The OFFICIAL Plustek 120 post your scans

The 135 format (lens and film) is falling apart about the same time scanning artifacts show up. Getting the printer/paper/ink to lay down the image properly will be more trouble than this.

2'x3' enlargements? From 35mm film? :eek:

-Charlie
 
beezil said:
exactly right.

based on what you've seen, what are your comments about the potential for enlarging to say, 22x34?
Click to expand...

You mean, inches (I'm metric, always at odds with inches and feet)? I think 23x enlargement is too much regardless of the scanner you use. You end up looking at interpolation artifact, basically.
If we talk real-world, a good lens with a good film may give nice 15-18x in theory. This is pushing the limits of the Plustek 120 from what I'm seeing.

Fernando
 
I was always been under the impression that the maximum viable enlargement for a 135 negative was around 16x19 inches, usually printed on 20x24 paper.

That holds true in my own personal experience, unless you are going for a real grainy look.

There may be some exceptions if you're using document film, but we're talking normal Tmax / Tri-X / Plus-X negatives here.
 
schooled said:
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)
Click to expand...


I have to re scan something I know for sure it had "jaggies" before.
(by the way , the Porsche scan with with the old firmware, the picture of my son, is with the new one)


Fabio
 
XFer said:
You mean, inches (I'm metric, always at odds with inches and feet)? I think 23x enlargement is too much regardless of the scanner you use. You end up looking at interpolation artifact, basically.
If we talk real-world, a good lens with a good film may give nice 15-18x in theory. This is pushing the limits of the Plustek 120 from what I'm seeing.

Fernando
Click to expand...

Isn't that size (8x10-ish) only 2x what we're seeing on the full-sized prints Fabio is posting now?

- Charlie
 
fventura said:
I have to re scan something I know for sure it had "jaggies" before.
(by the way , the Porsche scan with with the old firmware, the picture of my son, is with the new one)


Fabio
Click to expand...

Please re scan the photo at post 113, and make new crop (crop: ( from the guy on the far right ) )
 
35mm fuji acros 100/handheld

35mm fuji acros 100/handheld

These shots were from a trip to NYC, in 2011, they were developed by a lab.(NCPS)
I noticed they are much grainier than my xtol developed at home, in xtol 1+2


No USM in the scanner, minimal sharpening and processing in LR4, 5300dpi scans, latest firmware as of 02/082013

Canon eos 3 + 50 f1.4 lens


p1421751178-6.jpg


p1421751852-4.jpg


p1421752600-4.jpg



p1421753060-6.jpg


p1421753922-5.jpg


p1421754378-5.jpg


p1421747240-6.jpg


p1421755160-3.jpg


sharpening settings for last image, no other aditional sharpening in the scanner, or LR output sharpening.

p1421757498-2.jpg


I am sure someone will eventually post a scan of a very carefully set up landscape shot. In the meantime, you can get an overload of my shots... :)


Fabio
 
That sure looks good. I don't know about micro-contrast compared to the 9000ED, but without comparison this looks a lot better than my V750Pro with Betterscanning glass holder and sure seems in the same ballpark as my 9000ED. Appreciate the posts.
 
I agree, those scans look very nice indeed. Thanks for posting them Fabio, much appreciated.
 
ok, I will resume scanning on Monday...

RZ67 + 110mm f2.8 @2.8 125/sec + Delta 3200 + xtol 1+2 + handheld

scanned at 5300, mild sharpening in LR4


p1421879008-6.jpg



crop

p1421886222-5.jpg



Mamiya 7II + trix 400 + 80mm f4 + handheld + xtol 1+2

p1421886556-5.jpg


crop

p1421905190-6.jpg
 
I find it funny that people are going so nuts over perceived inadequacies of a scanner that's barely even hit the market yet.

Do you really think that Plustek don't have more than a few LS-9000s sitting in their lab?

To me the majority of the scans look pretty good - and I get the feeling this scanner really excels when it comes to 120 and above. At this point, it's simply a matter of not enough data. But I can assure you that if people posted some of the same scans as being from a Nikon people would completely interpret the results differently. Right now it's a perception game and a bunch of people rubbing their nose into images at the pixel level (BTW: The largest print size for a given medium is completely dependent on viewing distance - there is NO max enlargement factor). Additionally all of the whining about auto-focus is just that: whining. If the lens has the DOF to cover a usable depth for typical negatives, how is auto-focus going to help you in a major way? AF doesn't exactly solve the fundamental problem of a curved surface.

It's a dedicated film scanner. The Epsons flatbeds are not - regardless of how decent results one can get out of them (however, they scan my *prints* pretty good!).
 
Excuse me? I'm pretty well aware of the history of this thread and the content therein - I just know that most people's reactions to things about this scanner are purely emotional at this point.

I also know that if I started posted scans in here from my LS-5000, as if they were an OF120, people would find problems with it and compare it to a Coolscan (which is amusing).

About the only significant weakness I can find is the lack of a glass holder - and I'm sure that will be addressed eventually.
 
getting ready to posts some scans.

had a couple scanning issues (memory allocation) finally resolved.

went to upload the first successful scan to flickr, and was prompted about file size.

I'm going to upgrade my account i guess.


what's the general wisdom of this forum, as far as pic hosting goes, and methods for hosting and posting BIG pic files for the purpose of this thread?

thanks folks.

-b
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom