New Scanner - Pacific Image PrimeFilm XA

[bitcrusher]

Pacific Image PrimeFilm XA



Looks a lot like a upgraded PrimeFilm 7250 Pro3. (Reflecta RPS 7200)

Here are the specs:
10,000 dpi Resolution (would be happy if it could resolve 4,000)
48-Bit Color Dmax 4.2D
Batch Scanning, Automatically scan 35mm strip film up to 40 frames of length, and also scan individual negative frames and even mounted slides
Ships with CyberView..... hope there is some support with silverfast or vuescan.

Strange that there is no info at all out there, its not even on Pacific Image's web site yet. Anyone seen this yet?

 

[artobest]

Not seen it. Looks promising.

 

[bitcrusher]

Been look around some more. Its in stock at B&H and 17th street photo, $100 cheaper at B&H. $449 is the cheapest price I have found.

According to B&H it ships with a copy of silverfast SE, that makes me want to pull the trigger on this guy BUT... its a cheap scanner that nobody has bought yet, I am a bit scared to be the first. (I also live in taiwan which makes return shipping crazy expensive)

 

[lenny]

I'd be very surprised if a scanner like this could resolve more than 1,000 dpi. I'd be happy to be wrong but they certainly seem to have their concerns mixed up. for example - is it a high rez, or high volume scanner? Can they really imagine scanning 40 frames at once at 10K dpi? I don't think so.

Lenny

 

[gmikol]

Well, it's predecessor, the PrimeFilm 7250 Pro3 could resolve ~4000dpi (with a nominal 7200 dpi scan) and do full-roll scans. If all the mechanicals are the same, and it's just the sensor/optics that are different, then this could be a good option, IMO, provided the resolution shows some meaningful increase from the previous version.

--Greg

 

[artobest]

Looks like the claimed DR is higher than the previously claimed DR too - for what that's worth.

 

[lenny]

There is resolution, and then there is theoretical optical resolution and optical resolution. An Epson 750 claims 6400 dpi. This is, of course, ridiculous, as we all know.

Resolution is simply a count of how many pixels a scanner can generate. It's meaningless (mostly). Theoretical optical resolution is the resolution the scanner should be able to do based on the engineering specs. Imacon was famous for quoting theoretical numbers, especially for its DMax, which exceeded that of film (theoretically, but not in real life.) Optical resolution is based on how many line pairs the device can separate from a real piece of film. I have never tested either of these devices personally, but I doubt either of them would achieve anywhere near the optical resolution, which is the number that actually makes the difference….

We are talking about CCD scanners here and none of them can exceed somewhere in the range of 2000-2400 ppi. The Eversmart Supreme gets bit higher by using a lawnmower pattern for scanning, but its clear the technology of the CCD chips being used is maxed out at that lower level. By comparison, drum scanners (using PMT - Photomultiplier Tubes) go from 4,000 to almost 8,000, depending on the device.

Lenny

 

[gmikol]

I have never tested either of these devices personally, but I doubt either of them would achieve anywhere near the optical resolution, which is the number that actually makes the difference….

<...>

We are talking about CCD scanners here and none of them can exceed somewhere in the range of 2000-2400 ppi.

It appears I mis-spoke in an earlier post...

I have tested the PrimeFilm 7250 Pro3 personally. This is the model that the PrimeFilm XA appears to be replacing. While it doesn't achieve the 7200 ppi theoretical resolution, it can resolve approx 3200 dpi (not 4000) with a 7200 dpi scan. This is tested with a USAF 1951 chrome-on-glass target, with Group 6, Element 1 (64 lp/mm) being resolved.

My 4000 DPI number I stated earlier was from an older Plustek 35mm scanner (7500i), which can do Group 6, Element 3 (~80 lp/mm).

Apologies for the mix-up.

I should also note that the Nikon 4000/5000 and 8000/9000 are also CCD scanners, and come very close to the theoretical 4000 DPI, as did the Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400 (5400 dpi). So to say that no CCD scanner can exceed 2400 dpi is factually incorrect.

--Greg

 

[lenny]

I'm not going to argue with your numbers. I question the 4000. However, anything can happen… with a perfect circumstance. It's unfortunate that there is no independent testing body that can verify everyone's results. That isn't meant to be a reflection on you, its just a wish…

Lenny

 

[bitcrusher]

Looks like it ships with Silverfast SE. B&H has it listed and they confirmed it via Q&A.

I am so ready to pull the trigger but don't you think its wired that its not listed on Pacific Image's web site. I am pretty sure if I get this I will be doing unpaid product testing.

 

[Fer]

I'm not going to argue with your numbers. I question the 4000. However, anything can happen… with a perfect circumstance

You don't know much about CCD scanners, do you?
GMikol is perfectly right, and you are perfectly wrong.

This is a proof that a Nikon 8000 can resolve 4000 ppi for real (NO sharpening applied). FSR-1 test charts, values are in line-pairs/mm
http://www.effeunoequattro.net/htdocs/freecontent/FC_ProvaNikon8000/fsr1-centro-nosharpen.jpg

Minolta 5400 actually resolves 5400 ppi (again, NO SHARPENING applied):
http://www.effeunoequattro.net/htdocs/freecontent/FC_minolta_elite/fsr1-centro-gd-1x-noir.jpg

And now the drum scanner Scanview ScanMate 11000 resolving 9000x7000 for real:
http://www.effeunoequattro.net/htdocs/uploads/newbb/262_516987737024b.jpg

Gee, I love when people writes about stuff they don't know...!