The OFFICIAL Plustek 120 post your scans

[nicoimages]

Thats a real pitty, as the scanner is superb if it works as it should

I am sure it is - just a pity that QA seems to be non existent. I am not the only one with this problem and it seems to occur only when scanning 120 neg film. I have been looking back at samples on flickr and there are quiet a few samples with the yellow banding problem but not as bad as with my tests. Setting the white balance on the "yellow" band masks the problem and results in magenta corners.

If anyone based in the UK wants to sell me a Coolscan 8000 in good condition please let me know.

 

[adelie]

It is January 24, 2015. My question is this. Has the "yellow colour banding" issue been fixed on the Plustek Opticfilm 120? Are there still outstanding problems with this scanner? Would you buy this scanner tomorrow? Thanks

 

[lawrence]

It is January 24, 2015. My question is this. Has the "yellow colour banding" issue been fixed on the Plustek Opticfilm 120? Are there still outstanding problems with this scanner? Would you buy this scanner tomorrow? Thanks

I have the same question but my scanning is limited to traditional monochrome film, such as FP4+ or Tri-X. Would this make a difference to the answer?

 

[nicoimages]

Quick update - I am now the very happy owner of a Nikon Coolscan 9000

No yellow banding - such a pity that the Plustek despite being well engineered otherwise has this flaw.

Scan below is from the same negative with Coolscan 9000 and glass negative carrier (yes you will need this too to get sharp 120 film scans unfortunately)

http://s1062.photobucket.com/user/nicoimages/media/Scan-150125-00041_zpse3c56b12.jpg.html

 

[nicoimages]

It is January 24, 2015. My question is this. Has the "yellow colour banding" issue been fixed on the Plustek Opticfilm 120? Are there still outstanding problems with this scanner? Would you buy this scanner tomorrow? Thanks

Unless you never intend to scan Colour Neg 120 film and are exclusively using E6 and B&W film I would not buy this scanner again. Having tried out three new units I am pretty sure that Quality Control is an issue.

Try getting a Nikon Coolscan 8000 in good condition it is almost the same as the more expensive 9000 just a bit slower.

Even the 9000 can be found cheaper than a new Plustek at the moment if you are patient and prepared to find the right model.

I now have both the 8000 and 9000 and spent less money on both than a new Plustek - and yes I was very lucky on ebay 🙂

 

[kanzlr]

you were extremely lucky then 🙂 locally, 8000 go for € 2500,-- and 9000 for well over € 3500,--

 

[k__43]

you were extremely lucky then 🙂 locally, 8000 go for € 2500,-- and 9000 for well over € 3500,--

I bought an 8000 for 1000€ on eBay Germany - couldn't be happier, only I pray every day for it not to break.

 

[philipus]

I bought a 9000 last year for just over 2000€. I've seen 8000 for about 1000€ from honest dealers who don't jack up the prices like Scandig and others do.

 

[luuca]

I cannot believe it.

My scanner WAS perfect.

I looked through the old scans and they are perfect... look at this scan, I've done it today...
I also tried to flip the negative, but the problem is obviously the plustek...

from a 6x9 negative (billy record I) and ektar 100

so, the banding problem could appear too, after some times....

 

[Harry Lime]

different color channels will always show different levels of sharpness on all scanners, thats quite normal.

True. R, G, B are never the same sharpness. Usually blue or red are the softest.

 

[kanzlr]

now that there have been a few negative reports, I want to say that mine is still going strong, no banding, no problems whatsover, Vuescan now works with dust removal again, I am a happy camper (and may still get a Coolscan again for batch scanning of whole rolls...but thats another topic...)

 

[smilem]

So after a year since I returned the scanner Plustek still has the banding problems?

 

[Kamph]

I can add that mine keeps producing excellent scans as well.
It's quite hard to tell if banding really is a widespread problem or not, as
I think it's fair to assume that people with problems will be more likely to seek advice and thus post on forums like this, while people with working scanners obviously won't have that need.

 

[Kamph]

Take a quick look at the Imacon group's discussion board on flickr for example. I think most people would agree that the Imacon Flextights (now owned by Hasselblad of course) are about as good as it gets in the CCD scanner world, but you wouldn't know from looking at the topics on the discussion board. It might be a similar case with the Plustek, although noone is claiming that the Plustek is as good as it gets 😉

 

[kanzlr]

It might be a similar case with the Plustek, although noone is claiming that the Plustek is as good as it gets 😉

but as good as I want to afford (both in terms of money and comfort. Just sticking 12 35mm exposures in there and have them batch scanned is nice).

I think it is as good as it gets at the price point it is sold at.

 

[Kamph]

but as good as I want to afford (both in terms of money and comfort. Just sticking 12 35mm exposures in there and have them batch scanned is nice).

I think it is as good as it gets at the price point it is sold at.

I think you might have misunderstood me, I have no complaints about the scan quality of a working unit! Mine performed better (resolution wise) than a friends Coolscan 9000, which is quite an achievement IMO. I just don't expect it to beat a Flextight that's all 🙂

 

[kanzlr]

oh I did understand you. Just wanted to add my 2ct 🙂

 

[Pete B]

Scan-150226-0008 by Sky-nerd, on Flickr

Pentax 67, 105/2.4, TriX 400, D76.
Pete

 

[James1]

Sadly, I had to return my OF120 in the end, after a number of problems over three machines including focus, mechanical noise and the dreaded colour banding problem.

I have since "re-acquired" a Canon FS4000US, the scanner I had previously. I decided to do a qualitative experiment, comparing a scan of the same negative on the FS4000US to a scan of the same image on the OF120.

I used Vuescan for both, scanned as RAW file image, no other corrections in Vuescan, inverted in ColorPerfect, then applying the same type of correction curves to both images. The OF120 scan was downsampled to 4000ppi.

As expected, because I scanned as an 'image' (rather than transparency), I had to apply the most correction to the blue channel, then green, then red for the FS4000US . However, the OF120 required far less blue correction - in fact, the amount was similar to green.

What I didn't expect to find was the totally different way in which the two scanners render blue. The FS4000US scan is closer to the look of the sky when I took this photograph, and all three OF120 machines rendered the colours in the same way.

Now, as I say, this was a qualitative test, and the film was expired Orwo NC3 movie film. But, I am sure I have read that it's the blue channel that's the cause of the banding problem, so how that ties into these tests (if in any way) I don't know.

I'm very happy with the FS4000US, but unfortunately I don't now have a medium format scanning solution 🙁

 

[mob81]

Plustek120-06SEP'14-036 by Mohammed Basamh, on Flickr

Plustek120-06SEP'14-005 by Mohammed Basamh, on Flickr