@artobest: yup, just found them. However: No hint in the Exif data that the scanner was the Plustek Opticfilm 120. A bit weird to remove the data...
What is weird: The Plustek site does not offer any files from scans of different film material at all. Just silence in open space. I mean, if I would work for the manufacturer this would be the very first task I'd have on my itinerary. Next step would be to provide dpreview, toms hardware, etc. with a production model.
What is weird: The Plustek site does not offer any files from scans of different film material at all. Just silence in open space.
For what its worth, my files scanned with the Epson v750 have embedded EXIF data, which actually I don't like - I post to Flickr and it says the photo was taken with an Epson, when in fact it was taken with a Chamonix, for example. Wish there was some way to alter this. If anyone knows how, I'm all ears.
FYI, from B&H today:
You are receiving this message because you asked to be notified when the Plustek OpticFilm 120 Film Scanner (B&H # PLOF120) becomes available. We advised you then that we would send you interim updates. We regret the item remains unavailable.
Scheduled to arrive next Friday (01 Feb 2013).
Proof:
--Greg
I'll post what I can, but I'm gonna be buried in work this week. Definitely no unboxing video.
--Greg
What a drag, but this is already useful info. I'm hoping for some published review so better to assess the typical user experience.
There seem to be a number of people posting image samples over at RangefinderForum (RFF) on a couple of different threads, but there's a lot of anti-Plustek rhetoric and big egos, too, so the signal to noise ratio is low, IMO. If you can wade through the noise, there is some useful info over at RFF.
The images I have seen from "good" scanners look promising resolution-wise. But it appears there's at least one European user who is seeing similar issues to what I saw.
I'm also working on setting up objective (standards-based) resolution and Dmax/DR measurements. I didn't get around to that with the Plustek before it went back. There will be comparisons (fingers crossed) to the V750 and the LS-9000.
Even though I don't have any detailed image samples, etc. I thought I'd share my overall impressions:
-- For anyone who hasn't used it before, the interface for Silverfast 8 is much improved over Silverfast 6.6, IMO. All the same functions are there, but cleaner and a bit better organized.
-- Silverfast still has some UI issues with thumbnailing all of the frames of the holder (this process is similar to the way the LS-9000 does it in Silverfast) and some problems with batch scanning. There's a work-around described on Plustek's blog for batch scanning, until Silverfast gets their software straightened out.
-- I'm really impressed with the design of the negative holders. Each frame is supported on all 4 edges of the frame, top and bottom. There have been a lot of people concerned about lack of a glass holder, but I really don't see how one would be necessary. Curled film will be held flat. I really think a glass holder would only be necessary if you have warped/buckled film. I'll admit, though, I don't have a lot of "difficult" film. It would be difficult to retrofit glass, there's not a lot of slop in the fit of the negative holders, even just for glass on top. 2-piece glass would require serious carving up of the neg holders. A glass holder insert would have to be designed from the ground up.
-- The negative holders have magnetic closures, instead of snap-latch or friction latch, like the LS-9000 or the Epson V750 MF holders. This is preferable to me, IMO. The adjustable frame supports are nice. The 6x7 holder is just a mm or 2 too short to fit 3 frames from my GS-1, so the edges get trimmed just a bit, but it has generous inter-frame spacing, other 6x7's might not have an issue. I've pointed this out to Plustek. I also think that it might be possible to modify it to get a couple more mm. The MF holders cover the entire height of the frame, so you can get a bit of black border when scanning, but definitely not edge markings. I didn't think to check the 35mm strip holder in that regard.
-- The 35mm slide holder is designed to compensate for different slide mount thicknesses. The slide is held between up- and down-facing wedges so that it it always centered at the image plane. It's difficult to describe, but it makes total sense when you see it. There's a touch too much pressure...it causes 1.2mm Pakon DIY mounts to flex a bit, but I didn't see that with 1.4mm plastic machine mounts or older cardboard mounts.
-- I don't have objective scan time measurements, but it felt reasonable. Not painfully slow, not lightning fast.
That's all I can think of at the moment. I can't wait to get my scanner back and for things to slow down around here to start playing with it some more.
--Greg
Curl which way? Virtually all of my 35mm is in Print-File pages, so it's gotten pressed flat over time. I cut up a test roll to play around with last week, and it had been wound fairly tight about 4 years...about like winding it around the outside of a 35mm film can. No problem flattening longitudinal curl, but you'll definitely need to wear gloves while loading, if you don't already...with that much curl, I had to hold the strip down through the frame windows while I closed the lid.
Given the design, I really feel like even short-axis curl could be flattened. The 35mm holder, like the 120 holders, supports each frame on all 4 edges, top and bottom. I feel like it should be sufficient, but unfortunately, the only way to know for sure would be find one to try yourself.
--Greg
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?