New Plustek OpticFilm 120 Scanner Surfaces(sort of)

[toyotadesigner]

Would you feel better about purchasing this unit if Plustek included a resolution target with it

No, I still love my Nikon Coolscan LS 9000.

I've read from several German users that they have returned their unit.

"Each scanner is assembled and tested by skilled technician to ensure the image quality exceeds that of any non-drum film scanner in production or use today." That's a bold statement

True. Anybody here for a shoot out between the Plustek OpticFilm 120 and a Nikon LS 9000?

There is more than resolution. Dmax, precision, color neutrality to name a few.

For how long are we waiting that the scanner will hit the market? One year? Longer? I don't remember it. It appears to be a ghost or hoax to me, really.

Plustek should purchase the plans and rights from Nikon to continue the LS 9000. This would make a lot more sense than the permanent struggle against the odds...

 

[I.G.I.]

No, I still love my Nikon Coolscan LS 9000.

I've read from several German users that they have returned their unit.



True. Anybody here for a shoot out between the Plustek OpticFilm 120 and a Nikon LS 9000?

There is more than resolution. Dmax, precision, color neutrality to name a few.

For how long are we waiting that the scanner will hit the market? One year? Longer? I don't remember it. It appears to be a ghost or hoax to me, really.

Plustek should purchase the plans and rights from Nikon to continue the LS 9000. This would make a lot more sense than the permanent struggle against the odds...

I have been wondering the same more than once: why nobody licensed the Nikon or Minolta scanners to produce them in small batches(?) Is really film so dead commercially that the above opportunity is deemed not profitable enough? On fleabay Nikon and Minolta scanners, if in working order, command rock-steady prices... In this sense the High End audio is a much more pluralistic industry -- there are too many to name high end turntables, phono stages and cartridges (not to mention tube electronics and horn loudspeakers), made by from artisans to big companies. The photo industry by contrast is dominated by a few mega corporations, and nothing else...

 

[L Gebhardt]

I don't know if this will show up if you aren't a subscriber, but Tim Parkin of On Landscape has a review of the OpticFilm 120 scanner. Plustek Opticfilm 120 | On Landscape

Seems the film holders and lack of ability to focus the scanner really hinder it's capabilities.

 

[gmikol]

Nope...the article is not available to non-subscribers. Care to summarize for the rest of us?

--Greg

 

[L Gebhardt]

In summary the reviewer compared it to the Epson 750 and Howtek 4500. Looks like the OpticFilm can resolve more detail than either of them, but the ability to see into the shadows isn't as good as the drum scanner, but better than the Epson. In order to get decent resolution out of the OpticFilm the reviewer needed to use some thin glass from a medium format slide mount. My read is that this shimmed the film up a bit in the holder, and held it flat. The scan from the stock holder was unimpressive (way less detail than the Epson). Once shimmed the resolution was impressive. Seems that aftermarket holders will be required to get the most out of this scanner.

I don't want to say much more than that since it's a pay site. If you are thinking of buying the scanner it's probably worth the $5 for a couple week subscription.

 

[gmikol]

My read is that this shimmed the film up a bit in the holder, and held it flat. The scan from the stock holder was unimpressive (way less detail than the Epson). Once shimmed the resolution was impressive. Seems that aftermarket holders will be required to get the most out of this scanner.

Thanks for the executive summary, Larry. From your description, I might surmise that the reviewer has received a unit that is out of focus adjustment, since shimming greatly improved the performance. Compare this to my unit which had some optical defect (decentering, etc.), and nothing could be done to improve the performance in terms of resolution or the severe chromatic aberration. I suspect (but don't know for sure) that lens defects such as this are what caused the production stoppage.

The sensor and optical system is clearly capable of high resolution, but from my perspective Plustek needs to ensure that every unit that ships meets specs. Unfortunately there are a lot of units out there in customers hands that might not be within spec. And they might simply think that it's poor scanner, as opposed to a poorly-adjusted scanner. (In contrast, there's not really anything to be done with the V750 to improve resolution above 2400-2600 DPI).

It seems like Plustek USA is quite now serious about individually testing outgoing units, based on my communications with them, but are all of the other international divisions wiling to go to the same effort? I don't know this, but I certainly hope so.

I own a unit, so I certainly have an investment in making sure that I get a replacement that is up to snuff. But I also think it's worth we collectively as current and prospective customers (and serious photographers) staying after Plustek to make sure this scanner lives up to its claims for everyone, not just the "squeaky wheels".

--Greg

 

[StoneNYC]

Thanks for the executive summary, Larry. From your description, I might surmise that the reviewer has received a unit that is out of focus adjustment, since shimming greatly improved the performance. Compare this to my unit which had some optical defect (decentering, etc.), and nothing could be done to improve the performance in terms of resolution or the severe chromatic aberration. I suspect (but don't know for sure) that lens defects such as this are what caused the production stoppage.

The sensor and optical system is clearly capable of high resolution, but from my perspective Plustek needs to ensure that every unit that ships meets specs. Unfortunately there are a lot of units out there in customers hands that might not be within spec. And they might simply think that it's poor scanner, as opposed to a poorly-adjusted scanner. (In contrast, there's not really anything to be done with the V750 to improve resolution above 2400-2600 DPI).

It seems like Plustek USA is quite now serious about individually testing outgoing units, based on my communications with them, but are all of the other international divisions wiling to go to the same effort? I don't know this, but I certainly hope so.

I own a unit, so I certainly have an investment in making sure that I get a replacement that is up to snuff. But I also think it's worth we collectively as current and prospective customers (and serious photographers) staying after Plustek to make sure this scanner lives up to its claims for everyone, not just the "squeaky wheels".

--Greg

I just wish they could have actual real world full resolution scan comparisons.

Also, I've been able to get 3200 out of my Epson v750 with clear grain and edges, just takes a lot of height adjustment and the right film. But yea, better is always better


~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[gmikol]

I disagree. I don't think 3200 DPI is really possible...see my post here. Even using MTF5 as the metric (more generous than the ISO standard MTF10), the Epson can't achieve more than ~2700PPI (53 lp/mm), and that's only in the horizontal dimension.

But regardless, I think you agree with my general premise: that as-shipped, the Epson performs very close to its maximum possible, is fairly consistent from unit-to-unit, and does not approach the performance of its published specs. Whereas the Plustek seems to have significant unit-to-unit variation, with some units coming very close to the published specs, and others being significantly out of focus or having optical defects. The design itself is capable of high resolution, but quality and consistency have been poor to this point.

Given the pain I've been to Plustek up to this point, I don't doubt that my (third !!) unit will have top-notch performance, but I don't think it will say anything about the overall quality control of shipping units.

--Greg

 

[pschwart]

I don't doubt that my (third !!) unit will have top-notch performance

Hope springs eternal -- I hope your patience is rewarded

 

[StoneNYC]

I disagree. I don't think 3200 DPI is really possible...see my post here. Even using MTF5 as the metric (more generous than the ISO standard MTF10), the Epson can't achieve more than ~2700PPI (53 lp/mm), and that's only in the horizontal dimension.

But regardless, I think you agree with my general premise: that as-shipped, the Epson performs very close to its maximum possible, is fairly consistent from unit-to-unit, and does not approach the performance of its published specs. Whereas the Plustek seems to have significant unit-to-unit variation, with some units coming very close to the published specs, and others being significantly out of focus or having optical defects. The design itself is capable of high resolution, but quality and consistency have been poor to this point.

Given the pain I've been to Plustek up to this point, I don't doubt that my (third !!) unit will have top-notch performance, but I don't think it will say anything about the overall quality control of shipping units.

--Greg

Honestly, I never go by charts, I go by my eye, and after 3 months of testing and adjustments and about 30 rolls of film (120) I've figured out how to get a nice crisp image at 3200dpi.

I also don't agree that the Epson's are consistent (maybe compared to plustek they are?) I had to send 2 back before I got a good one, the first has out gassing on the inside glad so bad I could see it even with the internal light off, the second had a focus plane that was so high above the glass I couldn't reach it with the highest extended feet provided, and the third was just about right, I also switched to the betterscanning holders with fully adjustable height, which helped dial in precise image in 120 at least.

But yea, I don't like charts I like full 100% resolution images as comparison to my own.


~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk