Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Plustek Opticfilm 120  (Read 24636 times)
RomanN.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 336


« Reply #40 on: December 28, 2012, 10:51:43 AM »
ReplyReply

"Just wait until it comes out before pronouncing your subjective opinion."- No, it is absolutly not subjective, it is logical.
It is always the same play of Illusions, that the industry use to sell new rubish, you can use your brain or believe in advertising- or did you work for this company?
 "If you need the VERY BEST get a drum scanner."- yes that true. I have some drumscanners, some Imacons, and had Nikon 9000 and maybe 10 other CCD scanners. I dont think you or somebody else can tell me something new about scanners. CCD is very simple: no good lens, no good scanns. Also there exist only good Kodak CCDs, there are used in Imacon or Creo Scanners, and they cost  a lot, so where should get this company good chips, and for what price?
It is easy: 20 000 euro scanner can be build for 2000 euro.
Logged
Cineski
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 141


« Reply #41 on: December 28, 2012, 01:14:05 PM »
ReplyReply

That's funny to hear you say I can't get good scans with my Nikon 9000.  I can.  And I'm no slouch with my expectations.
Logged
RomanN.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 336


« Reply #42 on: December 28, 2012, 03:02:16 PM »
ReplyReply

If you are happy with your Nikon so stay with it. For me the Nikon scanns were too soft, nikon software must use much shapening to achieve a allround sharpness that a drumscanner achieve without any sharpening. After trying a drum scanner I scanned all my film for the second time and I was worry that I did not start with the right thing and loose so much time.
I will not loose time to explaine somebody that his scan could be better, but I think you should know it.
Logged
rogerxnz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 299


« Reply #43 on: December 28, 2012, 04:04:50 PM »
ReplyReply

I am tracking this thread because I am interested in the Plustek scanner. I am disappointed to respond to a email advising that a new post has been made, only to find that it is two old-timers having an argument about their experiences with other scanners.

Would you please take your squabble elsewhere and let us focus on the merits of the Plustek scanner (should it ever become reality).
Roger
Logged

Roger Hayman
Wellington, New Zealand
Cineski
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 141


« Reply #44 on: December 29, 2012, 07:07:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Roman, you got me ;-).  While my scans are what I would consider sharp (after applying sharpening in LR4), I don't favor an extremely high amount of sharpening in my photographs.  I look between the lines for what I like in an image.  To me, a too-sharp an image grates on me (but I also have an emotional hold-up that black and white images should have visible grain  Shocked).  But I have seen comparisons between the 9000 and some drum scanners and I'm not seeing that big of a difference that you may have seen?
Logged
Kirk Gittings
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1553


WWW
« Reply #45 on: December 29, 2012, 07:14:53 PM »
ReplyReply

The difference is not just about resolution (or how much sharpening you have to apply to make up for the loss). A good drum scanner can actually focus on and separate the grain which the 9000 cannot do (in the 9000 you see clumped grains as "grain' because it can't resolve down to that level). A good drum scan can also extract more detail out of thin shadows and dense highlights.

and FWIW I have been scanning film for a decade now with many film scanners from Epson flatbeds to the Nikon 9000 and professional flatbeds like the IQsmart and drum scanners. The samples I have seen from the Plustek put it closer in quality to the Epson flatbeds that even the Nikon 9000.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2012, 07:19:36 PM by Kirk Gittings » Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1843


« Reply #46 on: December 31, 2012, 11:12:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Roman, I don't work for Plustek. Neither do you, I assume, which means you haven't handled one. You don't know what lens, sensor it uses. I don't. It could be a complete piece of shit. It could be an alternative to a used Nikon. I don't know, neither do you.  So my point is: wait until we see a real scan. That's all I'm saying.

Kirk, you are correct, but in reality that level of resolution and peaking into shadows is only necessary for specific applications  if I needed that level of quality I'd send it out for a drum scan. In my professional life my images were usually printed in magazines, so a drum scan was unnecessary. If you need a drum scan you need a Drum scan. Period.  But most of the time I don't need a drum scan.  I would also think that a digital back would be a good option at that point as well.
Logged
Kirk Gittings
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1553


WWW
« Reply #47 on: December 31, 2012, 03:21:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Our experience has been very different. I've shot for magazines my entire career. When I shot film, the magazines were responsible for the scans and usually done by pre-press houses connected to the printers-they were always drum scans. That is my professional standard for magazine reproduction. For my b&w artwork I find I can get by with an IQSmart scan, but prefer a drum scan there too.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2012, 03:23:40 PM by Kirk Gittings » Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
Cineski
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 141


« Reply #48 on: January 01, 2013, 08:55:21 AM »
ReplyReply

When I scan with my 9000, I can zoom in to 100% on the scan and see individual film grain even with 100 speed film, there's never any clumping but I may have misunderstood what you're talking about.  The 9000 does blow highlights which is why I have it set up to scan for highlights and then bring up mids and shadows in post.  Even then, the highlights can lack grain structure that I know is there and has to be replaced in post but that's a rare occasion.  But the shadow detail I can pull never leaves me wanting more.  I can see the film's grain structure and lots of detail with no digital artifacts introduced from the scanner itself.  That said, I've never used a drum scanner or have had drum scans done.  I personally don't have any interest in it due to the cost and time it takes.  The only scanner I'd like to get my hands on is a Hassy X5 which screams through scans from what I've read.  So, take what I write with that in mind but I do consider myself someone who will go to great lengths for image quality.  The 9000's resolution and detail has never left me wanting more.  There are other quirks in the system that get me at times.

The difference is not just about resolution (or how much sharpening you have to apply to make up for the loss). A good drum scanner can actually focus on and separate the grain which the 9000 cannot do (in the 9000 you see clumped grains as "grain' because it can't resolve down to that level). A good drum scan can also extract more detail out of thin shadows and dense highlights.

and FWIW I have been scanning film for a decade now with many film scanners from Epson flatbeds to the Nikon 9000 and professional flatbeds like the IQsmart and drum scanners. The samples I have seen from the Plustek put it closer in quality to the Epson flatbeds that even the Nikon 9000.
Logged
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1843


« Reply #49 on: January 01, 2013, 01:24:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Our experience has been very different. I've shot for magazines my entire career. When I shot film, the magazines were responsible for the scans and usually done by pre-press houses connected to the printers-they were always drum scans. That is my professional standard for magazine reproduction. For my b&w artwork I find I can get by with an IQSmart scan, but prefer a drum scan there too.

This was my experience as well, until digital started taking over and the quality of the drum scans from many service bureaus started going to shit.  Larger editorial clients like Hachette and Conde Naste titles seem to still have some good scanner operators in their printer's pre press departments, but many smaller magazines, starting around 2006 or so, were taking my FPO scans and using them as final art, which is why I started making high res scans my self for publication or simply providing prints, ensuring they had them drum scanned. But I shot portraits so it was never as demanding as say landscape or products, or interiors.  When I shot beauty on film it was always drum scanned, but this was commercial work.  I always thought that a drum scan was a waste for most magazines.

With all that said, the Plustek COULD be in the Nikon 9000 range. I hope it is. 
« Last Edit: January 01, 2013, 04:09:02 PM by TMARK » Logged
torger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1607


« Reply #50 on: February 12, 2013, 08:25:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Anything new on this? Has any expert user tested the Plustek Opticfilm 120 yet?
Logged
amsp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 794


« Reply #51 on: February 12, 2013, 12:35:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Anything new on this? Has any expert user tested the Plustek Opticfilm 120 yet?

I haven't seen any professional tests yet, but there's plenty of user feedback over at: www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=128661
Logged
drevil
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 38


« Reply #52 on: February 12, 2013, 07:52:27 PM »
ReplyReply

a friend of mine received his plustek some weeks ago and did some testing, he comes from a well calibrated epson scanner and in the end he returned the the plustek, saying the little differences, and occasionally better results for the epson, arent worth the money.

http://retrolux.de/plustek-opticfilm-120-sample-scans
Logged
torger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1607


« Reply #53 on: February 13, 2013, 02:27:39 AM »
ReplyReply

a friend of mine received his plustek some weeks ago and did some testing, he comes from a well calibrated epson scanner and in the end he returned the the plustek, saying the little differences, and occasionally better results for the epson, arent worth the money.

http://retrolux.de/plustek-opticfilm-120-sample-scans

Based on the sample scans there I actually think the plustek 120 looks quite promising. I wonder how close it is to Nikon 9000 ED. A scan of a resolution test slide would be cool too, it can be quite hard to see on photo scans as it depends on the quality of the slide but it seems to me that the resolution is quite good. And then the dmax would be nice to test.
Logged
BernhardFuhry
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #54 on: February 13, 2013, 09:15:33 AM »
ReplyReply

for those not following the rangefinderforum discussion, I uploaded some almost full resolution FP4+ 6x6 scans:

Flickr Album - Plustek 120

Logged
dmerger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 686


« Reply #55 on: February 13, 2013, 04:44:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Its kind of interesting.  This thread is talking about the newest film scanner, while this thread is talking about using a camera instead of a scanner to digitize film.  http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=75024.0  Another recent thread also talked about using a camera instead of a scanner. So, maybe another question might be how close using a camera is to the Plustek (or any scanner)?
« Last Edit: February 13, 2013, 04:46:37 PM by dmerger » Logged

Dean Erger
DeckardTrinity
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 25



« Reply #56 on: February 13, 2013, 09:52:01 PM »
ReplyReply

I have to say that things are not looking "good", based on the samples I've seen posted, that this thing is going to be any better than my V700... and the Epson has another thing going for it that the Plustek never will - dual channel scanning of medium format film. That alone cuts my scanning time in half, and combined with Betterscanning holders + glass, is a very hard combo for any "flat" scanner to beat.
Logged
BernhardFuhry
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #57 on: February 14, 2013, 03:36:25 AM »
ReplyReply

well it extracts all the detail there is in the 120 negative. What more do you expect? I do not have a V700, only a 4490 and the Plustek is sharper, extracts more detail and especially with slides it seems to provide better Dmax.

that, and it is WAY faster. A minute for a full resolution 6x6 scan approximately.

On the other hand, it is a cheap scanner. It is only twice of what a v750 costs and if it is silghtly better, it is a bargain already. It basically matches or exceeds the resolution of a Coolscan (I rescanned 35mm strips that I already did on a Coolscan 4000 and the Plustek is at least as good, and thats way better than a flatbed).
Logged
torger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1607


« Reply #58 on: February 14, 2013, 03:52:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Its kind of interesting.  This thread is talking about the newest film scanner, while this thread is talking about using a camera instead of a scanner to digitize film.  http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=75024.0  Another recent thread also talked about using a camera instead of a scanner. So, maybe another question might be how close using a camera is to the Plustek (or any scanner)?

Since I don't have a medium format scanner (just a 35mm scanner) I've so far used a DSLR with macro lens and stitching to digitize medium format slides. Using a 5Dmk2 with a Sigma 150mm macro lens, a light table, custom color profiles, shooting at f/8 (to get some DoF margin) deconvolution sharpening and stitching one gets about 3600 effective ppi (tested with resolution test slide), and since one can use HDR the DMAX gets extremely good. I'd say the dynamic range is better than on most scanners thanks to HDR, resolution is of course much better than any flatbed, but not drum scan quality. Haloing around high contrast edges due to the light source is probably there too, which is better avoided in drum scanning. Shooting at f/5.6 or f/4 is possible to get a little bit better resolution, but then you have so short DoF that getting the corners in focus can be a challenge, so I found that f/8 was the best compromise.

One needs good film holders and dust-free environment. The largest drawback with this technique is however that it is very work intensive, and stitching can be a little bit of a mess. I would prefer to use a film scanner, but to be pleased it has to deliver quality at least as good as DSLR + macro lens + stitching.
Logged
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1843


« Reply #59 on: February 15, 2013, 01:20:59 PM »
ReplyReply

From samples i've seen it doesn't look to be as good as the Nikon 9000, but better than the Epson 750, by a hair.  I'd like to see a scan from a mamiya 7 negative.
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad