New Plustek OpticFilm 120 Scanner Surfaces(sort of)

[gmikol]

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...

To clarify, when reading 35mm or 120 with a given scanner, the PPI does not change. But the sensor itself has a fixed number of pixels. So if you make an engineering decision to cover a larger film area when designing the scanner, that affects what the maximum DPI can be, if you keep the sensor the same, because you have the same number of pixels covering more inches of film (lower pixels per inch). Put another way, for a 4000 PPI scanner to just cover a 35mm frame (~1 inch wide), you need a sensor with 4000 pixels (4000 pixels per inch of film). But to image a 120 frame (~2.25 inches) at 4000, you need a sensor with 9000 pixels, and to image a 4x5 frame at 4000 PPI you need a sensor with ~16000 pixels.

Film scanners don't image the whole film plane at once (like a camera/enlarger), rather, the sensor in a scanner images a single "line" of the film parallel to the width of the roll, and then the motor advances the head (e.g. for a 4000 PPI scanner, the head advances 1/4000") and it images another line, and so on.

So, based on my example above, if you have a 4000 PPI, 120-capable scanner, and you're scanning a 35mm frame, the each line that gets read is data for 9000 pixels. But only ~4000 pixels of that are useful data. So that will likely be slower than a 4000PPI scanner that just covers 35mm, that only has to read 4000 pixels per line.

Hope that helps, instead of just being redundant.

--Greg

 

[L Gebhardt]

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 sensors in CCD scanners usually read a line at a time. The lens focuses each line on a linear sensor. The sensor then reads this line all at once. To read the next line the film is moved by a stepper motor and this is read. And so on. The dimensions of the sensor and the size of the steps determine the resolution of the scan in each dimension.

The scanners that decrease resolution as the size increases are just moving the film and using a different lens to focus the wider film onto the same CCD. All the pixels in the CCD are used in each case, but it puts an upper limit on one dimension of the scan. I suspect this Plustek uses a CCD large enough for 120 film at maximum resolution. Then for 35mm film only a fraction of the CCD is collecting data.

Some expensive flatbed scanners stitch multiple passes together. These are able to maintain the same high resolution over a wide range of film sizes. This would be one possible way to support 4x5 film, but it would make the scanner much more complex.

 

[StoneNYC]

Thanks both of you, I see now, well, that's disappointing... LOL

I actually see why that would cost more, I wish they could find a cost effective way to do two passes for film larger than 120, like scanning one side then reversing the film and scanning the other side, so they would just need to leave space for the extra film area not being scanned and software to stitch a few overlapping pixels.

It would take longer obviously but quality is the ultimate goal.

Well, I don't even shoot 4x5 YET just 70mm/120/135(pano only these days) but I want to buy into a system I can upgrade without a new scanner each time. But I want the high quality.

Ok thanks guys you've explained a lot and lessened my frustration.


~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

 

[EASmithV]

This has got to be the most active discussion DPUG has ever had.

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.

That's pretty much exactly why I'm seriously considering the Opticfilm 120. I'm constantly frustrated by the quality of the scans I get from 35mm, and to a lesser extent 120. I know my negs are sharp. Hell, for a scanner that costs more than the Hasselblad gear used to create the images it's scanning, it better be good. I have very high hopes. I've almost stopped using my F6 because my scanner is so bad, which sucks, because it's an AMAZING camera!

Also, whoever said that you could get thinner holders by 3D printing, i'm open to ideas about V700 holders that get the film closer to the glass.

Thanks again to Mark for being tuned in to the community, it's a pity certain yellow/green companies are not doing the same.

 

[chuck94022]

Also, whoever said that you could get thinner holders by 3D printing, i'm open to ideas about V700 holders that get the film closer to the glass.

If you need to get really close, maybe you could just pick up a sheet of ANR glass, mount the film to be scanned on the bottom side (film nearest the scanner bed), then shim the glass to the desired height in each corner (and maybe along the edge at the center point of the glass) using paper or tape as the shim. You should be able to get the film within the thickness of one sheet of your shim material that way.

Mask the film with a piece of black construction paper or cardboard on the other side of the ANR glass to reduce flare, and you're done.

This is essentially what the Betterscanning mounting station does, but it has a minimum height (due to its mechanical construction) that may be too high for you. If so, the above is probably the best you can do short of just laying the film right on the scanner base.

 

[StoneNYC]

This has got to be the most active discussion DPUG has ever had.

That's because for one I tend to cause discussion mostly because I'm a PITA...

Also I'm a APUG user and we tend to be a much more active group...

And why so close to the glass? I find that if I'm right up against the glass, the focus is soft, and as I pull the film farther away it gets more crisp, I'm pretty sure the depth of field on the scanner lens is meant to be a bit above the glass plane....

And like the next guy said, ANR or betterscanning stuff...


~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

 

[Les Sarile]

I find that if I'm right up against the glass, the focus is soft, and as I pull the film farther away it gets more crisp, I'm pretty sure the depth of field on the scanner lens is meant to be a bit above the glass plane....

I would believe that as flatbed scanners go, most of the scans are of the reflective type which means on the glass.

Aren't the fluid mounting kits off the glass too?

 

[chuck94022]

I would believe that as flatbed scanners go, most of the scans are of the reflective type which means on the glass.

Aren't the fluid mounting kits off the glass too?

The Epson v700/750 scans film on a focus plane above the base glass. But due to mechanical variances in manufacturing, that plane appears to vary widely from unit to unit. To make matters worse, the depth of field of that plane is extremely narrow.

Unfortunately, with some units, that plane is excessively close to the glass, so the provided holders never get you into the sweet spot. For other units, the plane is excessively high, with the same result.

The betterscanning holder is the most elegant solution to the problem. But you can achieve the same result as I described above, it is just more painful. I went the betterscanning route instead of wasting my time shimming. However, I also bought the Digitaliza holders for 35mm and 120, and manually shimmed them, because their mounting system is so quick. They make great proofing holders - close enough for reasonable scans, and faster to load than either the stock holders or the betterscanning system. (And they are fairly cheap. Check them out on Lomography.com .)

 

[StoneNYC]

The Epson v700/750 scans film on a focus plane above the base glass. But due to mechanical variances in manufacturing, that plane appears to vary widely from unit to unit. To make matters worse, the depth of field of that plane is extremely narrow.

Unfortunately, with some units, that plane is excessively close to the glass, so the provided holders never get you into the sweet spot. For other units, the plane is excessively high, with the same result.

The betterscanning holder is the most elegant solution to the problem. But you can achieve the same result as I described above, it is just more painful. I went the betterscanning route instead of wasting my time shimming. However, I also bought the Digitaliza holders for 35mm and 120, and manually shimmed them, because their mounting system is so quick. They make great proofing holders - close enough for reasonable scans, and faster to load than either the stock holders or the betterscanning system. (And they are fairly cheap. Check them out on Lomography.com .)

Chuck, I have a question, my first v750 had a bad plane as you mentioned the manufacturing variance and I agree, but I returned it and the one I just got seems PERFECT there's edge to edge sharpness, I've only done a few tests so far but, my question is, is it worth it for me to get the betterscanning holders since I'm getting crisp results? I do hate the shoddy epson holders and they do require some finagling, but I don't have any newton rings either, so, aside from their upcoming inserts for 110/127 holders, is there even MORE sharpness / benefit I'm not aware of?

Thanks (and sorry to hijack the thread but I'm sure this will benefit the OP as well).


~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

 

[chuck94022]

You'd get better flatness with the betterscanning wet/dry mounting system (film taped under ANR glass, essentially perfectly flat). You'd get better flatness (but not perfect flatness) from the Digitaliza holders (they grip the film magnetically along the whole length, and leave enough exposed so you should be able to get the sprocket holes on 35mm. Also, with the betterscanning wet/dry mounting station you can scan to include the film edge to edge, including the rebate markings (if you dry mount, you'll see the tape, if you wet mount, you won't).

If you are happy with the sharpness edge to edge, I'd have to say its not worth it. But perhaps you won't know until you try it.

 

[StoneNYC]

You'd get better flatness with the betterscanning wet/dry mounting system (film taped under ANR glass, essentially perfectly flat). You'd get better flatness (but not perfect flatness) from the Digitaliza holders (they grip the film magnetically along the whole length, and leave enough exposed so you should be able to get the sprocket holes on 35mm. Also, with the betterscanning wet/dry mounting station you can scan to include the film edge to edge, including the rebate markings (if you dry mount, you'll see the tape, if you wet mount, you won't).

If you are happy with the sharpness edge to edge, I'd have to say its not worth it. But perhaps you won't know until you try it.

Well the 70mm I shoot I certainly needs something that will keep it flat and epson doesn't have a tray for that. But I like the perf on the 70mm, it's interesting and would like to scan it as part of the image (as a quaint printing look/option) so...

I find the site VERY confusing and I can't figure out what things to get, I shoot 35mm panoramic, 120, 116 (same as 70mm without the perf) 70mm and would like the option to scan 110, 127, advantix, and eventually 4x5.

Epson gives a wet scan tray with the scanner but I don't do those YET but why get that from better scanning if I already have the epson one? That's the only piece that seems sturdy haha. Help!

So what parts do I need to buy from them? I know they haven't yet come out with 110/127 holders but say they are working on it, and mention a tray that will go with them, I've also heard about the variable height option which makes sense so I would want that, but it's all very confusing and I find the product images very lacking (for a photography specific company, their product images don't give me much faith...) haha so can anyone just tell me what to buy?


~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

 

[chuck94022]

Hi Stone,

It's simple. Get the Betterscanning Universal Mounting Station, with the dry mounting option (that is basically the same product but with ANR glass). Get enough black masking sheets for all your formats (they are basically just thin but heavy black paper - you cut out an opening for your film yourself. The company provides printable templates for a variety of common formats.

The difference between this and the Epson mounting tray is that with the Epson, you mount the film *above* the glass - meaning the scanner has to look through an additional sheet of glass to scan the film. Bad idea, no way this is going to improve sharpness. With the betterscanning mount, you mount under the glass, so the film is scanned with no interference from the mount.

I suggest sending an email to Doug Fischer (doug@betterscanning.com). His is a tiny company, he generally builds your product to order. He provides great support, directly. I'm surprised he hasn't jumped into this discussion yet, he participates in several of the forums.

 

[StoneNYC]

Hi Stone,

It's simple. Get the Betterscanning Universal Mounting Station, with the dry mounting option (that is basically the same product but with ANR glass). Get enough black masking sheets for all your formats (they are basically just thin but heavy black paper - you cut out an opening for your film yourself. The company provides printable templates for a variety of common formats.

The difference between this and the Epson mounting tray is that with the Epson, you mount the film *above* the glass - meaning the scanner has to look through an additional sheet of glass to scan the film. Bad idea, no way this is going to improve sharpness. With the betterscanning mount, you mount under the glass, so the film is scanned with no interference from the mount.

I suggest sending an email to Doug Fischer (doug@betterscanning.com). His is a tiny company, he generally builds your product to order. He provides great support, directly. I'm surprised he hasn't jumped into this discussion yet, he participates in several of the forums.

Thanks! That helps.

Probably because I sent him a crazy email saying his I didn't understand his site and he would attract more customers with a site that makes more sense and he never responded so I assume I pissed him of lol.

So what about his "T mount" things?


~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

 

[pschwart]

The specs on the Plustek web site say the scanner interface is USB 2.0. Why use USB 2.0 when 3.0 is now the standard, is backward compatible, and has significantly higher throughput?

 

[gmikol]

My guess would be that the scanner has no need for USB 3.0 speeds. Here's a little thought experiment:

Let's assume the scanner can scan a 6x6 (2.25" square) frame in 1 minute.

2.25*2.25*5300*5300 = 142.2 Megapixels
142.2 MP * 64 bits per pixel = 9.10 Gigabits (assuming 16 bits per channel / RGB+IR)
9.10 gigabits / 60 seconds = 151 mbits/sec

This is below the USB 2.0 Hi-Speed spec of 480 mbits / sec., and I suspect this scanner is going to take far longer than a minute to scan a medium format frame, which would reduce the data rates farther. Nikon's published scan times for the LS-9000 with 120 film is about 3 minutes. The higher mechanical resolution of this scanner will likely mean longer scan times than that.

--Greg

 

[glhs116]

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

Mark,

Only two things to say:

1. I really wish you guys all the best with this product. I hope to own one myself one day if it lives up to what it promises. It seems to me there should be enough market for one good product to make good money selling a quality product into. Epson sure seem to be doing OK with the V700/V750 in this space.

2. As before mentioned, the larger formats are the ones stuck on flatbeds. I can't justify the Plustek 120 right now as an owner of a working Coolscan 9000. However, if there was a product like the Plustek 120 or the Coolscan that could do my 4x5s I would move heaven and earth to find a way to buy it. Right now I'm looking at the V750 because it is really the only game in town apart from running an antique commercial scanner like the iQSmart or a drum scanner or Eversmart. It sure is frustrating to shoot bigger film and get lower fidelity digital images from it because your "big" scanner is so much less capable than your "small" scanner.

Sam

 

[gmikol]

IMO, a dedicated 4x5 film scanner with > 4000 Real DPI is a major niche product. It would probably see way lower sales volume than the Plustek 120. Ballpark, off-the-top-of-my-head guess...$3500-$4000, given the 120's $2000 selling price.

Would you be willing to pay that much? How many others would?

And that's assuming you could find an off-the-shelf 16000+ element sensor, 'cause a custom run would probably add $1000 to the price, and a 2-pass step-and-repeat would be an alignment nightmare to do fully automated with no user intervention.

Would you be willing to cut your 35mm stuff into strips of 3, and your 6x6 into strips of 2 to be able to use it with those formats? Or does it need to be even larger to be able to transport ls-9000 style carriers through? Good luck keeping those massive carriers flat.

Just my $0.02.

--Greg

 

[glhs116]

Perhaps I should clarify.

For a proper film scanner that would do 4x5 I'm not sure I would need 4000dpi. Even 2500-3000 should be enough. The main point is that a decent sized sensor is used and that good optics focus the film without glass in between.

Of course, sensor, colour filter array and A/D electronics remain the big unknown with the Plustek. I assume they are to a high standard. When I compare scans made with my cheaper scanners to 9000 scans the thing that leaps out even in web size is the quality of colour and linearity of tone. I have a cheap Scan Dual IV 35mm scanner. It holds the film flat and scans SHARP but the colours are terrible and it is incapable of rendering a smooth gradient because the linearity of the tiny sensor is so poor. This is most evident in negative scanning where the contrast curves are modified and expanded so much.

So I think I would be happier with a unit based on the same building blocks. Perhaps the same sensor with a wider carrier and a wider field lens. Of course it would be silly not to make this scanner in such a way that it could not accommodate the smaller formats as well. However, as you say, it would probably not be able to offer the same resolution. In the end, however, usable resolution is much more a function of good optics than sensor dots. Better a 4000dpi Coolscan that resolves 3900dpi than a 6400dpi V750 that resolves 2400dpi. Extra dots with no information is just wasted space on my hard drive...

Sam

 

[gmikol]

Already selling in Australia??

http://www.dpug.org/forums/f6/plustek-shops-here-australia-3148/

Comments, Mark?

 

[pschwart]

I've lost interest in this phantom scanner. If it shows up with the performance and features I need, I may reconsider.

 

[CGW]

I've lost interest in this phantom scanner. If it shows up with the performance and features I need, I may reconsider.

Agreed. It's been too long with no substantial roll-out updates. The OZ scanner apparently didn't show up.

 

[StoneNYC]

Perhaps I should clarify.

For a proper film scanner that would do 4x5 I'm not sure I would need 4000dpi. Even 2500-3000 should be enough. The main point is that a decent sized sensor is used and that good optics focus the film without glass in between.

Of course, sensor, colour filter array and A/D electronics remain the big unknown with the Plustek. I assume they are to a high standard. When I compare scans made with my cheaper scanners to 9000 scans the thing that leaps out even in web size is the quality of colour and linearity of tone. I have a cheap Scan Dual IV 35mm scanner. It holds the film flat and scans SHARP but the colours are terrible and it is incapable of rendering a smooth gradient because the linearity of the tiny sensor is so poor. This is most evident in negative scanning where the contrast curves are modified and expanded so much.

So I think I would be happier with a unit based on the same building blocks. Perhaps the same sensor with a wider carrier and a wider field lens. Of course it would be silly not to make this scanner in such a way that it could not accommodate the smaller formats as well. However, as you say, it would probably not be able to offer the same resolution. In the end, however, usable resolution is much more a function of good optics than sensor dots. Better a 4000dpi Coolscan that resolves 3900dpi than a 6400dpi V750 that resolves 2400dpi. Extra dots with no information is just wasted space on my hard drive...

Sam

Thanks, I thought I responded before but I guess not, very helpful and informative.


~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

 

[StoneNYC]

I've lost interest in this phantom scanner. If it shows up with the performance and features I need, I may reconsider.

I agree, I agree so much that I bought the epson v750 a week ago, maybe it's not as good as a coolscan but it's in my price range and available.

Plustek shouldn't have announced so much if they fail to deliver :/

$800 now vs $2,000 someday far in the future perhaps with possibly better scan and limited to 135/120 only... Hmmm tough decision....




~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

 

[gmikol]

http://www.dpug.org/forums/f6/plustek-shops-here-australia-3148/

Ugh...apparently a false alarm.

Stupid retailers who can't tell the difference between Plustek and PrimeFilm...

--Greg

 

[Pioneer]

I got my umpteenth back order notice from B&H. Should have collected them, by now I would have an entire list.

I will continue to hang in there until someone tells me it absolutely is not coming. I have been shooting film and digital. I love the convenience of digital, but I also love working with all my film cameras. To get the most out of my film means I have to have a good scanner, and the Plustek is my last best option.