dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
fventura
Established
Hi Fabio,
Thanks, you're helping us a lot!
I can see the jaggies even in this sample, so my theory about scanning at 10600 and downsampling doesn't work.
Now, I'm not try to bash the scanner. I'm just trying to understand if it's worth Eur 2000, for me.
Every scanner has its issues, including some really high end stuff.
It's just that, Eur 2000 are quite some money, and we are in 2013, and the scanner was a work-in-progress since 2011 so I was expecting a bit more.
But it looks like a capable tool.
The resolution is just part of the story.
The Nikon 9000 has very high micro contrast, and no jaggies (or other artifacts) to speak of.
It proved itself to be a reliable performer, built to last.
I own an 8000 and can use a 9000 from time to time, and from what I'm seeing, I'm not sure I would swap my 8000 for a Plustek 120; for sure I would not swap a 9000.
But there's room for improvement. Firmware updates may resolve jaggies.
And as Mani said, it's pointless to hope for better stuff, since nobody is producing prosumer film scanners anymore.
Thanks a lot for your contribution!
Fernando
PS: 4000 ppi is not enough to "extract grain". Not even the Imacon at 8000 can, not even my ScanMate at 11000. You would need 25'000 for that. And, sometimes my Minolta 5400 (5400 real ppi) leaves some details uncaptured. But only on the very best shots, so that's not much of an issue.
Thanks Fernando,
I do think that compared to the first scans, and what I am getting now, things are looking better. ( and I can look at them side by side on my monitor )
I'll say this, the jaggies you show on that crop, will not show, on a print, and if you can see them on a print, even 20x30" , you are just way to close. ( and may be using a lupe)
Those tiny details are at least 3 kilometers away! (plus I am some 300 meter on top of a mountain)
I am not disputing that I don't want absolute perfection, but either way, even if they don"t fix this, it looks good. My major concern is durability and quality of its internals/gears etc, only way to know, is to keep using it.
As for comparing to the Nikon, its max resolution is 4000, should we see if there are jaggies on the plustek scans at 4000?
Another thing, is there a way to delete the useless posts? Too much noise, this is supposed to be about samples, and getting the most from this scanner!!
yeah, I don't care if Mark is for real or a ghost, but, I do believe he is very much for real, and I appreciate his input.
Thanks,
Fabio
fventura
Established
beezil
Established
i saw mark druziaks birth certificate....it was totally doctored....
or maybe.....it was poorly scanned.
i can't be certain
or maybe.....it was poorly scanned.
i can't be certain
PatrickT
New Rangefinder User
How about some scans? 
bwcolor
Veteran
11374 views in one week.
I would say that there is a substantial number of people wanting this scanner to be their next scanner. Not unique views, but pretty impressive.
Looking better. Thanks for all the work. The fact that we see some old film run through the 120 tells me that you all are hard at work scanning and it is getting in the way of your shooting..... thanks..
I would say that there is a substantial number of people wanting this scanner to be their next scanner. Not unique views, but pretty impressive.
Looking better. Thanks for all the work. The fact that we see some old film run through the 120 tells me that you all are hard at work scanning and it is getting in the way of your shooting..... thanks..
kanzlr
Hexaneur
One thing that I like about the stuff that I re-scanned so far is that the Plustek does not emphasize film grain as much as the Coolscan. Maybe it has a softer light source.
It seems to be a trade off. Less micro contrast as Fernando says, but also a smother image.
It seems to be a trade off. Less micro contrast as Fernando says, but also a smother image.
XFer
-
I think it's due to the smaller-aperture lens.
The Coolscan 8000/9000 has a Nikkor 13-elements ED lens with comparably wide aperture; it was a necessity, because its RGB LED light source was not much powerful (12 years ago, LEDs were not as powerful as today, plus those were RGB not white).
The wide aperture had a "con": small depth of field -> all Coolscans suffer curly and even not-so-curly film.
But it had "pros" too: reasonable scan speed thanks to lot of light collected, compensating poor LED power. And no diffraction, so very high micro-contrast (the Coolscans notably have some aliasing on the main axes -> the lens resolves more than 4000 ppi).
This Plustek has very remarkable DOF: Fabio's scans are sharp from corner to corner (look at the grain, not at the image details).
They had to use a small-aperture lens to achieve that.
Not a problem for light-collecting since they use a powerful white LED.
But, a problem for diffraction. Thus the comparably low micro-contrast (still, it's not too low: quite good actually, and does not "enhance" grain).
By the way, going for a small aperture helps with costs, too: their lens covers 120 and still is a 7-elements unit (compare that to 13 elements with ED glass on the Coolscans).
Fernando
XFer
-
Well it doesn't count how far subjects were. Jaggies are independent of that: they would have been present even if you were scanning a picture of a fence a few meters away.
And, I dispute the idea that "they don't show in print". Of course, if you don't enlarge much they won't show.
But why a $2000 , 5300 ppi scanner, if you don't enlarge much?
As I showed in another thread, a $550 Epson V700 is perfectly fine for 8x enlargements, and does not have jaggies (and covers 6x17 and 4x5", by the way).
No, I think that a user would probably purchase a $2000 filmscanner because he wants to enlarge his frames quite a bit, at least potentially. I know I would, otherwise I'd stick with the V700.
But like I said, I still hope the image quality may be improved with future firmware upgrades. Maybe jaggies have to do with synchronism between carriage advance and CCD exposure, which should be adjustable, hopefully. We'll see!
Fernando
smilem
Established
Well it doesn't count how far subjects were. Jaggies are independent of that: they would have been present even if you were scanning a picture of a fence a few meters away.
And, I dispute the idea that "they don't show in print". Of course, if you don't enlarge much they won't show.
But why a $2000 , 5300 ppi scanner, if you don't enlarge much?
As I showed in another thread, a $550 Epson V700 is perfectly fine for 8x enlargements, and does not have jaggies (and covers 6x17 and 4x5", by the way).
No, I think that a user would probably purchase a $2000 filmscanner because he wants to enlarge his frames quite a bit, at least potentially. I know I would, otherwise I'd stick with the V700.
But like I said, I still hope the image quality may be improved with future firmware upgrades. Maybe jaggies have to do with synchronism between carriage advance and CCD exposure, which should be adjustable, hopefully. We'll see!
Fernando
You said just exactly what I was going to say !
MarinB
Member
Fernando, would you dare to compare what you get with your Scanmate 11000 at 5300 dpi to the Plustek 120 samples posted so far? I'm using Scanmate 3000 which, though in really good condition, exhibits some jaggies. These became the real caveat for scanning a bunch of Xpan 24x68mm TMAX shots - a job which went to someone babying a Minolta Multi Pro. Would you choose Plustek 120 over an 18-year old 3000-dpi Scanmate drum scanner?
beezil
Established
But why a $2000 , 5300 ppi scanner, if you don't enlarge much?
As I showed in another thread, a $550 Epson V700 is perfectly fine for 8x enlargements, and does not have jaggies (and covers 6x17 and 4x5", by the way).
No, I think that a user would probably purchase a $2000 filmscanner because he wants to enlarge his frames quite a bit, at least potentially. I know I would, otherwise I'd stick with the V700.
Fernando
exactly right.
based on what you've seen, what are your comments about the potential for enlarging to say, 22x34?
fventura
Established
Well it doesn't count how far subjects were. Jaggies are independent of that: they would have been present even if you were scanning a picture of a fence a few meters away.
And, I dispute the idea that "they don't show in print". Of course, if you don't enlarge much they won't show.
But why a $2000 , 5300 ppi scanner, if you don't enlarge much?
As I showed in another thread, a $550 Epson V700 is perfectly fine for 8x enlargements, and does not have jaggies (and covers 6x17 and 4x5", by the way).
No, I think that a user would probably purchase a $2000 filmscanner because he wants to enlarge his frames quite a bit, at least potentially. I know I would, otherwise I'd stick with the V700.
But like I said, I still hope the image quality may be improved with future firmware upgrades. Maybe jaggies have to do with synchronism between carriage advance and CCD exposure, which should be adjustable, hopefully. We'll see!
Fernando
Fernando,
what do you consider to be a large print from 35mm? And at what print size, from a proper viewing distance, could you see those jaggies? (as in the crop you posted of my picture)
I will investigate further, when it comes to this, as you said, "synchronism between carriage advance and CCD exposure" could be the issue here.
Otherwise I am very happy with it, even if this small issue does not get fully resolved.
Also they have a new firmware out today:
Link on their facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Plustek-Technology/169691449783876
Fabio
XFer
-
Well such a comparison is really tough: different film (Fabio scanned old, low-sensitivity negative film from the '90), different lens/camera/aperture, different subjects, different light etc.
When I'll get a Plustek 120 for my review I'll sure publish all sort of comparisons.
In the meantime, I may try looking in my archive to dig out some more-or-less similar image to be scanned.
Yes, that's the nature of the beast. I think I wrote before that each scanner has its issues. Desktop drum scanners like Dainippon 1015-1030-1045 and ScanMate 3000-5000-11000 have jaggies. More or less pronounced, depending on the motor/encoder conditions, but present. In my opinion, because of too small encoders and too little inertial mass.
With the ScanMate 11000, the key is scanning at 11000 and resampling down to 4000. Annoying as hell.
It's too early to tell (these are the first Plustek 120 units out there), but if was only scanning up to 6x12, I think I would (prefer the Plustek 120).
Fernando
kanzlr
Hexaneur
how fast are your drumscanners? I find the speed to be really a pleasure, I htink around 30 seconds for a 35mm scan, but I have to time it next time. And not much more for a 120 scan, which is great, given how slow flatbeds are.
k__43
Registered Film User
This thread is a nightmare to read. It's called "The OFFICIAL Plustek 120 post your scans"
I see a posted crop/scan etc. followed by 20+ posts bashing the scanner about artifacts that might only be connected to early firmware/driver etc.
I want to see more examples .. less bull****
I see a posted crop/scan etc. followed by 20+ posts bashing the scanner about artifacts that might only be connected to early firmware/driver etc.
I want to see more examples .. less bull****
fventura
Established
Portra 400 + eos 3 + scanned at 5300 + Latest firmware as of this morning.
No sharpening in the scanner, some sharpening in LR, other adjustments in LR were only contrast (slider, not curve), and black point.
I will eventually post something stopped down all the way, with a known sharp lens....
I included a Noritsu scan of the same image.
*Noritsu scans were not sharpened in LR at all.
scan size: Noritsu is 3339 x 5035
Plustek is 4872 x 7280
Exported from LR4 as a jpg 100, no output sharpening.
Plustek:
Noritsu: (scanned by the lab)
Crops:
Noritsu
Plustek
Noritsu:
Plustek:
Plustek:
fventura
Established
velvia 100
Rolex 24, 2013
eos 3 + 70-200 + probably f2.8 or f3.2 (very) late afternoon,
scanned at 8000dpi, sharpened and edit in LR, export as jpg 100
Rolex 24, 2013
eos 3 + 70-200 + probably f2.8 or f3.2 (very) late afternoon,
scanned at 8000dpi, sharpened and edit in LR, export as jpg 100
schooled
Newbie
did the firmware refresh solve the 'jaggies' issue? i don't see them anymore (though i must admit, they didn't really jump out at me in the first place)
TRIODEROB
Member
can anyone post a scan taken with TRI-X 120 MF
camera on tripod and mirror lockup with a very high end lens ??????
maybe a real nice landscape image with proper exposure
camera on tripod and mirror lockup with a very high end lens ??????
maybe a real nice landscape image with proper exposure