The OFFICIAL Plustek 120 post your scans

[smilem]

🙂

I was just playing about the vertical lines around the head lights, those are there as part of the head light trim...

Glad to hear that 🙂

I hope you don't mind I have downloaded some of your photos to play with, and here is the comparison of parasitic color noise removal and microcontrast

Original photo
http://rghost.net/private/43588248/68b7546266e7ed4b39075eb4db26a69e

microcontrast
http://rghost.net/private/43588315/d9aa852f20e9c12d30b163f7ee365aa2

No sharpening was done, you can see the photo improved !
http://i46.tinypic.com/33kw5xe.jpg

But I can also see some lines that were not so prominent before, clearly this scanner should better have a fix coming.
http://i45.tinypic.com/34ry3yx.jpg

 

[XFer]

🙂

I was just playing about the vertical lines around the head lights, those are there as part of the head light trim...

Yes but there are faint vertical line (jaggies) which are not supposed to be there.

Example:

 

[mfogiel]

What I do not understand, is why nobody tried to buy from Nikon, the production line and license for continuing with CS9000. Perhaps this would have been cheaper, than developing a new product, after all, to Nikon, all that stuff is probably worth zero... Could be food for thought for Cosina and Lomo, given they are among the last producers of both 35mm and MF cameras... People have resuscitated Polaroid, why not resuscitating a scanner... Could be an idea to pool the resources of all the remaining film camera producers, Leica included... Perhaps Mr Gandy could push the idea forward... It has been said, that in a shrinking market, the last producer standing can make it like a pig, particularly if the product development has been long paid for...

 

[XFer]

I forgot to circle the upper right corner, there are jaggies there, too.

Now: I'm not bashing the Plustek 120, it's great they produced it, looks quite better than the Reflecta MF5000 at not much higher price, etc.
But it was a great chance to finally have a Nikon9000 replacement (and 10 years newer, from a technical standpoint)!
And I feel like this opportunity was missed, or partly missed.

Anyway I'll perform direct comparisons vs. 8000 and 9000 when I'll receive a demo unit.

In the meantime I want to say a big THANK YOU to the people who are posting these samples. 🙂

Fernando

 

[XFer]

What I do not understand, is who nobody tried to buy from Nikon, the production line and license for continuing with CS9000

Nikon scanners could no longer be sold in the EU because of new anti-pollution regulations (ROHS).

And now many other countries issued similar laws.

Re-engineering the scanner to avoid ROHS materials was deemed too difficult and costly. :-(

Fernando

 

[sny]

I wrote to Plustek Germany explaining the problem and posting full-size samples and haven't got a definitive answer yet.

I only received a mail saying they had forwarded my images to their R&D Department for closer inspection... I hope I will get an answer shortly, I'm looking forward to being able to use this scanner with it's full potential.

I will be telling you more as soon as I can. In the meantime, thank you XFer for having examined full samples and confirmed the problem. For me, the lack of possibility to manually adjust focus is a pain right now...

Regards

S.

 

[mani]

I didn't know this about the Nikon scanners - it's a shame, but obviously good for the environment if production was harmful in some way.

As for the Plustek - in many ways these scans look really good to me. I can see they have some issues, when they're pointed-out, but in some cases they look almost like sub-pixel problems, that may not be visible in a final print.

Naturally we can all wish that the scanner was even better (in an ideal world), but I can't help comparing the ecstatic reception that some pretty low-quality images from the forthcoming M-240 received over on the Leica forum the last couple days, with the very critical discussion of this scanner. The Leica will cost almost 4x the price of the Plustek, and will probably be cast on the heap of obsolete used digital bodies after a couple years, when some new sensor takes precedence.

Not meaning to stifle discussion of the scanner by any means. Just that some of us seem to expect very, very much for $2000. Not an enormous sum for a long-term piece of photographic equipment these days.

PS: what are the possibilities of re-engineering the lens construction to allow for autofocus in future models?

 

[kanzlr]

If it works for you, excellent!
My negatives just return to their original curling after a few minutes.

it depends on why they are curled, of course.
And I too would really appreciate a glass holder to get rid of this issue.

 

[XFer]

I didn't know this about the Nikon scanners - it's a shame, but obviously good for the environment if production was harmful in some way.

Believe me, I almost cried when I got the news. 🙁
I have a Nikon 8000 and love it, apart from a couple issues. I was saving to purchase a new 9000 (which improved on those issues) and bang! No longer available. In a very short time old stocks and used prices skyrocketed out of my reach.

As for the Plustek - in many ways these scans look really good to me. I can see they have some issues, when they're pointed-out

Yes, I see you point. I can only tell you why I'm a bit let down.

1) 10 years of electronics evolution, and we still don't have a Nikon9000 killer at a reasonable price
2) Small image issues apart, I'm a bit worried about how this kind of scanner would age. We know Nikon scanners are very reliable and durable. This one costs quite some money, and we're already seeing sample variations, possible failures (in a German forum, a tester started hearing bad noises from the scanner). And, since sharpness depends on the film laying flat on the focus plane, what will happen after some wear, some temperature variations, small deformations, etc.? Will it keep churning out sharp scans or not? What will happen during the hot summer? Point is, we can't adjust focus to compensate small dimensional variations.

I can't help comparing the ecstatic reception that some pretty low-quality images from the forthcoming M-240 received over on the Leica forum the last couple days

I agree with you, but... that's religion, not engineering. 😀

Fernando

 

[smilem]

Nikon scanners could no longer be sold in the EU because of new anti-pollution regulations (ROHS).

And now many other countries issued similar laws.

Re-engineering the scanner to avoid ROHS materials was deemed too difficult and costly. :-(

They sell measuring equipment (like multimeters, scopes etc.), police equipment, medical equipment, etc. that is excluded from ROHS.

I for one have Agilent multimeter that is excluded from ROHS because it is a precision instrument and in these types of electronics you just cant have bad solder connections.

They could easily have sold this scanner as measuring equipment for all I care. And I do live in Europe, in EU.

As I say: to differentiate if equipment is good or bad do not look for made in japan look for ROHS, if it is made the old way then it is quality made, only then look where it is made and what components are used.

I wrote to Plustek Germany explaining the problem and posting full-size samples and haven't got a definitive answer yet.

I would hope they would fix it not hide the problems like the Reflecta did.

As for the Plustek - in many ways these scans look really good to me. I can see they have some issues, when they're pointed-out, but in some cases they look almost like sub-pixel problems, that may not be visible in a final print.

If one buys this certainly V750 aint enough, then I suppose printing A3 or less is siply stupid with this scanners resolution. So if you print like 24 inches wide or wider I bet you will certainly see the jagies.

2) Small image issues apart, I'm a bit worried about how this kind of scanner would age. We know Nikon scanners are very reliable and durable. This one costs quite some money, and we're already seeing sample variations, possible failures (in a German forum, a tester started hearing bad noises from the scanner). And, since sharpness depends on the film laying flat on the focus plane, what will happen after some wear, some temperature variations, small deformations, etc.? Will it keep churning out sharp scans or not? What will happen during the hot summer? Point is, we can't adjust focus to compensate small dimensional variations.

That is very worrying thoughts, I do not think this scanner will outlast the warranty period of 2 years in EU, because with such high variability rate we see here it simply is stupid to think that using the scanner for 2 years will introduce less variability then "bad ly adjusted" scanners from factory???

 

[Steveh]

Smilem don't you think some of the accusations you're throwing at Plustek ("crap", "lies" "I do not think this scanner will outlast the two year warranty period", veiled accusations that they're not making review samples available because they know their product isn't good enough etc.) are more than a little excessive?

Forgive the scepticism but since you joined - yesterday - your only contributions to RFF have been to pour largely unsubstantiated vitriol at a manufacturer whose representative has been unfailingly helpful and communicative on here while people were waiting for this scanner to arrive. Have you actually seen/tested the unit or are you just using RFF as a platform for potentially libellous accusations based on some online samples and what you've read? That doesn't seem very fair on the owner or the mods.

 

[smilem]

Smilem don't you think some of the accusations you're throwing at Plustek ("crap", "lies" "I do not think this scanner will outlast the two year warranty period", veiled accusations that they're not making review samples available because they know their product isn't good enough etc.) are more than a little excessive?

I'm not accusing anyone, if it sound like that to you so be it. I clearly explained why and what is a lie, if you have something to prove otherwise say so. Why reviewers still do not have their pre-orders and I can buy the scanner in stock from Germany beats me.

I posted samples at post 141 clearly showing the scanner resolution problems, in that is is not the same for horizontal / vertical, or jagies are algorithm problem related to silverfast I don't know:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2068700&postcount=141

XFer posted his observations on post 142
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2068722&postcount=142

If you think users should not use microcontrast adjustment clearly you have no understanding how slides should be scanned.

Forgive the scepticism but since you joined - yesterday - your only contributions to RFF have been to pour largely unsubstantiated vitriol at a manufacturer whose representative has been unfailingly helpful and communicative on here while people were waiting for this scanner to arrive.

Yes I joined yesterday and waited 8 hours for my account to become active, I have been reading and watching this product for over 4 months now.

Have you actually seen/tested the unit or are you just using RFF as a platform for potentially libellous accusations based on some online samples and what you've read? That doesn't seem very fair on the owner or the mods.

If you would actually read post 141 I quoted above you would see I don't have this scanner, otherwise I would have not used fventura photo for the test. However I plan to get it once the problems are sorted. I'm glad it is finally available and I hope that constructive posted sample observations like I posted could be used to resolve the problems if plustek will be willing to do so.

 

[dcsang]

I'm curious - how big do you guys intend on printing (if at all) from the scans that this scanner creates?

Cheers,
Dave

 

[kanzlr]

I'm curious - how big do you guys intend on printing (if at all) from the scans that this scanner creates?

Cheers,
Dave

me, A3+ and A2.

smilems posts are a bit out of whack...The film holders DO HOLD THE DAMN FILM FLAT, the only issues I had so far was with single pieces of film (there should be a solution for this, but you could just frame them like positives) that where somewhat curly and with FP4+ that I most likely dried to fast and ONLY if it is in the first section of the 35mm holder.

Seen my 120 scans? They are uniformly sharp.

Have you disassembled the scanner to make such outrageous claims about its reliablitiy etc.?

why don't you just send yours back and get a used Coolscan 9000? Too expensive? Too old? Too bad...

Mark, as well as his German counterpart where extremely helpful so far. The German guy even offered to pick up and adjust the scanner for free if I had any problem with it and couldn't believe that they where out of adjustment at all.

I have not examined my scans closely enough to notice any jaggies, etc. But then I wonder if they show up on most prints (and home printing is why I wanted this scanner in the first place).

I really don't get your problem. You complain that a medium sized manufacturer releases an affordable FILM scanner in 2013 that does not have all the features of yesteryears high-end Nikon?

OF COURSE THIS IS A BUDGET DEVICE! Otherwise it would cost two or three times as much...

 

[fventura]

I'm curious - how big do you guys intend on printing (if at all) from the scans that this scanner creates?

Cheers,
Dave

I think, for 35mm, 16x24, and in a rare case 20x30.
I think we are pushing the limits of 35mm here, and the Nikon 9000 if I remember had a measured resolution of around 4000,

AH,

quote from a review:

"If you analyse the scan of an USAF1951 target you'll quickly realize the Super Coolscan 9000's horizontal resoloution differs from its vertical resolution just like with its smaller brothers. With large magnification you can differentiate the horizontal lines up to element 6.3 from the background - this matches 4000dpi resolution! The vertical lines can barely be differentiated with element 6.2, which matches a resolution of 3650dpi. The average of these two resolutions is 3900dpi. This effective resolution is just 2,5% below the specified resolution of 4000dpi. This is very creditable and remarkable - it simply distinguishes a Nikon scanner from its competitors."


Thanks

LINK to review:

http://www.filmscanner.info/en/NikonSuperCoolscan9000ED.html

 

[fventura]

Glad to hear that 🙂

I hope you don't mind I have downloaded some of your photos to play with, and here is the comparison of parasitic color noise removal and microcontrast

Original photo
http://rghost.net/private/43588248/68b7546266e7ed4b39075eb4db26a69e

microcontrast
http://rghost.net/private/43588315/d9aa852f20e9c12d30b163f7ee365aa2

No sharpening was done, you can see the photo improved !
http://i46.tinypic.com/33kw5xe.jpg

But I can also see some lines that were not so prominent before, clearly this scanner should better have a fix coming.
http://i45.tinypic.com/34ry3yx.jpg

Just to point out, those scans had been done with iSRD, the advice I have received, not only from this board, but from one of my lab guys, who has done thousands of scans in his life time, is not to use any dust reduction, with any brand scanner. If I want maximum quality.

I am sure it could be better otherwise. Also, as much as I think of my self as an ok photographer, real conclusions can only be taken from a professional review with known samples.

I would say my scans can give a pretty good idea about this machine, but not final conclusions,

Some people I have spoken with also stated that scanning 35mm at higher than 5000dpi is useless for the most part. It is more than the film can deliver, and that is in the best case scenario.


So, let's keep this thread constructive, as in understanding what this Plustek can do, and how to extract the maximum out of it.

As for durability, well, we need to use to find out. As for the Nikon 9000, well, I think if Nikon made a modern day version of it, they could blow our minds, but guess what, they don't give a rat's ass about it, and it would cost, as a low volume unit, inflation adjusted, way more than $2000.00


Thanks


Fábio

 

[brbo]

OF COURSE THIS IS A BUDGET DEVICE! Otherwise it would cost two or three times as much...

But, but.... At the beginning they said this scanner will be more like Flextight X1 than CS9000. And that their aim was to make a scanner that will beat CS9000 in scan quality and that it will not be released until they achieve this.

I guess this can explain some of the stronger opinionated comments.

 

[XFer]

Well said brbo.

 

[dcsang]

But, but.... At the beginning they said this scanner will be more like Flextight X1 than CS9000. And that their aim was to make a scanner that will beat CS9000 in scan quality and that it will not be released until they achieve this.

I guess this can explain some of the stronger opinionated comments.

As much as I appreciate "Mark from Plustek here" I have no real proof that "Mark" is his real name nor that he is actually employed by "Plustek" etc. I am not calling into doubt that he is, in fact, "Mark" and that he is, in fact employed by "Plustek" but merely going to the Plustek corporate site one can see what they have officially said about the scanner:

The OpticFilm 120 delivers the professional image quality results from 35mm film strips, slides, and 120/220mm film from 6x4.5cm up to 6x12cm in sizes. It is designed for professional photographers, advanced amateur photographers, film photo enthusiasts, photography schools and clubs. The OpticFilm 120 satisfies the film scanning requirements of advanced amateurs or professionals that require the ultimate in image quality and an ICC profiled scanning system. During the OpticFilm 120 development phase, LaserSoft Imaging with its more than 25 years of experience in digital imaging has significantly contributed to achieve the OpticFilm's superior quality.

( http://plustek.com/usa/products/opticfilm-series/opticfilm-120// )

I don't see any of "Mark"'s claims anywhere on the Plustek site. So, although Mark may be a worker at Plustek (and I have no proof that he is not OR that he is) if we are going to call out a company on what is or is not being claimed about a product they are offering, then, perhaps, we should at least look at the "official" claims and not a claim by some random internet forum post.

I'm not trying to be argumentative (or a Plustek apologist - I own a Nikon 9000 already) here but I would rather we be as objective as possible with what Plustek (the company, not an individual) claims about the product they're offering.

Cheers,
Dave

 

[bigeye]

Blah, blah, blah.


Fabio, your scans look great.

.