clayne
shoot film or die
Right, because the other site which measured a higher resolution than the Coolscans are not to be trusted because they're not giving *you* the answer you *want* - and what you want is a reason to dislike this scanner.
And this is coming from an LS-5000/LS-9000 owner.
Do you even practice photography or just nerd out on resolution tests and 100% crops?
Fernando2
Well-known
See, your post is so pathetic, you don't even deserve an answer.
Now, please, go back in your hole and let us discuss technical aspects of scanning you obviously ignore.
Fernando
Now, please, go back in your hole and let us discuss technical aspects of scanning you obviously ignore.
Fernando
Pete B
Well-known
hanskerensky
Well-known
Those are very harsh words against somebody wo very rightly pinpointed some weak points in both the scanner as well as that test by filmscanner.info.
I did see that target image in that test and agree with Fernando that it is very plausible that that test was done with an Opticfilm 120 which is slightly out of focus.
I did see that target image in that test and agree with Fernando that it is very plausible that that test was done with an Opticfilm 120 which is slightly out of focus.
Aristophanes
Well-known
You seem to be having a go nowhere technical discussion with Plustek as if you have the sole answer to 120 scanning. On the calibrated models such as Ebertoni's, and hanskerensky's recent posts the scans are excellent.
There may be design and cost implications that make focus adjustment on a scanner prohibitive when compared to other methods. Would you be willing to pay another US$1,500 more for such a feature?
The options fro medium format film scanning are swiftly reducing alongside film sales:
1) Epson's flatbeds, which the future holds will continue to do double duty as advanced, non-film scanners. I doubt the technology or the market will advance this option much.
2) The big Flex or drum scanners. Cost, cost, cost. Uncertain long term supply. Very high learning curve.
3) Refurbished mini-lab scanners such as the Fuji 570. Not really an option for individuals or hobbyists, with limits on scan quality (JEPG), etc.
4) The Plustek 120 as it is.
I suspect that for the vast majority of scans, Plustek designed the 120 with a cost/performance ratio. At $2,000 it's still a very expensive investment with a limited market. more features = more cost, reducing the market even further. It doesn't matter what Nikon did back in the day; those mechanisms may not be available now for any form of implementation. When there was a largish, growing scanner market there were options. Now there are trade-offs. That's what happens when markets shrink.
Those who require select higher res scans for ultimate fine art prints or whatever, are (again, this is probably Plustek's thinking) likely being told to look at their high-end scan options, like the Hasselblad or sending their product out for professional services. Obviously there are some kinks to be worked out in the current 120, but it is obvious that this product will not have a focus adjustment. You are beating a dead horse.
The 120 is primarily designed to get scans onto screens from what the design and marketing literature reveal. Obviously in any product development there are economic trade-offs. Your option is to live with them if you purchase it, not buy it, invest in a Hasselbald, or leave film for digital. It seems to me you should be taking your concerns over to Nikon who abandoned the market. Repeatedly going after the 1 supplier is pointless because you don't have all the information.
SaveKodak
Well-known
+1
They shoudl really just call this ComplainFinder Forum because nobody seems willing to embrace anything new or find ways to work with the equipment we have available. Just kvetching like a bunch of old women at brunch,
dfatty
Well-known
lol. to be fair, there are a number of people on RFF who actually own it who are very happy with the results they are getting. it seems like the people throwing all the rocks are people who don't even own it.
Aristophanes
Well-known
There are a good few dozen excellent scan samples out there where the need for focus adjustment does not seem to be necessary. We can let those samples speak for themselves and hope Plustek works out the bugs on the 120.
My gripe with the 120 is the price. A Plustek dedicated 8100 135 scanner and an Epson V750 are about $900 new with tax and software. The Epson can do a lot more than just scan film, not to mention tackle larger formats.
So the Plustek 120 has to be at least US$1,000 better in IQ and/or convenience. Not sure I am seeing that. I've seen plenty of excellent V750 scans. To me the 120 is US$1,200 scanner.
My gripe with the 120 is the price. A Plustek dedicated 8100 135 scanner and an Epson V750 are about $900 new with tax and software. The Epson can do a lot more than just scan film, not to mention tackle larger formats.
So the Plustek 120 has to be at least US$1,000 better in IQ and/or convenience. Not sure I am seeing that. I've seen plenty of excellent V750 scans. To me the 120 is US$1,200 scanner.
hanskerensky
Well-known
After Plustek did send me a new Opticfilm 120 to replace that off-focus one i'm really happy with it and its results. Will be even more happy when Silverfast manages to get some bugs out of their software 
The price is indeed steep but then again, you never know, maybe it goes the same way as what happened with the Nikon 9000ED when that went out of production ;-)
Before this i used a Canon 8800F flatbedscanner for my medium format films and the next best thing would be an Epson V750 or an used 9000ED.
This Opticfilm 120 neatly fills the gap between V750 and 9000ED and, being a MF camera collector and user, i'm thankfull that Plustek did make that plunge into the deep and even went on with their development when all odds were against them (sensor out of production).
The price is indeed steep but then again, you never know, maybe it goes the same way as what happened with the Nikon 9000ED when that went out of production ;-)
Before this i used a Canon 8800F flatbedscanner for my medium format films and the next best thing would be an Epson V750 or an used 9000ED.
This Opticfilm 120 neatly fills the gap between V750 and 9000ED and, being a MF camera collector and user, i'm thankfull that Plustek did make that plunge into the deep and even went on with their development when all odds were against them (sensor out of production).
timparkin
Newbie
(p)review
(p)review
Just been reviewing a copy for the magazine I run (onlandscape.co.uk) and thought you'd be interested in a few images.
The film holders were crap so I jerry rigged two bits of AN glass from a slide holder and used them in the slide film holder. I used a Adox CMS20 shot of a resolution target using a Mamiya 7. About 240 lpmm should work up to 6500dpi (checked with a microscope).
Firstly I compared the raw resolution with a Howtek 4500 drum scanner and an Epson V750..
Here's the OpticFilm dryscan (still in AN glass)
The resolution varies depending on direction. In the direction of scanning it's slightly lower at about 4500-4600 dpi. Across the direction of scan the resolution hit the 5300 figure (woot!) but I could only get that when scanning at 10600. Scanned at 5300 I got about 5000dpi.
Here's the Howtek scan. It got about 3900dpi and wasn't as smooth (this is just the green channel)
and finally the epson
Which is predictably awful - well it's OK for what it is..
So here's a bigger image from each to show something more pictorial.
OpticFilm 120 AN Dry
OpticFilm 120 AN Wet
Howtek
Epson
The wet scan was made at 90 degrees to the dry scan, hence it looks like it's getting more resolution when in actual fact it's a little less. I notice that there are some nasty harsh edges in the direction of scanning and a 1px motion blur helps make scans look more 'symmetrical' without losing resolution. These harsh edges seem to be caused by different brightness in alternating lines in the direction of scan. very odd - here's a close up.
So mostly I'm pretty impressed. The final review will have dmax testing of various images including a bracketed velvia and portra exposure. multiscan dmax testing, etc, etc.
Overall I'm impressed with the scanner - if only they sold an AN glass holder to keep things flat that had height adjustment.
Tim
p.s. review not up until next week..
(p)review
Just been reviewing a copy for the magazine I run (onlandscape.co.uk) and thought you'd be interested in a few images.
The film holders were crap so I jerry rigged two bits of AN glass from a slide holder and used them in the slide film holder. I used a Adox CMS20 shot of a resolution target using a Mamiya 7. About 240 lpmm should work up to 6500dpi (checked with a microscope).
Firstly I compared the raw resolution with a Howtek 4500 drum scanner and an Epson V750..
Here's the OpticFilm dryscan (still in AN glass)
The resolution varies depending on direction. In the direction of scanning it's slightly lower at about 4500-4600 dpi. Across the direction of scan the resolution hit the 5300 figure (woot!) but I could only get that when scanning at 10600. Scanned at 5300 I got about 5000dpi.
Here's the Howtek scan. It got about 3900dpi and wasn't as smooth (this is just the green channel)
and finally the epson
Which is predictably awful - well it's OK for what it is..
So here's a bigger image from each to show something more pictorial.
OpticFilm 120 AN Dry
OpticFilm 120 AN Wet
Howtek
Epson
The wet scan was made at 90 degrees to the dry scan, hence it looks like it's getting more resolution when in actual fact it's a little less. I notice that there are some nasty harsh edges in the direction of scanning and a 1px motion blur helps make scans look more 'symmetrical' without losing resolution. These harsh edges seem to be caused by different brightness in alternating lines in the direction of scan. very odd - here's a close up.
So mostly I'm pretty impressed. The final review will have dmax testing of various images including a bracketed velvia and portra exposure. multiscan dmax testing, etc, etc.
Overall I'm impressed with the scanner - if only they sold an AN glass holder to keep things flat that had height adjustment.
Tim
p.s. review not up until next week..
timparkin
Newbie
p.s. scan times were quite reasonable. about 6 mins for a 5300dpi scan of a 6x7
astro8
Well-known
Welcome, Tim Parkin.
I've heard you know a thing or two about scanning.
I've heard you know a thing or two about scanning.
timparkin
Newbie
Aristophanes
Well-known
Nicely done. Thank-you.
Frankly, I found the dry Plustek scan to be acceptable.
Would you say the dry scan default factory method acceptable for bulk scanning?
You are now on the hook to demonstrate your ANR glass kludge...you know that right?
beezil
Established
After Plustek did send me a new Opticfilm 120 to replace that off-focus one i'm really happy with it and its results. Will be even more happy when Silverfast manages to get some bugs out of their software
The price is indeed steep but then again, you never know, maybe it goes the same way as what happened with the Nikon 9000ED when that went out of production ;-)
Before this i used a Canon 8800F flatbedscanner for my medium format films and the next best thing would be an Epson V750 or an used 9000ED.
This Opticfilm 120 neatly fills the gap between V750 and 9000ED and, being a MF camera collector and user, i'm thankfull that Plustek did make that plunge into the deep and even went on with their development when all odds were against them (sensor out of production).
hans and I had exactly the same issue, and we have exactly the same #2 scanner to use as a "control" in our comparison tests.
We both had scanners either replaced or repaired, and what we received back makes the difference. I agree with Hans that the recent review (not tim parkin's) was probably done on a scanner with the same unresolved issue....unfortunately.
Have a look at the two samples I posted a few pages ago.
One sample demonstrates awesome tonal gradation, the other, excellent acuity and abilty to resolve edge detail.
The destination for my scanned images is art prints from my own Epson large-format printer.
While i have highly scrutinized the quality of the scans themselves, the proof is in the prints!
I am printing my Plustek120 scans on a large format printer, and I am most pleased with those REAL results.
that's what matters to me....not some hyper-focal, techno-geeky, electron microscopic analysis.....although Tim's findings are cool
just some food for thought.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Decided against the Plustek when MSRP was announced and sold off the Rolleiflexes.
Still not sure if all this was wise.
Said it before and seems it's time to repeat: why not find somebody with a 3D printer who can produce adjustable negative holders for this scanner? Seems a more effective and less costly approach than getting Plustek to sort out the focusing issues or produce an adjusrable negative holder.
A bit in the realm of the ANR Better Scanning glass, and the alternative-designed lens hoods that some fella here recently produced using said technique...
Still not sure if all this was wise.
Said it before and seems it's time to repeat: why not find somebody with a 3D printer who can produce adjustable negative holders for this scanner? Seems a more effective and less costly approach than getting Plustek to sort out the focusing issues or produce an adjusrable negative holder.
A bit in the realm of the ANR Better Scanning glass, and the alternative-designed lens hoods that some fella here recently produced using said technique...
beezil
Established
It's not finding the guy with the 3d printer....
'cause all he's going to ask is "what do you want printed? have your solidworks file ready?"
it's WHO is going to take the time and effort to design/engineer/test the thing?
whoever that is, will most likely recoup the cost by selling the new trays at a price that reflects the initial investment and effort.
HHPhoto
Well-known
Hi Tim,
welcome here on board at RFF!
Thanks for your test.
I just want to add some important facts most here do overlook (well Tim you know it because of your resolution tests in the past; your big review
http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/big-camera-comparison/
was excellent work!
Thank you for that.
Your results confirm our results.)
If you want the highest resolution and best detail rendition at lowest cost, the best options are
- optical printing with APO enlarging lenses
and
- slide projection with the best projection lenses.
With these both optical imaging chains you clearly surpass even the best drum scanners. We've tested it with Imacon X5 and the like.
The resolution you get in the optical imaging chain is only a little bit less (almost in-significant) compared to the microscope performance.
So if you look at Tim's test results with microscope in his big camera comparison test (see link above) you get a very good impression what is possible in slide projection and optical printing.
This are not only our results (from me and my prof. photographer colleagues K. Henken and M. Müller) but also the results of the well respected optic experts H. Serger and D. Ventzke, and the prof. photographers M. Antora and G. Mayer.
As you can get the equipment for excellent optic printing and slide projection at very low prices (even new this equipment is much cheaper than the Plustek 120), you have two highest quality, lowest cost alternatives.
We can make scans, but we don't have to.
Life is good having excellent alternatives.
Cheers, Jan
stormy_weather
Member
Scanning old negatives...
This one is from 1988 and from an old (1948) Rolleicord with a 3,5/75 Xenar with Ilford FP4.
While I recall that, I have no recollection of who the lady is - she must be 50 now.
And if you want, you can read the newspaper even today (a 5300 DPI scan):
The Silverfast software is a mess - but the scanner does nice things...
Regards,
Sven
This one is from 1988 and from an old (1948) Rolleicord with a 3,5/75 Xenar with Ilford FP4.
While I recall that, I have no recollection of who the lady is - she must be 50 now.
And if you want, you can read the newspaper even today (a 5300 DPI scan):
The Silverfast software is a mess - but the scanner does nice things...
Regards,
Sven
timparkin
Newbie
Dry scan is fine - wet scan is recommended for film that shows the 'pepper grain' effect like Fuji Velvia - however it's not that offensive in a smaller print.
The ANR kludge will be shown in the article but it's basically just using the ANR glass from a 35mm slide and taping it into the slide holder. It just so happens that my focus was just at the right height for this. I'd be happy to hack a spare holder if I could get one but as I've just spent £1400 on an as new Fuji Lanovia C-550 and £400 on a Screen Cezanne Elite and I've already got a Howtek 4500 and an Epson V750 I can't justify another scanner