My understanding of banding is that it occurs in areas of very gradual (slow) gradation (or color) change, in very smooth areas, like skies.
The gradation change is so slow, or gradual, that you see an edge form when crossing over from one pixel value to the next, like a set of steps vs a ramp.
I'm not sure it is the scanner at fault. Film grain or any other detail in the original can obscure or interfere with the visibility of the bands, so you don't often see them in 35mm film scanned to a high scale ratio, etc. I have seen them in 4x5 film scans only, since the grain is so fine.
My solution is to scan everything at 16 bit (all black and white negs for me), It produces many more potential values for a pixel to have. And I think it has to be done at the point of scanning from analog to digital (at the scan) rather than just taking an 8 bit depth file and converting it to 16 bit in the Pshop Image menu. Even at 16 bit, with a 4x5 image, with a clean winter sky, I can get them if I start to do too much graded curve adjustment, which is applied after scanning.
I'm not sure my explanation is physically accurate, but this seems to be how it works in my experience.
I know this thread is now three years old but I wonder if there are any updates on the banding issue (or any other issues). I'm just finishing a long project shot on MF and considering replacing my V750 with an Opticfilm, however given the price I want to be as sure as I can be that there are no unresolved issues before I place an order. Posts by those with experience with this scanner would be appreciated.
Thanks, I'd never even heard of Silvergrain Classics. The article's here:I haven't used this particular scanner. But I think the OpticFilm 120 was relaunched recently. Maybe there were some changes made. Perhaps Plustek can answer if there is anything new or changed about it.
Silvergrain Classics has a recent short article about this scanner on their "online content" or blog section, and they seem to really like it.
Since they, as many others, failed to properly time stamp that article, they do link printed issue, which at least gives a clue how old the article isThanks, I'd never even heard of Silvergrain Classics. The article's here:
Opticpro Scanner Article
Thanks for this, so the article is quite recent. I think it isn't sponsored, otherwise they probably wouldn't have commented on the dpi issue.Since they, as many others, failed to properly time stamp that article, they do link printed issue, which at least gives a clue how old the article is
SC # 26
They also failed to post any B&W scans. I wonder if there is a reason for that, because the article is either a true representation of an honest review, or, at least to a degree, result of a sponsored push.
Thanks for this, so the article is quite recent. I think it isn't sponsored, otherwise they probably wouldn't have commented on the dpi issue.
Thanks, that's very useful info. Based on this and comments elsewhere I'm inclined to go for it, I just need to find the space!I have the first model OpticFilm. No banding ever. I had it serviced in 2020 because the mainboard burned from a defective transformer, it was changed for 210€. Since then it works flawlessly.
If you read the article you'll see that the dpi doesn't measure up to what is advertised (nothing new there, most scanners don't).
Well I have a Nikon Coolscan V and a Minolta 5400 Mk.1 and they're both great. Have just now ordered an Opticfilm to replace my aging but still working V750. It seems that the Opticfilm will be a step up from this for MF so fingers crossed that it is.AH, OK, D{PI threw off. It's a known issues with several brands. And they fake it with high resolution scan to allow for some pixel dumping afterwards, which means working with files way bigger than they should be.
Nikon and Minolta had them much closer, between real results and specs.
Well I have a Nikon Coolscan V and a Minolta 5400 Mk.1 and they're both great. Have just now ordered an Opticfilm to replace my aging but still working V750. It seems that the Opticfilm will be a step up from this for MF so fingers crossed that it is.
USB 3.0 probably wouldn't make a difference as I would guess the bottleneck is the scanning process itself rather than the data transfer speed.it sure should be. Reason why I'm considering it myself. Would leave V800 to larger negatives. But Plustek would do itself a favour by not making up specs. And making the 120 Pro only to succeed it with a 120 nad apparently dropping USB 3.0 to USB 2.0. is difficult to understand. At least that what their website is showing. Confidence in what does is important to me, and mine towards Plustek is now quite cropped off.
My question is why go backwards on the interface ? There must have been a reason. 120 Pro had 3.0, newer 120 is back on 2.0.USB 3.0 probably wouldn't make a difference as I would guess the bottleneck is the scanning process itself rather than the data transfer speed.
Was the Pro ever actually released? I thought it wasn't but I could be wrong...My question is why go backwards on the interface ? There must have been a reason. 120 Pro had 3.0, newer 120 is back on 2.0.
Was the Pro ever actually released? I thought it wasn't but I could be wrong...
I think the idea was that the Pro would have adjustable focus. Although it may have appeared on the website I don't believe it actually went into production although, of course, I could be wrong about this...
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?