Opticfilm 120 Banding Issues

[eurekaiv]

Anyone know what the deal is with banding in Opticfilm 120 scans? I have an older non pro model, picked it up used for $600 so it has served me well but I recently started getting banding in my b&w scans. I've probably scanned 100 rolls in this thing over the last couple years and this is the first I've seen of it outside of some very mild banding in some color shots. My b&w scans were always quite good. Something seems to have changed however.

 

[fs999]

Never had banding with my OpticFilm 120. You could send it in for a repair. In Germany they have a good service, I don't know how it is in the US.

 

[eurekaiv]

There's a long (and old) thread on flickr about this... no solutions given, just some hunches that it's a hardware problem.

Plustek OpticFilm 120

All about Plustek OpticFilm 120

www.flickr.com

 

[George Collier]

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.

 

[eurekaiv]

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.

Thanks George for the thoughtful reply.
My workflow really hasn't changed (I scan B&W with Vuescan as a 16bit greyscale and 5300dpi which I then scale down for sharing) and the artifacts showed up in my images only on this last roll of film. Maybe the roll had a problem but it looks just like examples I saw on the thread complaining of the issue. FWIW, this was a roll of Tri-X vs the Delta 400 I more commonly shoot but my negatives looked perfect on my LED lightbox. I'm a bit hesitant to post examples of anything on photrio anymore so I'll continue to describe this issue as best I can and if I can make it to the darkroom before xmas (this is my ultra busy time of year with work related stuff) I'll try printing one to see if I get anything noticeable on paper, just to rule out the actual negative.

 

[George Collier]

"I'll try printing one to see if I get anything noticeable on paper. . "
Do you mean try enlarging the neg on silver paper, or making a digital print? Shouldn't show up in a wet print unless you can see it in the negative (banding is a digital thing, not analog.)
Also, remember that banding occurs in the output device (display, or paper if digitally printed) if it doesn't support the gradation.
Just in case, has your computer display changed recently?
Trix should be grainy enough (though not like the old days) to create enough noise to mask banding. What was the developer? Is the grain sharp?
One last thing - be sure (in PShop or whatever editing program) that the file is 16 bit, and has been from the scan, not converted later.

 

[Law251]

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.

 

[bfilm]

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.

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.

 

[Law251]

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.

Thanks, I'd never even heard of Silvergrain Classics. The article's here:
Opticpro Scanner Article

 

[Hassasin]

Thanks, I'd never even heard of Silvergrain Classics. The article's here:
Opticpro Scanner Article

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.

 

[Law251]

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.

 

[fs999]

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.

 

[Hassasin]

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.

Being new to Plustek - what DPI issue ??

 

[Law251]

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).

 

[Law251]

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.

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!

 

[Hassasin]

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).

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.

 

[Law251]

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.

 

[Hassasin]

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.

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.

 

[Law251]

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.

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.

 

[Hassasin]

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.

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.

 

[Law251]

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...

 

[Hassasin]

Was the Pro ever actually released? I thought it wasn't but I could be wrong...

According to history, Plustek website included, the 120 Pro was the first of these last two identically looking devices. 120 Pro is no longer marketed as far as can tell. Pro goes back few years (2019 or 2021) and current 120 appears to start in 2023.

What's on shelves now is just called 120 (no Pro). There is only the interface I can see that differs between the two, and that went backwards. I just wonder if any issues with the 120 Pro were addressed by dropping back to USB 2.0. It is plain strange how this is showing up on the web, but I spent no time trying to dig in.

I had never paid much attention to to these until it came up to day on here and was wondering about it after that SilvergrainClassic article.

 

[Law251]

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...

 

[Hassasin]

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...

I'm not going deeper in, spec sheets are still available and case had 120 Pro on front

 

[Hassasin]

There are files associated with 120 Pro website, I doubt it never hit the shelves.