mob81
Well-known
Plustek120-06SEP'14-007 by Mohammed Basamh, on Flickr
Plustek120-06SEP'14-009 by Mohammed Basamh, on Flickr
The OFFICIAL Plustek 120 post your scans
- Thread starter beezil
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 757
- Views 214K
Plustek120-06SEP'14-007 by Mohammed Basamh, on FlickrPlustek120-06SEP'14-009 by Mohammed Basamh, on Flickr
kanzlr
Hexaneur
tres bien, great colors!
mob81
Well-known
Plustek120_24Nov_007 by Mohammed Basamh, on Flickr
Plustek120_24Nov_033 by Mohammed Basamh, on FlickrAsprine
Member
It looks like there might be an updated version of the Plustek 120.
http://blog.silverfast.com/cebit-20...tm_campaign=Feed:+silverfast+(SilverFast+Blog)
http://blog.silverfast.com/cebit-20...tm_campaign=Feed:+silverfast+(SilverFast+Blog)
kanzlr
Hexaneur
interesting. Would love to know what changes they made
hanskerensky
Well-known
They talk about "new looks".
Silverfast at least gives some information. Plustek, as usual, is very quiet.
Silverfast at least gives some information. Plustek, as usual, is very quiet.
mani
Well-known
Would really love to know what these ‘hardware’ changes involve? Especially if they’ve implemented auto-focus or any of the other changes that many people have been hoping for. I noticed the dates for the show have passed now - so surely the news about the updates must be public?
Asprine
Member
Sorry, last offopic post about the scanner instead of its photos.
I send an email last week to Plustek about the revision. Just got an answer back that stated that the new 'version' would be in store within 2 weeks.
But the change list looks only firm/software changes. Lets see in two weeks...
1. Offset tool included
2. Job manager and Batch scan improved
3. New GM Mac support is up to OS 10.10.x (Yosemite)
4. SilverFast has no 32bit OS (Win XP, Mac 10.5.x, 10.6.x) officially support anymore. It is compatible only.
I send an email last week to Plustek about the revision. Just got an answer back that stated that the new 'version' would be in store within 2 weeks.
But the change list looks only firm/software changes. Lets see in two weeks...
1. Offset tool included
2. Job manager and Batch scan improved
3. New GM Mac support is up to OS 10.10.x (Yosemite)
4. SilverFast has no 32bit OS (Win XP, Mac 10.5.x, 10.6.x) officially support anymore. It is compatible only.
borge
Established
I just purchased a new Opticfilm 120, and installed the latest driver (5.0.20 I believe) from Plustek's website, and also Silverfast 8.5.0r3 (latest version).
What I am noticing when trying to scan 35mm film is that even when the negatives are perfectly aligned, the scanner, or silverfast, chops of a little bit of the top and/or bottom of the 35mm frame. When I choose the 3:2 crop format in PS or LR my suspicions are confirmed, the frame that the Plustek scans is something in-between a 4:3 and 3:2 aspect ratio.
My Epson gives me the entire full 35mm frame in 3:2 aspect ratio.
Is this normal? Is there some way to fix it? Frame adjustment and selection is so much easier on my Epson... I almost find the scans from the Opticfilm 120 to have a very "harsh" and digital look, versus my V850 which are a lot smoother. After re-sizing a 6400dpi scan from the Epson and a 5300dpi scan from the Plustek down to 3200dpi, and applying a small amount of Smart Sharpening on the Epson's files, the Epson scans still are "smoother", but at the same time just as sharp, if not sharper than the Plustek, and they also have less grain/noise. And the Epson scans look more like film, wheras the Plustek scans looks more digital.
The chopping off the top and bottom of the frames is not acceptable though, and if this is normal then I'd rather use the V850 even for 35mm, as I want my entire 3:2 frames scanned!
What I am noticing when trying to scan 35mm film is that even when the negatives are perfectly aligned, the scanner, or silverfast, chops of a little bit of the top and/or bottom of the 35mm frame. When I choose the 3:2 crop format in PS or LR my suspicions are confirmed, the frame that the Plustek scans is something in-between a 4:3 and 3:2 aspect ratio.
My Epson gives me the entire full 35mm frame in 3:2 aspect ratio.
Is this normal? Is there some way to fix it? Frame adjustment and selection is so much easier on my Epson... I almost find the scans from the Opticfilm 120 to have a very "harsh" and digital look, versus my V850 which are a lot smoother. After re-sizing a 6400dpi scan from the Epson and a 5300dpi scan from the Plustek down to 3200dpi, and applying a small amount of Smart Sharpening on the Epson's files, the Epson scans still are "smoother", but at the same time just as sharp, if not sharper than the Plustek, and they also have less grain/noise. And the Epson scans look more like film, wheras the Plustek scans looks more digital.
The chopping off the top and bottom of the frames is not acceptable though, and if this is normal then I'd rather use the V850 even for 35mm, as I want my entire 3:2 frames scanned!
Lancelot365
Member
My comparisons between my older version OF120 and the GTX980 (Jap version of V850) also suggest that OF120 is not much sharper.
kanzlr
Hexaneur
meanwhile, mine is humming along nicely:
Fiaker by Bernhard Fuhry, on Flickr
Fiaker Stephansplatz by Bernhard Fuhry, on Flickr
Auto by Bernhard Fuhry, on Flickr
Fiaker by Bernhard Fuhry, on Flickr
Fiaker Stephansplatz by Bernhard Fuhry, on Flickr
Auto by Bernhard Fuhry, on Flickr
Kamph
Established
I would really like to see some of those comparisons. My OF120 is much sharper than the flatbeds I've owned or tried (Canon 8800f, Epson 4990, v500 and v700), none of which was able to resolve the grain of even a iso 400 film properly. I don't get how you can get smoother yet sharper results with your flatbeds, that sounds contradictional to me. I do know the benefits of scanning with a higher resolution in regards to grain aliasing, but if the flatbed can't even resolve the grain then how can it possibly resolve more detail? My OF120 has no problem resolving the grain of even T-max 100. Very curly negs can, however, throw focus somewhat off, leading to a lot lower resolution either in the corners or in the middle of the frame, so perhaps the tolerance isen't as great as Plustek made it out to be. It could very well be that your scanners are out of focus.
kanzlr
Hexaneur
same here. I used a 4990 with better scanning holders and while the results where good, the 120 beats it easily, and is MUCH faster with 120 film.
mob81
Well-known
Anyone got the new Silverfast update to work properly? I installed the new driver update too, but it won't initiate the preview and makes weird noises!!
borge
Established
I suggest you go into the service dialog window when starting Silverfast and resetting all settings. Also pull the power plug out of the scanner itself at the same time, and re-connect it and turn it on.
kanzlr
Hexaneur
I am currently in the process of scanning the images from our honey moon on the Faroe Islands 🙂
Faroe Islands by Bernhard Kreuz, on Flickr
please note Risin og Kellingin in the distance on the left 🙂
Faroe Islands by Bernhard Kreuz, on Flickr
please note Risin og Kellingin in the distance on the left 🙂
SURF
Member
What's UP?
rjstep3
Established
The OF will scan the grain structure of the film whereas the Epson won't get the grain and will give you that "smoother" look, just plain colour rather than that "digital" (or grain) appearance you don't seem to like. It's a question of taste I suppose, some people like film for that grainy look, others don't. But it's not the same as digital IMO.
I agree with you about the chopping though - I don't get the same coverage of the negative with any of the holders for any size film. Very irritating. You just have to accept that you will lose a certain element of your image.
On balance, I am not sure I would buy another OF 120, very nice detailed scans, but with the chopping and colours and generally slow workflow compared with an Epson flatbed, I am not sure it is worth it.
rjstep3
