as a jpeg 90 (No export sharpening in LR)
I see some tiny artifacts on some of the rocks, that seem to appear in other high resolution scans, I will try with isrd off to see if it goes away. ( however I am going for a newer and clean negative for that)
* However my question is, could you see those tiny specs in a 16x24 print at proper viewing distance? Just asking because this was a old dirty negative, and it would be a pain to be cleaning it up manually.
Either way, I am very happy with it, I can't see anything new, that can beat it.
Fabio
http://www.flickr.com/photos/josies/8445139170/sizes/o/in/photostream/
kanzlr
Hexaneur
and thats the main point. Comparing to a Coolscan is informative, but the coolscans won't last forever, are expensive used, have no warranty.
I'd say that this Plustek is the closest to a modern Coolscan we've come, it is well priced (compared to used Coolscans), so whats not to like.
for 120 film, it is without peer.
fventura
Established
The only way we can ever get something better, either from Plustek , or anybody eles, is if they sell this like hot cakes, and people give lots of constructive criticism.
Rogier
Rogier Willems
I am hoping for a dramatic drop in Coolscan scanners prices.
kanzlr
Hexaneur
it is on par with my Coolscan, and way better than my Epson. And that for roughly 2,5x the price of the v750...thats pretty good in my book.
literiter
Well-known
Of course one other upside to this scanner is the fact that it takes one further step to making film more viable.
( And then I don't have to be tempted to sell my CS9000 for twice what I paid for it either. )
( And then I don't have to be tempted to sell my CS9000 for twice what I paid for it either. )
fventura
Established
It is because of you I am re scanning one of my favorite frames, only because I want to print it as large as possible. Yes, I tested with another shot first I had already loaded, artifacts were gone, and it is a little sharper. However, I still think it is ok, for most everyday pictures.
mani
Well-known
Why not buy the Plustek instead, and encourage manufacturers of new scanning equipment?
Used Coolscan prices have been crazily high for a while, and they should come down a bit when the new 120 scanner becomes more widely available, but it does look as though the LS9000 is still the best consumer scanner that's affordable (I'm counting out the Imacon scanners), and there's really no more incentive for existing owners to sell them than before the Plustek became available.
I'm liking what I see from this new scanner anyway - even though it has a few teething problems (only to be expected).
bigeye
Well-known
I don't use any scanner-based dust, sharpening or noise utilities; try to get as pure a scan as possible, then clean it up in PS or Lightroom. I'm still a Luddite, using film, so you can't expect me to trust any automated processes (that I can't reverse).
-Charlie
-Charlie
fventura
Established
re scan,
10600, no isrd, no sharpening in LR, small sharpening in SFast.
same info as before, kodak ektar 100, shot in 1991, canon eos and a consumer zoom, tripod. no mirror lock up or timer.
10600, no isrd, no sharpening in LR, small sharpening in SFast.
same info as before, kodak ektar 100, shot in 1991, canon eos and a consumer zoom, tripod. no mirror lock up or timer.
fventura
Established
fuji acros 100 @ 10600dpi scan
fuji acros 100 @ 10600dpi scan
Not a great shot, but it should do,
eos 3 + 70-200 2.8is , around f4, acros 100 + xtol 1+2
file size 14614x10014
crop: ( from the guy on the far right )
fuji acros 100 @ 10600dpi scan
Not a great shot, but it should do,
eos 3 + 70-200 2.8is , around f4, acros 100 + xtol 1+2
file size 14614x10014
crop: ( from the guy on the far right )
brbo
Well-known
Thanks for 10600dpi crops, fventura.
So, we now know that 10600dpi is indeed interpolated.
I think the Plustek 120 resolution marketing mistery can be explained like this:
- 10600dpi sensor
- stepping motor can only move in 5300 steps per inch
- real resolution is lower than 5300dpi
edit: Strike that. Given the orientation of the scans, lower stepping motor resolution does not explain horizontal lines in 10600dpi scans. Hmm... Maybe it has something with the sensor photosites arrangement.
So, we now know that 10600dpi is indeed interpolated.
I think the Plustek 120 resolution marketing mistery can be explained like this:
- 10600dpi sensor
- stepping motor can only move in 5300 steps per inch
- real resolution is lower than 5300dpi
edit: Strike that. Given the orientation of the scans, lower stepping motor resolution does not explain horizontal lines in 10600dpi scans. Hmm... Maybe it has something with the sensor photosites arrangement.
XFer
-
On the plus side, the 10600 scans from Fabio don't show any jaggies/faint lines (vs. 5300 ones).
I think that scanning at 10600 and then resampling (in Photoshop or whatever) to the final requested size could be the way to extract maximum image quality from this scanner.
But, of course, the main issue is film flatness and focus plane consistency.
Not only fixed focus may be an issue with curled film, but also for production tolerances (which may affect the scanner and the holders!), wear, thermal-induced size variations etc.
We're at 5300 ppi here: every micron of deviation counts and can't be compensated by adjusting focus, since it's fixed.
I think that scanning at 10600 and then resampling (in Photoshop or whatever) to the final requested size could be the way to extract maximum image quality from this scanner.
But, of course, the main issue is film flatness and focus plane consistency.
Not only fixed focus may be an issue with curled film, but also for production tolerances (which may affect the scanner and the holders!), wear, thermal-induced size variations etc.
We're at 5300 ppi here: every micron of deviation counts and can't be compensated by adjusting focus, since it's fixed.
mdruziak
Established
Yes that is a very accurate statement. If you have used the scanner, please send your thoughts and ideas to markdruziak )at( plustek dot com. I'm all ears!
kanzlr
Hexaneur
But then, auto focus does not help much with curled negatives, it just makes one portion of the image sharp, the rest is still blurred.
XFer
-
No, because:
1) You can decide which part of the image you need in sharp focus (maybe your image has large a portion of sky, for example)
2) You can decide to achieve an average focus, by focusing at 2/3 of image width, exploiting the scanner DOF to the maximum
3) (what I do with the Nikon 8000): you can do multiple pass at equally-spaced focus valued (after having measured focus on important parts of the image) and then use focus-composing software like Helicon Focus to achieve a wholly sharp image. It works well
It's all about having control vs. not having it
Fernando
kanzlr
Hexaneur
or you can just put your negs under a book for a few days
useless generation
Established
Those scans look great I don't know how someone can expect any more detail than that from a 35mm negative anyway?