PIE Primefilm XA Plus

[Joel_L]

I just bought an XA Plus thinking it would be nice to scan a full roll of film at once and than cut it into strips to file it away.

Some issues I run into,

The scanner/software seems to constantly hang. So far I'm only testing with film I have already cut into strips, every new strip seems to require me to kill the software with task manager, unplug the USB cord, power cycle the scanner and start over. I looked through the manual just to make sure I was doing things right and I find it odd that a "new" model ( so I figure in the last year or so ) should only use a USB 2.0 port. My first notion that this scanner is not designed well.

When first starting the software it takes several minutes to never for the scanner to initialize. Maybe this is a USB issue and goes back to my notion that the hardware is not designed well.

I wanted to see where the practical resolution limit is, so I did some scans starting at 2500 DPI up to 10000 DPI. When I went back down to 2500DPI, it continued scanning at 10000 dpi even thought the SW said 2500. Stayed that way even after quitting and restarting the SW.
The scanner has a label showing the film being inserted emulsion down, but the manual says to do emulsion up, not sure if I can tell a difference, but there is no SW switch to tell it to flip the image for you when doing batch scans. Manual says to do it in other SW, this just seems dumb.

It says it is Vuescan compatible which might solve some of these issues, but so far I have not been able to get Vuescan to work. It seems to find the scanner and when I select it, it only allows me to select 300DPI which seems to not matter because when I select preview or scan, nothing happens

Also, are the lumps and bumps at the bottom of the viewing window normal?


So far I am not impressed with this scanner and am 90% sure it's getting boxed up and sent back. Be for I do so, I'm hoping others have used it and can point to something I might be doing wrong.

Thoughts?

 

[tehabe]

You could try the software coming with the scanner. Maybe write an email to Ed Hamrick if he knows something, don't forget to include the log. And maybe the scanner is defective.

 

[Joel_L]

You could try the software coming with the scanner. Maybe write an email to Ed Hamrick if he knows something, don't forget to include the log. And maybe the scanner is defective.

All the issues I mentioned are with the scanners software. Vuescan does not work at all. I have emailed Ed and will see what he has to say.

 

[tehabe]

All the issues I mentioned are with the scanners software. Vuescan does not work at all. I have emailed Ed and will see what he has to say.

Okay, I would also ask to replace the scanner. In a German forum people talk about build issues with the Reflecta RPS 10M which is identical to your XA Plus.

 

[Joel_L]

Vuescan now works, needed to use the 32bit version of the software.

Si I did a scan an image using two different scanners.

Which does everyone think looks best. I tried to keep things as equal as I could, but that rarely works out.

The full resolution images show the same differences.

 

[L Gebhardt]

With those two images I can't say which looks best without more info, including a raw scan with no scanner software applied color. However I do find the color balance on the left image nicer, but it may not be true to the film. What type of film? What type of corrections did you allow the scanner software to make?

 

[Joel_L]

I wish I could post better images but with the file size limitations it's hard.

I like the left one too, it was scanned with my V700, the right is the XA plus.

Now that I have the scanning bugs worked out I have been doing a lot of comparisons XA vs V700. I am now impressed with how good the V700 really is. I always considered it just OK for 35mm and really didn't do justice until MF and LG ( 4x5 is as big as I go ). The XA is good, but I was really expecting it to outshine the V700 with 35mm, it's just not the case. There were some images where the XA was maybe a bit better, but was really close.

The make it or break it deal for me is can the XA really scan a full uncut roll of 35mm and not screw up. If it come down to feeding strips into the XA or 3 strips at a time in the V700, the XA will likely go back.

Like other scanners, the XA certainly cannot make use of 10,000DPI that it claims. 5000DPI is only marginally better that 2500DPI. More than 5000, things actually get worse ( like a softer focus ). That might all depend on what the picture is of.

So for now, the XA is not as disappointing as it originally was, but it certainly does not have anything over the V700.

 

[L Gebhardt]

That’s disappointing. I wondered about it when I first saw the 10000 dpi spec and assumed it wasn’t real, but I had hoped for more than the Epsons deliver. If it could be close and do a whole roll at once it would be tempting.

If you want to send me a sharp frame with detail I’d be happy to scan one at 5000dpi on a drum scanner. I’m curious how well the Epson and the primescan compare.

 

[Joel_L]

So I decided not to keep the XA, just does not have enough going for it over my V700. The clincher was I set off a scan job doing a full roll ( 48 exposures ) and it failed after the 13th frame with a communications error. One of the early impressions I got was that the USB implementation is not robust.

I would be happy to sent you the strip these last scans came from. Don't know if they will really do justice for a drum scanner.

 

[Les Sarile]

Is the Primefilm XA Plus the same as the Reflecta RPS 10M? It looks the same and seems to have the same specs and functionality?
If it is, this test indicates it is capable of achieving 4300dpi and not the advertised 10000dpi -> https://www.filmscanner.info/en/ReflectaRPS10M.html
As such then it should outresolve the Coolscan's 4000dpi by a a little bit. The Coolscan outresolves the Epson V700. By how much of course will depend on a few things like film, care taken, settings, etc.

It is very hard to distinguish scan resolution with "real" world shots as a lot of factors can limit the actual detail that can be captured on film. The scene itself can be a factor - not enough to differentiate the scans. Taken under ideal conditions, these are the results of scanning the same frame of film with the Coolscan 5000 and Epson V700 - with and without ICE.

Coolscan 5000 @ 4000dpi of Kodak Ektar 100

Kodak Ektar 100_12-05 CS5000 by Les DMess, on Flickr

Epson V700 @ 1200, 2400, 3200, 4800 & 6400 dpi of Kodak Ektar 100

Kodak Ektar 100_12-05 V700 by Les DMess, on Flickr

Coolscan 5000 @ 4000dpi of Fuji Velvia

Fuji RVP50-03_18 Coolscan 5000 by Les DMess, on Flickr

Epson V700 @ 1200, 2400, 3200, 4800 & 6400 dpi of Fuji Velvia

Fuji RVP50-03_18 Epson V700 by Les DMess, on Flickr

So according to Scandig - and if in fact the XA Plus and RPS 10M are the same, the XA plus should be able to distinguish itself from the V700 in terms of resolution. Provided the frame of film has the detail to provide.

As far as color and contrast accuracy is concerned, that is another matter altogether.

 

[braxus]

I have this same film scanner and still use it today. I use an older version of Vuescan, since I found the newer versions buggy on my computer. I also use Windows 11 and any program I use, is buggy with this scanner. I learned to never push the buttons on the scanner itself to advance, rewind, or eject. Doing so puts the scanner into a scan loop you never get out of. And no scans shown as a result. It works fine under Windows 10. I learned using Windows 11, is to turn on the scanner, set the film up to the center of the frame, and THEN turn your computer on and start Vuescan next. All other functions work fine during scanning. I also learned the optical rez with the lens in this thing is maxed out at 5000 dpi. 10,000 dpi doesnt give you any better rez. Its only useful if putting pictures into an 8K video, or scanning half frame film. I use 10,000 dpi because I need that "filler" rez to put the pictures into the 8K videos I make. I've seen better B&W tones on my old Minolta scanner, as you dont get deep blacks with the Primefilm. They come out dark grey. I know you can correct that in Photoshop, but I have a reason for not manipulating my images much for showing as examples in video. Sharpness is pretty decent from this unit, but I bet you could do better with digital camera scanning with a high MP camera.

 

[Joel_L]

That's a lot of hoops to jump through. Have you tried installing the scanner SW and driver in compatibility mode for a < Win 11 version. I might try that. I still think the weak link is the USB implementation.

 

[braxus]

Windows 11 won't allow you to install the old driver for this scanner. Its why I use Vuescan.

 

[xtolsniffer]

I have an RPS7200 which is the older lower resolution version of your scanner. Vuescan won't scan above 3200ppi with it, so I use Silverfast. From my tests you can squeeze out 3800ppi from it, above that you get nothing more. I actually find that scans from a V700 are almost as good and a lot less hassle. My RPS7200 doesn't grip and advance the film properly, so batch scanning is useless as the frame registration changes through the roll, while with the V700 I can batch scan 24 frames a time in Vuescan or Silverfast. In summary I find the V700 more convinient and more than adequate for prints up to 10"x8" and possibly larger.

 

[braxus]

Though I haven't found the sweet spot with the film trays yet on their height, as is- I find I get way sharper results from my Primefilm XAs than anything off my Epson V850 flatbed. Focus is often soft on the flatbed.

 

[tehabe]

Yeah, you won't the extreme sharpness of an dedicated filmscanner but honestly, I'm very happy with the results and the manual batch scanning I get with VueScan and the V850 is really nice. Here are two scans I did which I really like.

 

[TomR55]

I have the PrimeFilm XA and have scanned strips of six exposures using both SilverFast 9.0 and the latest Vuescan software. I surmise that your model is newer (or older)? I know (or believe) that the folks at SilverFast are working on the software to support the "newest" version of this product--but I am not sure if this is the version you have?

 

[_T_]

Though I haven't found the sweet spot with the film trays yet on their height, as is- I find I get way sharper results from my Primefilm XAs than anything off my Epson V850 flatbed. Focus is often soft on the flatbed.

That's interesting to me as I had the opposite experience. The rollers of my primefilm never quite hold the film perfectly flat so there is some cupping of the film while being scanned leading to a sharp central portion of the frame and progressively softer appearance as you approach the corners. The curlier the film the worse this effect is.

My v600 on the other hand is equally sharp all over the frame, though I do wish it were capable of the level of resolution of the primefilm. I wouldn't be surprised if the ccd sensor in the v600 has a deeper depth of field than the v800 though, as I see basically no difference in sharpness regardless of the height at which the film is held. Maybe that's part of the reason that the v800 comes with adjustable height film trays and the v600 doesn't.

 

[Dennis S]

I have the latest version of the PIE it's the XA+ and SilverFast does not support this scanner yet but works well with Vuescan 32 bit. Did a scan with CyberView X and this was the result and a bit of cleanup and was an effect I could never duplicate easily. My usual scanner V700 never leaves such "interesting" results

 

[TomR55]

Yeah ... I find the CyberView software pretty unstable; I'm running on an iMac Desktop, 27in Retina, OS Version 12.7. I work mostly in film. I have an older digital camera that I rarely use; it's good if I quickly need a particular kind of image.

Honestly, if someone designed and made a scanner that costs more but supported dependable workflow I would likely buy it. I know that many people use DSLRs with stands, etc., to supplant scanners, but I am not really interested in purchasing and re-purposing more technology, which then requires learning another suite of software, etc. ... . This is time better spent making and managing images.

 

[Romanko]

The make it or break it deal for me is can the XA really scan a full uncut roll of 35mm and not screw up.

I was unable to achieve this with my XA. I wish I sent it back while it was still on warranty. The colours are nice though (when they are not screwed up completely).

I now use a digital camera for digitizing my negatives and slides. I get better quality scans and much faster. Conversion of colour negatives is still an issue but I am working on it.

I am not really interested in purchasing and re-purposing more technology, which then requires learning another suite of software, etc.

I can figure out how to use a digital camera. I don't want to deal with all these drivers/OS/software issues. I had plenty of them at work.

 

[Dennis S]

Keeping the negatives centered is a problem with my XA as after about 10 frames I'm getting .666 of one and .333 of another. I also found that auto focus doesn't work well this way.

 

[braxus]

Centering the negative is a huge reason I hate working with the Primefilm XAs scanner. I keep having to often adjust the offset for the frame for each successive scan, and getting it right on takes time. So that is wasted time per shot. This is why I say it takes 4 to 5 hours to scan a 36 roll on this scanner. I always have it refocus between previews and actual scans. It works that way. In the future I am looking into camera scanning, but its expensive to initially set up for that. I plan to use a GFX camera for doing that. When I do go that route, I will be using Negative Lab Pro to convert the files.

 

[TomR55]

It takes me between 45 to 60 minutes to scan a roll of 36--but this is creating "contact sheets' which requires only outputting JPEGs. I find that once the first in the segment of six frames is correctly centered, the remaining five images usually scan with no obvious 'shifting,'

 

[dwstudeman]

I see a lot of speculation here about the Reflecta 10M as being the same as the thePrimefilm XA Plus, it is NOT the same which is why Vuescan does not have a driver for the XA Plus because the architecture changed and functions have been moved from what handled them in the XA and XAs as well as the Reflecta RP 10M and it is a faster scanner. The Reflecta 10M Is either the XA or XAs but more likely the XA since Reflecta has not superseded anything in years and both are supported with built-in drivers from Vuescan even in Linux. The XA Plus has to have different drivers reverse-engineered. Even the Windows version of Vuescan has to use the Cyberview drivers for windows. Both are built by Pacific Image Electronics Co., LTD, Taiwan so naturally the PIE models will be the latest.

In one of the posts, someone spoke of getting the RAW image from the scanner. If possible it will look nothing like a raw image from a Digital Camera as I have attached below but Vuescan certainly has the option of raw or tiff added so it could be interesting. As I am sure everyone knows, part of the beauty of film is that every photosite has all three primaries in layers, and line scanners such as this are NOT Bayer, They have three scanner heads that are in rows of ONE color per head, one red, one blue, and one green so ALL colors are scanned from the film at every photosite so all the colors you see came from actual photons in a scan unless one did it with a DSLR with its Bayer sensor thus defeating the purpose of shooting in film in the first place, might as well just shoot digital at that point. The raw output of a line scanner will have all colors available at every pixel whereas a raw digital image from a digital camera will only have ONE color for each pixel and the color blend you see in digital images is a mathematical guess, not all the colors in the final image are from captured photons. The below image is a cropped image that the sensor produces before interpolation (mathematical guess) is applied and each square is a pixel. Yes, you have two greens for every single red and blue. Film scanned with a line scanner which is most of them except a drum scanner (even better with it's photomultiplier diode) will not look like the DSLR raw image that the camera sees before the fake mathematical wizardry is applied. I reiterate, the below images are NOT from a line scanner and film. One is from a cellphone, the pixels are just smaller on the teeny tiny sensor.