fventura
Established
crop
crop
I am learning as I go...
Pentax 67 + 105 f.4 + velvia 100F
I could be wrong, but, I think this was 125sec f2.4 (hand held)
5300dpi, mild adjustments and sharpening in LR4
crop
I am learning as I go...
Pentax 67 + 105 f.4 + velvia 100F
I could be wrong, but, I think this was 125sec f2.4 (hand held)
5300dpi, mild adjustments and sharpening in LR4
Matus
Well-known
fventura, those look good. But it seems that the shadows tend towards blue/magenta - I have seen similar behaviour with my Microtek F1 (I never managed to get the color calibration to get to work properly with that scanner - even with dedicated E6 targets).
fventura
Established
thanks,
the latest update to silverfast seems to have made things a bit better.
(frame alignment issues seem to have been eliminated, at least in 35mm, 6x45, and 6x7, I am yet to test 6x6)
As for the color cast in the shadows, I don't know, I am still learning, but this looks pretty close to the actual slide.
When I tried to scan this frame in the past with my old V600, I simply gave up. It was like trying to pass mud as chocolate milk shake.
I have a few rolls of provia and velvia, time to shoot!
Fabio
stormy_weather
Member
The scaled down images may not, but the originals do...
And the crops give you an idea (I love the Plymouth).
When I had the Plustek brand new, I was also concerned about focus/sharpness, speed, Silverfast, and all that. This has changed a lot. Focus isn't an issue in everyday scanning, the scan times are a fraction of what filmscanner.info has measured ( I wonder what they were smoking when measuring this), and while the Silverfast software is still a mess as such, it annoys me less than it did, after some getting used to.
Another crop from me, from picture #3 above. Wonder what time the church closes - check it out:
And remember, this is a 50 year old super wide angle lens...
Regards,
Sven
wizofz2k
Member
Got mine about a week ago. Still testing the heck off it but so far, excellent results.
Had some trouble getting the "idiot-class" software installs to run the correct 64-bit drivers and versions for my Win64. Some fiddling with the actual install executables fixed the problem. Until then, I was getting bad framing on 35mm. THe new versions of the drivers and Silverfast seem to help a lot.
I also have - and use - a Coolscan 9000 and have done so for quite a few years. So far, the Plustek 120 is right up there with the Nikon in quality, speed and results.
The fixed focus is not an issue at all with my sample.
Speed is also equivalent to the Coolscan.
Lighting seems to be LED but unlike most of the Coolscans, it's quite soft and helps a lot with getting rid of issues when not using iSRD. I still prefer d-Ice, but right now I'm counting my blesssings for actually having a valid alternative to the Coolscan and Nikon's total lack of support of that line. The lighting should work really well with b&w film, gotta try some Adox CMS20!
The holders are a cut above the Nikon's: very solid and firm, and they are moved by a lateral gear rather than one under the holder. This immediately gets rid of the constant focus point issues I get with the Nikon 9000.
It got so irritating that I actually added a metal frame to the 35mm Nikon holder and some AN-glass under it to keep the blessed things from twisting and sending frames out of focus as the holder moves in-and-out. It also went a long way in improving the film flatness.
The Plustek's gearing and design avoid all those issues and so far I have yet to see an issue with film flatness with the 35mm holder.
I'm also doing a casual write-up in dpug on the scanner, with some examples.
Next in line are some direct A-B comparisons between the two scanners on the same frame of the same film strip.
So far, the Plustek is holding up to the Coolscan 9000 without any problems! And given it's actually markedly cheaper than the Coolscan (and supported!), I'd say it's definitely a keeper!
Sure: Imacons and such are better but their price is up in nosebleed territory!...
I still have to test the Plustek with my 645, 6x6 and 6x7 gear but I don't anticipate any issues if it can hold itself to Coolscan quality with 35mm
Had some trouble getting the "idiot-class" software installs to run the correct 64-bit drivers and versions for my Win64. Some fiddling with the actual install executables fixed the problem. Until then, I was getting bad framing on 35mm. THe new versions of the drivers and Silverfast seem to help a lot.
I also have - and use - a Coolscan 9000 and have done so for quite a few years. So far, the Plustek 120 is right up there with the Nikon in quality, speed and results.
The fixed focus is not an issue at all with my sample.
Speed is also equivalent to the Coolscan.
Lighting seems to be LED but unlike most of the Coolscans, it's quite soft and helps a lot with getting rid of issues when not using iSRD. I still prefer d-Ice, but right now I'm counting my blesssings for actually having a valid alternative to the Coolscan and Nikon's total lack of support of that line. The lighting should work really well with b&w film, gotta try some Adox CMS20!
The holders are a cut above the Nikon's: very solid and firm, and they are moved by a lateral gear rather than one under the holder. This immediately gets rid of the constant focus point issues I get with the Nikon 9000.
It got so irritating that I actually added a metal frame to the 35mm Nikon holder and some AN-glass under it to keep the blessed things from twisting and sending frames out of focus as the holder moves in-and-out. It also went a long way in improving the film flatness.
The Plustek's gearing and design avoid all those issues and so far I have yet to see an issue with film flatness with the 35mm holder.
I'm also doing a casual write-up in dpug on the scanner, with some examples.
Next in line are some direct A-B comparisons between the two scanners on the same frame of the same film strip.
So far, the Plustek is holding up to the Coolscan 9000 without any problems! And given it's actually markedly cheaper than the Coolscan (and supported!), I'd say it's definitely a keeper!
Sure: Imacons and such are better but their price is up in nosebleed territory!...
I still have to test the Plustek with my 645, 6x6 and 6x7 gear but I don't anticipate any issues if it can hold itself to Coolscan quality with 35mm
smilem
Established
It seems you haven't opened any DVD writers or CD-ROMS. At the time Nikon made their coolscan 9000 the CD-RW cost was 1000$ to 2000$. Now they cost 50$ and they all have autofocus. The autofocus is on magnets like it always was, should I call it 3D real time autofocus needed to follow the special track in the media so that laser can write at precise locations.
The Plustek doesn't even need this, if they adjust it in the factory with screwdriver, all was required from plustek to put a stepper motor to adjust it that's it. Somebody suggested external adjustment - come on the stepper motors cost is 5$ the same as external plastic knob. Don't be stupid guys do some research.
I see this as an opportunity for somebody who can open open the scanner, can program arduino and make allot of money by selling the autofocus upgrade on ebay or something.
ucit
Member
give me a plustek 120 and i'll make you that arduino upgrade for free 
mszargar
Established
Basic question about opticfilm 120:
Now that the drivers have been updated, how does the ADF function work? Can I select all the frames that I want to scan, turn on the auto frame detect option and leave the scanner to make raw files of all my frames for me, or does SilverFast still need considerable assistance?
I am considering an upgrade, but this is an expensive one. Basically, I have a choice between streamlining my film workflow or giving a shot to a digital rangefinder (M9). I just want to make sure about what I am stepping into.
I already have a Nikon V ED, which is great, but is very noisy, does not take MF film, and scans one film strip each round (35mm). Moreover, without the whole SilverFast package (IT8, Ai Studio with HDRI out, and HDR Studio for a posteriori batch processing, rather than on the spot processing) I find making accurate color scans a rather slow, sometimes daunting process. - Believe me, I have tried NegFix, NegPos, and the whole package...
I have tried SilverFast, and I think it provides a pretty quick workflow for most shots, leaving me time to work more on the more problematic shots. But then the automatic frame detection is not very reliable on the V ED. What's your experience with OF 120? Does it save me some time if I upgrade to OF 120 with the full SilverFast package, or is it just no better than having an Epson v700 for MF + Nikon V ED for 35? I know about the IQ differences, but my main concern is time here.
Now that the drivers have been updated, how does the ADF function work? Can I select all the frames that I want to scan, turn on the auto frame detect option and leave the scanner to make raw files of all my frames for me, or does SilverFast still need considerable assistance?
I am considering an upgrade, but this is an expensive one. Basically, I have a choice between streamlining my film workflow or giving a shot to a digital rangefinder (M9). I just want to make sure about what I am stepping into.
I already have a Nikon V ED, which is great, but is very noisy, does not take MF film, and scans one film strip each round (35mm). Moreover, without the whole SilverFast package (IT8, Ai Studio with HDRI out, and HDR Studio for a posteriori batch processing, rather than on the spot processing) I find making accurate color scans a rather slow, sometimes daunting process. - Believe me, I have tried NegFix, NegPos, and the whole package...
I have tried SilverFast, and I think it provides a pretty quick workflow for most shots, leaving me time to work more on the more problematic shots. But then the automatic frame detection is not very reliable on the V ED. What's your experience with OF 120? Does it save me some time if I upgrade to OF 120 with the full SilverFast package, or is it just no better than having an Epson v700 for MF + Nikon V ED for 35? I know about the IQ differences, but my main concern is time here.
Art Vandalay
Imported from Detroit
Eagerly awaiting a response to this....
stormy_weather
Member
I'd say yes, it works pretty well now. I have not used the auto frame feature with earlier releases, but with the recent one I found no faults. It does crop the frame a little, and not always where you want it, but it is not much (you can set the amount of cropping in the settings, but even the zero setting will still crop a little, maybe 2-3%, and will leave a black bar, every now and then).
That said, I have only tested the feature. I don't use that much film, so if I do scan, I have so far spent the time to adjust the frame and the exposure for each individual image before the final scan.
Regards,
Sven
That said, I have only tested the feature. I don't use that much film, so if I do scan, I have so far spent the time to adjust the frame and the exposure for each individual image before the final scan.
Regards,
Sven
mbohara
Member
Saw some in stock at B&H last Thursday. Ordered and had it at my door Friday. In a little bit of disbelief. I've got a V700 to compare with, if anyone wants another one of those side-by-sides. Porta 160, Ektar, new Porta 400, Tri-X and Neopan 100 in Diafine...
mszargar
Established
More is always better! Let us know if you post any... Specially if you are using better scanning glass mounts on your v700, it will be interesting to know what OF120 has to offer over that...
edge100
Well-known
Yes, please! I missed out on the latest B&H batch; I added it to my cart, hesitated, and then decided to get it. By then, they were gone.
dougwillobee
Newbie
Mine was delivered last Thursday after being on Adorama's wait list since April 16th, so maybe they're finally shipping to the US.
Auto framing does not work for 6x7. The first frame is fine, but the second & 3rd frames are cut off. There's no way to programmatically adjust the inter-frame gap in SilverFast 8 for the OpticFilm 120, so you have to rearrange the negative manually for each frame, which makes any kind of batch scanning impossible. I haven't tried scanning 35mm yet (maybe tonight.)
Overall, I like the results I'm seeing, but SilverFast 8 isn't what I need. I emailed Ed Hamrick last night. He replied that Plustek hasn't delivered the scanner they promised him.
With VueScan the OpticFilm 120 looks to be a winner. Maybe we could start an email campaign to convince Plustek that VueScan should be a priority...
Best,
Doug
gdi
Veteran
It is really nice to see this scanner getting the bugs worked out. I have Nikon 9000, but everything dies eventually and hopefully these guys will continue to progress the product line so we will have options.
beezil
Established
I offered Hamrick my scanner back in february.
I can't believe he hasn't gotten one yet.
1200lle
Newbie
according to the Vuescan webpage, the OpticFilm 120 is supported:
http://www.hamrick.com/vuescan/plustek_opticfilm_120.html
Is that correct?
Kamph
Established
Hey, I just gave it a try, and it's still not working. But I have to say, that I'm actually getting pretty comfortable working with SF.
BTW, I find my scanner more than capable, I have had zero issues so far, and I'm getting the results I was expecting and then some. The resolution is truly astonding compared to my old flatbed, but then again that isen't saying much I guess
The only real down-side with all this extra resolution is the excessively sharp grain you get with some of the faster negative film.
I was actually surprised to see that the scanner even resolved the grain on Tmax 100 film. I have always considered Tmax 100 more or less grainless, but there you go!
Edit: My bad, it seems like Vuescan does indeed support the OpticFilm 120 now!
mob81
Well-known
I just ordered one and I hope I don't get bad copy! Now it's in stock on major online stores (adorama and BH at least). I bought for color negative developed by the lab as infrared cleaning is a must then for me.
mszargar
Established
Plustek says now there is a manual quality-control involved so that faulty units do not get out of the doors of the factory... If that is true, you should not worry.