New Plustek OpticFilm 120 Scanner Surfaces(sort of)

[chuck94022]

Thanks Mark. I'm looking forward to the release so I can give it a test drive!

 

[Felinik]

Yup, great that you're chiming in here Mark, if this baby gets good reviews I'll go to the bank, and then my v500 will end up on ebay.

 

[gmikol]

I appreciate the fact that Mark D. takes his time to answer questions here and elsewhere on this new scanner.

I have one more for him:

Will we be able to purchase additional film holders? I like to be able to mount up my next set of frames so I can just pop them in the scanner once the current set is done. I bought extra holders for my Epson for that purpose, and they were quite affordable (like less than $15 each). I'd love to be to do the same for the Plustek.

--Greg

 

[pschwart]

and I'd still like to know if there will be a glass holder available

 

[mdruziak]

Regarding the holders.

Right now we don't have glass holders available. However, we are looking into that possibility.

Yes additional film holders will be available.

 

[mdruziak]

By the way, here is a list of OpticFilm 120 FAQs: Plustek Scanners: Plustek OpticFilm 120 Frequently Asked Questions If something isn't covered here, shoot me an email or PM.

Mark

 

[EASmithV]

Will there be film holders available for scanning X-Pan negatives, or adjustable 35mm holders for negatives that aren't spaced properly? My friend said his Plustek doesn't adjust for 35mm, but it seems that the 120 holders adjust.

 

[mdruziak]

No adjustable 35mm holders or X-Pan. Sorry. Yes the 120 holders adjust.

 

[EASmithV]

How possible would it be to cut the 35mm holders for panoramic negatives? Do you think that would have a severe adverse effect on sharpness.

I'm currently attempting to scan some extremely curly IR film, and the Epson 120 holders are far from adequate. If the new opticfilm can adequately flatten super curly film, and also provide the proper film plane focus for the 120 and 35mm, it will certainly be on my to-buy list...

 

[pschwart]

I'm currently attempting to scan some extremely curly IR film, and the Epson 120 holders are far from adequate. If the new opticfilm can adequately flatten super curly film, and also provide the proper film plane focus for the 120 and 35mm, it will certainly be on my to-buy list...

This is why a glass film holder should always be an option. I have never encountered a glassless holder that could hold film as flat as a glass holder. Glassless holders are convenient for proofing.

 

[jd callow]

One way to ensure that glass holders are made is to buy the scanner and create demand. I prefer the glass holders for 120 (less so for 35mm), but I can, with some patience, get a good flat scan from non-glass on my Nikon 8000.

 

[pschwart]

I generally don't buy products that are missing features I consider critical unless I know I can add the functionality myself or buy it as an add-on. I could never achieve edge-to-edge sharpness using the Nikon 9000 until I started using a glass holder. The difference was dramatic.

 

[jd callow]

Philip was that true for all film, 35mm and 120?

 

[pschwart]

Philip was that true for all film, 35mm and 120?

It was true for all the formats I use -- 4x4, 6x6, 6x9, and 35mm.
The V700 holders are especially poor, so using a glass holder was a big improvement with that scanner, too.

 

[CGW]

It was true for all the formats I use -- 4x4, 6x6, 6x9, and 35mm.
The V700 holders are especially poor, so using a glass holder was a big improvement with that scanner, too.

Still surprises that Epson, especially for its hi-end photo flatbeds, never bothered with an upgraded holder a la Betterscanning with a chunk of AN glass. I mean, how much could that cost?

 

[chuck94022]

Still surprises that Epson, especially for its hi-end photo flatbeds, never bothered with an upgraded holder a la Betterscanning with a chunk of AN glass. I mean, how much could that cost?

Actually, quite a lot, probably. Spend a small amount of time considering what it takes to bring a product from concept through design into production, marketing, and support.

I can fully understand why Epson might not add such a thing to its accessory list, but instead, leave it to after market providers. It costs a lot to produce a product.

It might have been nice if they had committed to higher quality holders in the base product though, even if they had to pass the added cost along to the customer. I'd have liked to see 1) glass holders (glass on the light side, not the ccd side), 2) adjustable focus [manual would be fine], and 3) removable glass platen to remove all glass from between the slide and the lens.

 

[CGW]

Actually, quite a lot, probably. Spend a small amount of time considering what it takes to bring a product from concept through design into production, marketing, and support.

I can fully understand why Epson might not add such a thing to its accessory list, but instead, leave it to after market providers. It costs a lot to produce a product.

It might have been nice if they had committed to higher quality holders in the base product though, even if they had to pass the added cost along to the customer. I'd have liked to see 1) glass holders (glass on the light side, not the ccd side), 2) adjustable focus [manual would be fine], and 3) removable glass platen to remove all glass from between the slide and the lens.

Doubtful. It's not like Epson's a stranger to making negative holders. Their stock holders are ridiculously flimsy and it's a stretch to see much of a challenge in designing an upgraded product. Good news for Betterscanning and their holders, I guess.

 

[jd callow]

It was true for all the formats I use -- 4x4, 6x6, 6x9, and 35mm.
The V700 holders are especially poor, so using a glass holder was a big improvement with that scanner, too.

I had an Epson and understand the issue with their holders. The Nikon 8000 is far easier to get a good scan from 120 using the glass, but I didn't see a significant increase w/35mm -- it may be my film choice or how critical I viewed the output.

 

[chuck94022]

Doubtful. It's not like Epson's a stranger to making negative holders. Their stock holders are ridiculously flimsy and it's a stretch to see much of a challenge in designing an upgraded product. Good news for Betterscanning and their holders, I guess.

It doesn't matter how familiar they are with it. In the end it's just business. I doubt an Epson product marketer would have been able to make the case for it on a return-on-investment perspective.

I wish they could have, because I agree their holders suck. But consider the Betterscanning holders - they are made individually, by hand. No way an Epson marketing dweeb would be able to make that argument to the company and prove a good return. So Epson doesn't go the hand made route. That means they have to design parts for fabrication (injection moulded plastic, pre-cut glass, etc., order the parts in volume, and ramp up a manufacturing line to build, package and ship the accessory.

Considering the number of units they would have sold, I suspect this was an easy decision - leave it to the third party vendors.

In my opinion anyway, the holders are not where Epson should have made an investment. Instead, they should have invested in better optics. If they could have actually achieved at least 4800 ppi out of their claimed 6400 ppi scanner, I'd have been happy enough. As it is, for 35mm I need something else for a "good enough" scan.

 

[CGW]

It doesn't matter how familiar they are with it. In the end it's just business. I doubt an Epson product marketer would have been able to make the case for it on a return-on-investment perspective.

I wish they could have, because I agree their holders suck. But consider the Betterscanning holders - they are made individually, by hand. No way an Epson marketing dweeb would be able to make that argument to the company and prove a good return. So Epson doesn't go the hand made route. That means they have to design parts for fabrication (injection moulded plastic, pre-cut glass, etc., order the parts in volume, and ramp up a manufacturing line to build, package and ship the accessory.

Considering the number of units they would have sold, I suspect this was an easy decision - leave it to the third party vendors.

In my opinion anyway, the holders are not where Epson should have made an investment. Instead, they should have invested in better optics. If they could have actually achieved at least 4800 ppi out of their claimed 6400 ppi scanner, I'd have been happy enough. As it is, for 35mm I need something else for a "good enough" scan.

I don't buy the argument that production of an upgraded holder would stymie Epson. More likely it would amount to admitting the stock items were sub-par. Good enough is fine by them.

Just remember than Nikon killed Coolscans for equally practical reasons: demand, rather lack of it. I wish Plustek well and hope their business model/aspirations can cope with a smaller market than Nikon could. It still puzzles me why Fuji, with its huge experience in processing and printing technologies, can't offer a dedicated 135/120 film scanner when they produce the GF670.

 

[StoneNYC]

I don't buy the argument that production of an upgraded holder would stymie Epson. More likely it would amount to admitting the stock items were sub-par. Good enough is fine by them.

Just remember than Nikon killed Coolscans for equally practical reasons: demand, rather lack of it. I wish Plustek well and hope their business model/aspirations can cope with a smaller market than Nikon could. It still puzzles me why Fuji, with its huge experience in processing and printing technologies, can't offer a dedicated 135/120 film scanner when they produce the GF670.

I've heard that Fuji is bleeding worse than most perceive, at least there film side.

I expect less products from Fuji soon,,

I agree that it baffled me that a better scanner can't be produced for cheaper.

I think what hurts the good scanners is thee limitations, plustek for example they make a great product and then add silly limitations to it, like not being able to scan 35mm panoramic images, that's silly when it already does 6x7 why do I have to make my own device to fit a 35mm into a 120 slot just to scan my image, when I drop $2k I expect it to be able to do EVERY kind if film I happen to choose to shoot. And it's honestly a simple software issue that could easily be programmed to read pano shots, it other odd sizes, custom photography, I mean the real pro's that would be willing to spend that money often have unique camera and film combinations. That's where they limit themselves.

Also no 70mm trays.

Also the really big money would be in 4x5's since those guys are DESPERATE for a scanner better than the v750. Maybe I'm exaggerating on desperate, but a lot of those guys "don't shoot tiny format anymore" and it's an untapped market, I don't want to be limited by a scanners inability to move its lens another inch father over... It wouldn't take much more for then to make a slightly wider scanner to accept 4x5.

And for the 4x5 guys maybe adding it as an upgrade option (since the real limitation is a buffer, so they would pay for the larger buffer chip) but at least give the option.

That's why the epson does so well, it's "good enough" and does "everything" I think plustek will only do well because v750 owners have had then for a while and have forgotten or payed off their $800 bill and having access to it already for 4x5's will drop the $2k for higher 120/135 but I don't think they will sell enough because of all the short sighted limitations. Not for $2k in this market.

"...but that's just my opinion, I could be wrong..." ~Dennis Miller


~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mdruziak]

I've heard that Fuji is bleeding worse than most perceive, at least there film side.

I expect less products from Fuji soon,,

I agree that it baffled me that a better scanner can't be produced for cheaper.

I think what hurts the good scanners is thee limitations, plustek for example they make a great product and then add silly limitations to it, like not being able to scan 35mm panoramic images, that's silly when it already does 6x7 why do I have to make my own device to fit a 35mm into a 120 slot just to scan my image, when I drop $2k I expect it to be able to do EVERY kind if film I happen to choose to shoot. And it's honestly a simple software issue that could easily be programmed to read pano shots, it other odd sizes, custom photography, I mean the real pro's that would be willing to spend that money often have unique camera and film combinations. That's where they limit themselves.

Also no 70mm trays.

Also the really big money would be in 4x5's since those guys are DESPERATE for a scanner better than the v750. Maybe I'm exaggerating on desperate, but a lot of those guys "don't shoot tiny format anymore" and it's an untapped market, I don't want to be limited by a scanners inability to move its lens another inch father over... It wouldn't take much more for then to make a slightly wider scanner to accept 4x5.

And for the 4x5 guys maybe adding it as an upgrade option (since the real limitation is a buffer, so they would pay for the larger buffer chip) but at least give the option.

That's why the epson does so well, it's "good enough" and does "everything" I think plustek will only do well because v750 owners have had then for a while and have forgotten or payed off their $800 bill and having access to it already for 4x5's will drop the $2k for higher 120/135 but I don't think they will sell enough because of all the short sighted limitations. Not for $2k in this market.

"...but that's just my opinion, I could be wrong..." ~Dennis Miller


~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just to let you know... we are listening.... keep talking!

 

[gmikol]

From an engineering and design standpoint, it should be pretty straightforward to make an XPAN holder based on the 35mm holder. From looking at photos of the negative holders, it looks like it would just a matter of re-designing the upper hinged window.

But from a product perspective, I can see why Plustek did not include it. It's a tiny market segment inside a tiny market segment. It would drive the product cost up for everyone, while only benefitting a relative few.

XPAN holder as an accessory? That would certainly work, but the small volumes would push prices higher due to having to amortize fixed tooling and production costs over many fewer units. How much would you be willing to pay for an XPAN strip holder as an accessory?

I don't doubt that VueScan could certainly detect and correctly scan XPAN frames (not sure about SilverFast), if they could be presented to the scanner properly.

As for larger film formats, keep this in mind. The sensor has a fixed number of pixels. Increasing the image area (inches) over the same number of pixels means fewer pixels per inch (for all frame sizes). Using the identical sensor as currently used, in order to cover 70mm (assuming 65mm image), you would go from 5300 PPI to 4560 PPI, and to cover 4x5 (assuming 100mm image area) you would drop to 2970 PPI. Also going to larger image sizes probably means longer optical paths, so you start getting to something probably at least 33% bigger in all dimensions than the current Nikon 9000.

Another option to maintain resolution across different frame sizes is to build in a multiple-lens system, which would probably skyrocket costs as well. Compare the cost of the Epson V500/V600 (single lens) with the V700/V750 (multiple lens).

Lastly, you could use a higher pixel-count sensor, which would be physically larger, more expensive and (probably) require a physically larger image path. Furthermore, in almost all current CCD line sensors, it's impossible to read out partial lines, because the readout is serial, not parallel. So for a scanner designed for 4x5, scanning MF would be considerably slower than an MF optimized scanner, because almost half of the data on each line being read out is not used to image the MF frame.

I'm not affiliated with Plustek, I just wanted to provide some perspective and share my opinion about the limitations of the upcoming Plustek.

--Greg

 

[buzzardkid]

StoneNYC,

Have a look at this thread over at the Rangefinderforum: round Leitz hoods with rectangular fronts, howto DIY? - Rangefinderforum.com

I started that thread, asking how to calculate dimensions for a rectangular hood on a Leitz lens but a fellow member moved in and showed how he creates those hoods himself by designing them to be 'printed' by some plastic 3D-printing process.

I'm pretty sure that a film holder for the kind of film you want to scan, can be tailor-made like that for comparatively little money.

Heck, you could even re-create some standard-issued film holders with different depths to circumvent the fixed-focus scanner mechanism and achieve sharpness!

 

[StoneNYC]

From an engineering and design standpoint, it should be pretty straightforward to make an XPAN holder based on the 35mm holder. From looking at photos of the negative holders, it looks like it would just a matter of re-designing the upper hinged window.

But from a product perspective, I can see why Plustek did not include it. It's a tiny market segment inside a tiny market segment. It would drive the product cost up for everyone, while only benefitting a relative few.

XPAN holder as an accessory? That would certainly work, but the small volumes would push prices higher due to having to amortize fixed tooling and production costs over many fewer units. How much would you be willing to pay for an XPAN strip holder as an accessory?

I don't doubt that VueScan could certainly detect and correctly scan XPAN frames (not sure about SilverFast), if they could be presented to the scanner properly.

As for larger film formats, keep this in mind. The sensor has a fixed number of pixels. Increasing the image area (inches) over the same number of pixels means fewer pixels per inch (for all frame sizes). Using the identical sensor as currently used, in order to cover 70mm (assuming 65mm image), you would go from 5300 PPI to 4560 PPI, and to cover 4x5 (assuming 100mm image area) you would drop to 2970 PPI. Also going to larger image sizes probably means longer optical paths, so you start getting to something probably at least 33% bigger in all dimensions than the current Nikon 9000.

Another option to maintain resolution across different frame sizes is to build in a multiple-lens system, which would probably skyrocket costs as well. Compare the cost of the Epson V500/V600 (single lens) with the V700/V750 (multiple lens).

Lastly, you could use a higher pixel-count sensor, which would be physically larger, more expensive and (probably) require a physically larger image path. Furthermore, in almost all current CCD line sensors, it's impossible to read out partial lines, because the readout is serial, not parallel. So for a scanner designed for 4x5, scanning MF would be considerably slower than an MF optimized scanner, because almost half of the data on each line being read out is not used to image the MF frame.

I'm not affiliated with Plustek, I just wanted to provide some perspective and share my opinion about the limitations of the upcoming Plustek.

--Greg

Thanks Greg,

To be honest I obviously don't fully understand scanner technology.

I always assumed that the scanner lens read parts of the film one section at a time like a fax scanner did, not the whole film in one, so I never understood why you get less PPI from a larger piece of film, I always thought the limiting factor was some kind of buffer that could only hold so much data so they decreased the PPI when going from 35mm to 120 as a cost savings. So your explanation to me reads that the sensor reads the whole film plane at once which doesn't make sense to me.

The PPI should not change at all no matter what size the film is...

Also,

Just to let you know... we are listening.... keep talking!

That's good to hear!


~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk