The OFFICIAL Plustek 120 post your scans

[louisb]

The Plustek 120 replaced my Coolscan 4000 and Epson 4490.

For 35mm film, it is at least on par with the Coolscan, extracts actually more detail I'd say, and does not emphasize grain as much (which benefits colour negatives a lot, in my opinion).

In 120 it is no contest really, but the Epson scans with ANR glass where decent and more than enough for my usual print sizes. Thing is: why shoot 120 in the first place, if you only get a 8mp scan out of it (if scanning is what you plan to do with your negatives).

Good point about why bother to shoot film if you are scanning rather than (say)printing?

My argument is that there is a definite look and feel of film which is retained even after scanning. And I find the work flow satisfying.

Louis

 

[clayne]

I think what he meant is why bother to shoot medium format film when your scanner is only capable of extracting 8mpx out of a film size which yields 80+ megapixels depending on format (6x6 vs 6x9, etc).

Opticfilm 120 and Coolscan 9000 are capable of extracting that amount of data.

 

[kanzlr]

I think what he meant is why bother to shoot medium format film when your scanner is only capable of extracting 8mpx out of a film size which yields 80+ megapixels depending on format (6x6 vs 6x9, etc).

Opticfilm 120 and Coolscan 9000 are capable of extracting that amount of data.

yes, thats what I meant. Medium formats advantage is in resolution/detail (and maybe tonality, but that really is just a result of the former). If you are satisfied with the equivalence of around 5MPixel (which is enough, more often than not), why not shoot cheaper 35mm film with smaller and lighter gear.

 

[stormy_weather]

Köln Chorweiler, Wista 45 with 6x9 (2x3") roll film back and Ilford FP4, 150mm Schneider Xenar - nothing artistic , just trying out camera and lens:

Regards,

Sven

 

[beezil]

Köln Chorweiler, Wista 45 with 6x9 (2x3") roll film back and Ilford FP4, 150mm Schneider Xenar - nothing artistic , just trying out camera and lens:

Regards,

Sven

so what do you think?

are you liking your results?

 

[clayne]

That's pretty damn good!

 

[kokoshawnuff]

Does anyone have experience with both this and the 35mm plustek scanners? Is the 120 noticeably better than the 35mm only options (concerning 35mm film of course)?

 

[clayne]

I'd think if you're going to put out money for a new 135 scanner, but can envision MF in your future, I'd put out the extra money for the 120. AFAIK this scanner has a new sensor vs the others.

 

[stormy_weather]

Some pictures from this summer’s vacation in France, taken with a WISTA 45 on Fuji Velvia 100F (6x9) and scanned with the Plustek. #3 was taken with a 150mm Schneider Xenar, the others with the (wonderfull) Mamiya 6,3/50

Regards,

Sven

 

[stormy_weather]

Wrong - #2 is from the Xenar...

 

[bambule]

http://www.filmscanner.info/BraunFS120.html
3270 ppi, autofocus!

 

[fventura]

Velvia 100F

Velvia 100F

The new software seems to improve the frame alignment problem I was having .

Fuji Velvia 100F
Pentax 67

http://www.flickr.com/photos/josies/9598203661/

 

[rdocksey]

Some pictures from this summer’s vacation in France, taken with a WISTA 45 on Fuji Velvia 100F (6x9) and scanned with the Plustek. #3 was taken with a 150mm Schneider Xenar, the others with the (wonderfull) Mamiya 6,3/50

<SNIP>

Regards,

Sven

Beautiful! Where in France?

I want to go...

 

[stormy_weather]

Beautiful! Where in France?

I want to go...

#1 is Paray-le-Monial in Burgundy, the others were taken in the Provence region: #2 Abbaye de Sénanque, #3 Venasque, #4 the Popes Palace in Avignon, #5 Nyons.

Regards,

Sven

 

[RichC]

Talked to the university technicians the other day, who've now had time to do some tests with the new Plustek. They said that the scans are better than those from the Nikon, albeit the difference isn't huge - and they're impressed by the build quality and ease of use, which they reckon is an improvement over the Nikon (not to mention the ability to get spares and repairs!).

The Imacon scans are significantly better - but then they should be considering their cost!

 

[bambule]

i saw scans from the plustek directly compared to the nikon and the flextight.
i was lucky to get insider informations of the scan-specialist at a scan service.
i can confirm that the imacon flextight is significantly better than the plustek.
but sadly the plustek did not reach the nikon coolscan. it is clearly better than any flatbed like the epson v750 but not as good as the nikon.
theoretical maybe it could, but based on the missing autofocus you will always have significant mean variations! one is slightly better focused than another.... depressingly!
actual output of several tests i have read now, are all in the range of 3100 - 3450 dpi.
plustek should mount a steering wheel outside of the body housing to let it focus imanually ... 🙂

 

[fventura]

Kodak Portra 160 35mm

Kodak Portra 160 35mm

EOS 3 + 85mm + Portra 160
no isrd, adjusted in LR
scan at 2650dpi
dimensions: 3648 x 2456

link:
http://www.fabioventura.com/plustek120/e69ec92c3

 

[MartinN]

I have measured my Plustek OpticFilm 120 scanners resolution using a SilverFast USAF 1951 target and a moderate estimation of resolution is about 4600ppi. With some imagination one could even see some resolution above this limit. My scanning resolution for these tests was 5300ppi setting. When comparing the Plustek to Hasselblad Flextights (X5 and X1) one should realize that these scanners scan medium format film at 3200dpi optical resolution so that their mesured resolution should be a tad under that. From these I might suggest that the Plustek Opticfilm 120 is the currently available desktop scanner which has the highest measured resolution for medium format film. I am completely happy with my unit and have tested that it is fully in-focus and that I did not get a misaligned sample from the first batch. I can't make any conclusions about dynamic range other than that I beleive other scanners are better. My main problems with this scanner were related to Silverfast software but they keep fixing and updating it so I expect to be happy with it when it reaches maturity.

 

[bambule]

@ MartinN:
any pictures for comparison?? if you are happy and get such fantastic resolution, let us participate to it please.

sorry, but the scans from fventura above do nothing tell about the quality of the plustek.
scans with this dimensions looks good produced on my old epson 4990 too!

 

[MartinN]

Unfortunately getting a really sharp negative is very difficult with my camera gear. Colornegatives could be 'quite' sharp but unfortunately E6 chromes are inherently softer due to dye diffusion. Black and white is in my opinion the only film that could be useful for demonstrations. I'm lucky to have some Kodak Technical PAN but I have had them developed in T-MAX Dev instead of Technidol.

My cameras, lenses and films do not allow me to get near the resolution I can see on the USAF scan. I hope for the future that we could have some development in film technology but I am very afraid that Ektar 100 and T_MAX 100 were the last things developed for superior resolution.