Plustek 120 Pro mini-review

[Alan Edward Klein]

I like the buildings picture and tones. Good luck with your new scanner.

 

[MattKing]

Has Vuescan created a driver for this yet? If so, I would try it, just to see if some of the problems change or disappear.
And as for USB connections, don't you know that they can be haunted?
As for the processing, something has to take all that relatively unorganized data and organize it in some way that will be recognizable down the chain. If the USB connection isn't good, your wait time may be related to that.

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

I had one for about a week until I too saw banding in all my scans. Back it went.

 

[grat]

I don't think I'd agree, not to a full extent anyways. Connections are always part of the communication path. Recognizing a device is not same as ensuring complete communication path. While your Zeros and Ones sound catchy enough, it is a fact that quite often in computer world changing a cable makes a difference, power supplies often enough cause problems too, even though they do generally power up a device, yet affect performance. Swapping USB cable just to see if anything changed costs so little, and it is a time proven possibility it may help, trying to say it isn't worth it, is plain misinformation.

So I made two separate posts-- the one you responded to was my opinion that gold-plated USB connectors are a waste of money. I stand by that opinion.

Second, I should point out that I've been building computer hardware since the days of the Z80, have built many desktops and servers, remember when USB wasn't a thing, and in all that time, I have seen USB cables fail, I have even seen cheap cables not work out of the box. I have never seen a USB cable fail in such a way as to cause a piece of software to fail in the ways Bormental was describing.

Now-- There is an exception to that, because of the way Windows handles devices-- when you plug a USB cable into a different port, or even switch from say, a USB 1.x cable to a USB 2.x cable, Windows considers that a new instance of the device, and re-installs the driver software-- "Windows is getting your device ready". Historically, if you plugged in a USB device that Windows didn't recognize before you installed the drivers, Windows would install generic (and usually wrong) drivers, which would lead to problems. In the days of Windows 95, that meant going into device manager and the registry to fix. In more recent years, reinstalling the driver (which can be forced by moving to a different port) can potentially resolve the issue. So in that sense, switching things around may reinstall the software, which may resolve the issue.

Further, a USB 1.x cable (or port) where a 2.x cable (or port) is needed, can cause issues. Well-written drivers will recognize this and warn the user. Poorly written drivers may not. There is also a wide range of power delivery standards, and cheap USB devices have been known to report a higher current capacity than they actually have. My current PC has three different manufacturer's chips driving the dozen or so USB ports, and 4 of them won't work without the exact driver installed. Two other ports, while they have the correct drivers installed and are configured correctly, absolutely refuse to connect with one of my peripherals. Any other USB port works, just not those two (which are controlled by the 3rd of the USB controller chips in my system, so obviously, that controller and that device, don't play well).

And you're right-- a misbehaving power supply that's putting out "not quite" 3V, or 5V or 12V (usually caused by damage from overheating), can cause erratic behavior-- but that's being caused by the PSU, not the wires carrying the current to the motherboard.

So yes, there are a multitude of things that can affect a USB connection. Intermittently detecting the tray, resetting the default values in Silverfast, an inability to complete calibration, unwanted color cast-- those are unlikely to be USB. Outright crashing *might* be the USB cable, but Windows would probably indicate that as a communications error.

Finally I never said don't replace it to test-- I said it's unlikely to be the problem, and gold-plated connectors are unnecessary.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Does the Plustek 120 Pro have a 'fine scan' mode similar to the Coolscan 9000? For reference I've had my Nikon machine since autumn 2006, so nearly 14 years now.

 

[Bormental]

Thanks for the review! The samples look great, about to place my order on mine. This will be a great option for those of us who find DSLR scanning cumbersome and currently use a dedicated 35mm scanner for 35mm and an Epson flatbed for medium format.

Out of interest, could you show the banding problem?

Sure. Here's a couple of shots where you can see it in the skies on the right side, down about 2/3 of the frame:
https://d3ue2m1ika9dfn.cloudfront.net/banding-1.jpg
https://d3ue2m1ika9dfn.cloudfront.net/banding-2.jpg

They are subtle, but once you see them you can't "unsee". They look like a photo was scanned at low bit depth, but this is a full 48bit scan and they're visible on a 48-bit TIFF as well, in the same spot, across many frames.

This is not a feature or a defect of the scanner, it's your pocessing.

no

 

[MattKing]

They are subtle, but once you see them you can't "unsee". They look like a photo was scanned at low bit depth, but this is a full 48bit scan and they're visible on a 48-bit TIFF as well, in the same spot, across many frames.

Can't see the banding, but that could be due to the Photrio downloader and its limits.

 

[Bormental]

Does the Plustek 120 Pro have a 'fine scan' mode similar to the Coolscan 9000? For reference I've had my Nikon machine since autumn 2006, so nearly 14 years now.

Tom, Plustek relies on Silverfast so it can't have any unique features. What constitutes "fine" in this case would be a combination of the highest supported resolution (5,200DPI) and the dust removal. There is also "double exposure" feature but that's just making two scans and merging them, something I am not willing to wait for.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Can't see the banding, but that could be due to the Photrio downloader and its limits.

It is there but took me a while to see it, about 3 strips across the frame 2/3rds down.

 

[Bormental]

Can't see the banding, but that could be due to the Photrio downloader and its limits.

These are direct links to my server, photrio has nothing to do with it. Yes, they're subtle. They're much more visible on my wide gamut desktop display and much less noticeable on a laptop screen.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Tom, Plustek relies on Silverfast so it can't have any unique features. What constitutes "fine" in this case would be a combination of the highest supported resolution (5,200DPI) and the dust removal. There is also "double exposure" feature but that's just making two scans and merging them, something I am not willing to wait for.

Useful thread here that discusses banding - https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/nikon-coolscan-9000ed-banding-issue.438684/

 

[MattKing]

These are direct links to my server, photrio has nothing to do with it. Yes, they're subtle. They're much more visible on my wide gamut desktop display and much less noticeable on a laptop screen.

I'm currently using a laptop, so that probably is it, but just in case - were you using a polarizer with those photos?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

...

Now-- There is an exception to that, because of the way Windows handles devices-- when you plug a USB cable into a different port, or even switch from say, a USB 1.x cable to a USB 2.x cable, Windows considers that a new instance of the device, and re-installs the driver software-- "Windows is getting your device ready". Historically, if you plugged in a USB device that Windows didn't recognize before you installed the drivers, Windows would install generic (and usually wrong) drivers, which would lead to problems. In the days of Windows 95, that meant going into device manager and the registry to fix. In more recent years, reinstalling the driver (which can be forced by moving to a different port) can potentially resolve the issue. So in that sense, switching things around may reinstall the software, which may resolve the issue.
....

I had that problem when I recently installed a new Epson V850 scanner in WIndows 10. I had to uninstall the program, delete the scanner from the Device list, then reinstall the scanner. Then BEFORE I inserted the USB cable, I had to turn the scanner on.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Tom, Plustek relies on Silverfast so it can't have any unique features. What constitutes "fine" in this case would be a combination of the highest supported resolution (5,200DPI) and the dust removal. There is also "double exposure" feature but that's just making two scans and merging them, something I am not willing to wait for.

Does Silverfast slow the speed down on the multiple scan, change the light outputs, or what?

 

[grat]

SilverFast's documentation says it changes the speed.

 

[Lachlan Young]

@Bormental - had a look at the un-inverted file (many thanks for providing it), here are my initial comments:

The un-inverted file's base looks too dark - I think this may simply be software settings rather than a processing issue - once inverted, the colour behaves much as I'd expect Ektar 100 on the edge of overexposure to behave. The problem is that when it comes to setting white & black points after base sample/ divide & inversion, the base density is already clipping to black & the highlights of the upsweeping blue curve are very close to 255, which makes life fiddlier than it needs to be. I suspect that Silverfast may be clipping off what it perceives to be non-image relevant information - which is rather annoying & may contribute to an overall slight increase in gain/ noise if done outside of PS. There does seem to be a degree of shadow noise that's greater than I'd expect. The banding might relate to how the scanner has been instructed to sample - ie to prioritise speed over checking every line for errors before moving on.

Resolution/ sharpness-wise - I don't think it's 5300x5300ppi, but it might be 2650x5300ppi, with the 2650 upsampled to 5300. The sensor physically cannot deliver 5300ppi across a 120 film frame (10,600px spread across 56mm = about 4818ppi), so there has to be a degree of upsampling going on, no matter what. The sharpness looks OK, maybe not as good as I'd hope for, but again that may have to do with how the system is operating. I'd really like to see the 2650ppi results. Here's a link to what I've found an un-inverted scan of an Ektar neg with no crossover should look like (Mamiya C330, 80mm) - it's at 1200ppi on a Hasselblad X5, but I think I have a 3200ppi scan somewhere & may make tests at 2650 & 5300 on the Hasselblad at some point to see what transpires relative to the Plustek.

 

[138S]

xxxx

Banding

Bormental, you may try this, scan all the histogram range and save it in TIFF, it will be a very dull image lacking conctrast... then in PS edit the image by editing the curve to suit your taste, you should see no banding. If you still have banding then return the scanner, banding cannot be allowed.

 

[Bormental]

@138S That's a great idea. I am kicking myself in the nuts for not storing the negatives long-term. I currently just do not have a large enough collection of subjects and color emulsions in medium format, need to shoot & develop some. What worries me about this banding instance is that it's showing up in the same place across many negs, so it does not appear to be image-dependent. I am still going through my (limited) negative collection and trying different shots.

 

[Bormental]

I found a couple of other images where banding is clearly visible. Again, these are 48-bit scans with every kind of auto-adjustment turned off in Silverfast:

https://d3ue2m1ika9dfn.cloudfront.net/banding-4.jpg
https://d3ue2m1ika9dfn.cloudfront.net/banding-3.jpg

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

That's not banding. Can you scan without a negative to see what you get. It looks like a defect.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

That's not banding. Can you scan without a negative to see what you get. It looks like a defect.

+1

 

[Bormental]

Resolution/ sharpness-wise - I don't think it's 5300x5300ppi, but it might be 2650x5300ppi, with the 2650 upsampled to 5300. The sensor physically cannot deliver 5300ppi across a 120 film frame (10,600px spread across 56mm = about 4818ppi)

Sorry, not following, the "physically cannot deliver 5300pp across a 120 frame" bit. Why? Multiply 2.2 inches by 5,300 = 11,660 pixels. Why would it not be possible to build a linear CCD 2.2 inches long with 11,660 pixels? Do you know the part number for the sensor they're using? I see variations in resolution frame to frame due to different degree of film flatness, and I don't have any fine-grained negs, so I don't think I can test this properly.

@Alan Edward Klein good suggestion, will do! I realize that usually "banding" refers to a finer-grained lines, but how would I call this defect then? I hope you didn't mean "film defect" because these samples from 3 different rolls shot and developed at different times.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Sorry, not following, the "physically cannot deliver 5300pp across a 120 frame" bit. Do you know the part number for the sensor they're using?

10,600 pixel 3x CCD's are pretty common - NEC makes them amongst others - what I was trying to explain is that if you scanned an object 1"/ 25.4mm wide in such a way that it covered all the available pixels, it would theoretically deliver 10,600ppi of resolution; scan an object 2"/ 50.8mm wide, 5300ppi of resolution (10,600 pixels are distributed over 2" now) etc. 120 normally has a camera gate approx 55-56mm wide on film that's usually 61mm wide. 56mm is about 2.2", so divide your 10,600px sensor over that area & you get about 4800ppi of resolution. Go to the full 61mm width & you get nearer 4416ppi. 2650ppi suggests a 4" wide scan area (10,600/4=2650ppi). Unless the whole lens and sensor relationship can be mechanically adjusted by the scanner to go between 2650 and 5300ppi settings (are there significant mechanical drive noises when changing resolution modes that suggest big components moving relative to each other?), what I suspect is happening is that the sensor and lens are set in the 'x' axis for 2650ppi and that the number of steps in the 'y' direction (relatively easy to control compared to the precision requirements for on-the-fly magnification changes) can be varied up to 5300 samples/ steps per inch. The 2650ppi is then upsampled to match the 5300ppi. Thus allowing the manufacturer to claim '5300ppi optical resolution' (potentially correct, in one axis) without the much more costly engineering involved in making it a real 5300ppi in both x & y.

Edit: Having had a close look again at the filmscanner.info test of the older 120 Plustek, I think the only significant changes may be the faster scan times & user access to what was previously only a factory/ service focus calibration mode. I note that filmscanner.info got ultra high contrast resolution results about 86-91% (acceptable for the mechanical limitations of the device) of what 2650x5300 resolution averages out to (3975ppi).

 

[fs999]

Silverfast and Plustek's own calibration utility will ask you to "insert the tray and press OK" (even though the tray is in the scanner). You pull it out, you insert it back in, it goes in/out with the usual drama for 20 seconds. Then it stops, you press OK and get the same message. I have not found a reliable and repeatable way to get out of this, I just keep turning it on/off and re-inserting the tray until it "kicks-in". Takes 10-15 minutes and quite infuriating.

Never push the tray inside. When you feel a resistance, push it a little bit more until it is taken inside.
If you force push it in, you'll have to take it out pushing the button, sometimes it comes out on the back, power off, wait a minute and power on, then it should work again.

SilverFast has a very long learning curve and there are a lot of bugs.
But when you know what and how you're doing, you get the best results.

 

[ckuwajima]

Hardware

• When the scanner is "cold" (freshly turned on) the tray is not recognized. Silverfast and Plustek's own calibration utility will ask you to "insert the tray and press OK" (even though the tray is in the scanner). You pull it out, you insert it back in, it goes in/out with the usual drama for 20 seconds. Then it stops, you press OK and get the same message. I have not found a reliable and repeatable way to get out of this, I just keep turning it on/off and re-inserting the tray until it "kicks-in". Takes 10-15 minutes and quite infuriating.

Software
Conclusion
I will be returning mine because it has two defects:

1. Horizontal banding (in the same place) visible in clear skies, not on the samples posted though. I believe this is a defect, not a "feature".
2. My scanner came with a scratched calibration target. I suspect the scratch is the reason the target is not recognized by Silverfast. And without the calibration, it is tiresome to deal with the same red tint on all scans regardless of the emulsion (I've tried Portra 160, Portra 800, Ektar and Ultra Max 400).

Thank you very much for your insights.
I do agree with you returning. It should not have the problem with the tray and the scratched calibration target.

As for the software, give a slack, it is a complex software with a long learning curve.