Plustek 120 Pro mini-review

[Bormental]

I have been playing with the new toy for two days non-stop. At this point, I have gone through all available documentation cover to cover, and explored every single feature of Silverfast, so whatever I am posting here won't be too wrong

Hardware

As I said in another thread, the hardware is OK. There are only two things I want to complain about:

• Noise. Maybe I am pampered, but my Epson V600 and DLSR scanning methods have been a lot quieter. Strangely, I am getting used to it quickly.
• 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.

The trays themselves are gorgeous. Heavy, solid and they hold the negatives as flat as anything else I've ever seen. Plustek should consider selling them separately for DSLR scanning people. Who knows, they may make more money this way!

Software

Silverfast is easy to use, by that I mean it is easy to understand, it isn't complicated. But it is very hard, and I mean it, very very hard to use because it is made by imbeciles with zero attention to detail and no empathy for a user. My list of Silverfast bugs is long, and I have been only been using it for two days! My "favorites":

• It misclassifies tray types. It thinks that 6x7 tray is 6x4.5 so every time you reload a new strip, it resets to the wrong type forcing you to double-prescan. This adds significant time.
• It keeps resetting your settings to its own defaults. Not once, never, I asked for a 24-bit scan, yet that stupid switch keeps getting reset to 24-bit. I never asked for a 300dpi scan, yet that setting keeps going back to 300dpi. Basically every time you reload the film, you have to re-configure everything from scratch as if you just freshly installed it.
• IT8 calibration cannot recognize its own calibration target (made by LaserSoft and included with the scanner)
• It crashes (the window just disappears) every hour or so
• It manages to inject a slight color cast to B/W scans even though Negafix profile is set to Ilford HP5+. How's that possible?

In addition to bugs, it's just poorly designed for film scanners, forcing users to spoon-feed it the same information many times, with lengthy prescans in between. For example:

• You want to pre-scan the tray, set boundaries of your frames and hit "Batch scan". This is obviously what everyone wants. Noooo. Silverfast wants you to click "Overview" button which will produce a postcard-sized preview of the tray, where you have to adjust the frames to left/right but you can't shrink them. Then it forces you to pre-scan each image again (switching to 300dpi and 24-bit to make it really count), so you're basically spending 5-10 minutes helping it find the negatives in its own holder.
  
• It takes a very very long time to "process" an image, whatever that means, after scanning. A couple a minutes, at least. I have no idea what it's doing, because I turn all "auto" settings off, including USM.
  
• Alright then, if your programmers are not smart enough to process images at comparable speeds to other image-editing apps, can you at least do this in the background and let me scan? Noo-o-o, it will sit there for minutes, in silence, not scanning, in "processing" state, because nobody at LaserSoft ever heard of multi-processing.
• At every corner Silverfast finds a way to infuriate you. For example when you're doing a tray pre-scan, it will not show you the image right away. Instead, it will show you the message "waiting for tray to return to position" with accompanying "vzzzzzzzz" sound for 15 seconds, and ONLY THEN you are allowed adjust the frame. It wants you to wait until the tray returns to its original position. Having a tray in that position is important to Silverfast.

Long story short, it's the worst piece of software I've ever used. It's one of those that people should be paid to use, not the other way around. Silverfast will give you brain cancer.

Speed

As I wrote earlier this scanner makes zero sense for 35mm film scanning because DSLR scanning is 5x faster. Get yourself a nice negative carrier (similar to Negative Supply) and a macro lens and you'll be all set. However, inverting color negatives is significantly faster in Silverfast vs doing it manually in Photoshop. Thus, for color, the slow scanning and fast inversion cancel each other out. I will stick to camera scanning with manual inversion for 35mm to avoid exposure to Silverfast (remember, it gives you cancer).

So the rest of this post will be strictly about scanning 120 format.

Focus and Resolution

Focus-adjustment feature works well for 35mm. You launch a lens calibration utility, seemingly made by Plustek. The utility produces 11 scans at various focus settings, ranging from -5 to +5. I found that on my copy the -3 setting produces the sharpest grain. However, I did not see any difference between all 11 scans when the tray was set to 6x6/6x7, I do not know why. I will provide full-size samples below, so be the judge to see if extra detail is even needed. I do not have a proper focus target (I do not even have any high-resolution films) but if I were to estimate, I'd say its true optical resolution lies somewhere between 4,000 and 5,000 DPI. For medium format film, it absolutely crushes my 24MP DSLR in resolution department. Full-sized 6x6 scans are huge and even downsampled to 7,000x7,000 pixels are insane.

Image Quality

The dust removal feature works well. Again, Sivlerfast keeps turning it off between the strips, so you have to remember to punch it back. But other than than, I will not be sharing my thoughts on image quality. So much of it depends on personal taste, on knowing how a scene looked like and on various Silverfast settings. Instead, I will post some samples and will let you decide for yourself.

First, let's look at some color. Again, I did not have any resolution targets shot from a tripod. Instead, I had a backlog of 9 films that needed to be scanned, so I'll share what I had.

The samples below were made with:

• No USM
• Film profile in Negafix
• No "auto" for anything like HDR, contrast, etc.

Color Sample

This is Ektar 100. The focus is not at infinity, look a bit closer. I applied the appropriate color preset in Negafix, but had to compensate for some red tint and reduced saturation a bit. This one is downsampled:

The same image, but scanned at full-resolution at 5,200DPI (large download):
https://d3ue2m1ika9dfn.cloudfront.net/sample-color.jpg

And here's the "RAW" scan, i.e. the linear output from the scanner with zero Silverfast interference, IIRC @Lachlan Young asked for it:
https://d3ue2m1ika9dfn.cloudfront.net/sample-color-raw.zip

B&W Sample

Downsampled:

Full-res scan:
https://d3ue2m1ika9dfn.cloudfront.net/sample-bw.jpg

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).

If I could get it calibrated, it's a win against my previous camera-based setup for scanning medium format. Getting good color is easier, and Silverfast is tolerable when you're only working with 12 frames.

Is it worth $2,200? It pains me to admit that for medium format shooters, possibly yes, due to zero competition. Unless you can find a good deal on a better used hardware...

[EDIT]

Banding Issue

People have asked to provide examples of banding. Here are some shots. Look in the skies 2/3rd down on the right side. It's subtle but when you see it you see it:

• One
• Two
• Three

 

[shutterfinger]

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.

Likely a mechanical defect such as a bad switch, sensor, or Chip. Warranty return.

• It misclassifies tray types. It thinks that 6x7 tray is 6x4.5 so every time you reload a new strip, it resets to the wrong type forcing you to double-prescan. This adds significant time.

• It keeps resetting your settings to its own defaults. Not once, never, I asked for a 24-bit scan, yet that stupid switch keeps getting reset to 24-bit. I never asked for a 300dpi scan, yet that setting keeps going back to 300dpi. Basically every time you reload the film, you have to re-configure everything from scratch as if you just freshly installed it.

Likely influenced by the mechanical fault of the scanner. There is a preference setting that turn off the Auto settings if I remember correctly.

 

[unityofsaints]

I guess I need to keep looking for used Coolscans...

 

[shutterfinger]

Try a different USB cable, gold plated connectors preferable, before sending it back.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Try a different USB cable, gold plated connectors preferable, before sending it back.

I can't see how a USB cable with gold plated connectors is going to improve reliability or data transfer speeds.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

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".

The Nikon Coolscan 9000 can do this if you don't engage the 'fine scan' mode.

 

[Bormental]

Try a different USB cable, gold plated connectors preferable, before sending it back.

95% of this device problems have nothing to do with USB. When it's "processing" the CPU utilization is 100%. The problem is LaserSoft and their "engineers".

 

[shutterfinger]

I just scanned some Ilford Delta 400 on my V700 with Silverfast SE 8 and experienced none of the problems you are having. The scanner not communicating with the software be it connectivity, firmware, or hardware will cause all sorts of glitches. Silverfast did not reset to default settings with Format set to the Custom I had selected with the slider unless I switch from Negative to Positive or change Negafix to a different film.
Dell Precision M3800, Windows 10 Pro.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

May be worth trying the free download of VueScan.

 

[Bormental]

I just scanned some Ilford Delta 400 on my V700 with Silverfast SE 8 and experienced none of the problems you are having.

Because V700 is a flatbed. There's no tray (from software's point of view). What causes Silverfast to lose its settings is the tray insertion event. Every tray has a marking, and the scanner reports the tray type to Silverfast. What they tried to do was to remember settings per tray type. But instead, they introduced two bugs that multiply each other: the tray type is recognized incorrectly (could be on Plustek side), and Silverfast doesn't remember settings per tray, it simply resets to default when you re-insert the tray. And even then, when I manually switch back to 6x6, why the hell it goes back to 300dpi and 24 bit...

 

[shutterfinger]

Defaults. Moving the tray to the next position suggest the sensor for the tray is malfunctioning. Switching the tray out should reset the software as it has no way of knowing if you're using the same film or not.
Gold is the best electrical conductor available, silver second. Silver oxides fast. +5V is a logic 1, 3.5V is a float and may be read as a logic 1 or 0, 3.4V is a logic 0. Current flow is key to whether a device has the correct logic voltage.
I'd have to switch back to Win 7 to use Silverfast 6 Ai that runs my Plustek 7600.
I don't use the scanners enough to warrant the upgrade to Silverfast 8 Ai or Studio.

 

[bernard_L]

shutterfinger Gold is the best electrical conductor available, silver second.

Material IACS % Conductivity
Silver 105
Copper 100
Gold 70
Aluminum 61

The advantage of gold is it's immune from degradation by O2 or SO2. Can be corroded by human sweat, however.

Tom Kershaw I can't see how a USB cable with gold plated connectors is going to improve reliability or data transfer speeds.

My V700 initially did not work with Vuescan. Mr Hamrick recommended changing to a better quality USB cable. I half-trusted his advice but nevertheless bought a HP cable. Don't know if it has gold-plated contacts, but this solved the problem.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Because V700 is a flatbed. There's no tray (from software's point of view). What causes Silverfast to lose its settings is the tray insertion event. Every tray has a marking, and the scanner reports the tray type to Silverfast. What they tried to do was to remember settings per tray type. But instead, they introduced two bugs that multiply each other: the tray type is recognized incorrectly (could be on Plustek side), and Silverfast doesn't remember settings per tray, it simply resets to default when you re-insert the tray. And even then, when I manually switch back to 6x6, why the hell it goes back to 300dpi and 24 bit...

While it is good to see first hand look at the scanner, I see a lot of ... first reaction blame on software and I don't know why would anyone want to jump to such quick conclusions. Suggested change of USB cable, even just another cable without gold plating, is a quick and cheap way to see if it is not a problem. Any part of communication path with computer can create problems and I'm sure you know that. It could be instability in power supply too.

I don't see how this box is worth more than half it's asking price. Perhpas "early production units" will be the explanation. But when there is no competition there is no option.

 

[shutterfinger]

I bought a R2400 shortly after it was released. The first prints had lines in them. Epson's troubleshooting recommended switching the USB cable around, both ends were the same, and switching the ends fixed the problem.
Connect direct to the computer, try a different USB port on the computer, try a different USB cable are the standard first things to try when having problems. Sometimes just unplugging a cable then plugging it back in will correct the problem. Some plugs and sockets just don't like each other or don't work well together.
The same cable that did not work well in one application may work in another.

 

[albireo]

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?

For anyone else interested in this, Hans Kerensky, over at Rangefinderforum.com, is testing another copy (his) of the 120 Pro, with excellent results and no banding whatsoever. He's a long term user of the old model, the Plustek 120, and finds this new 120 Pro an improvement over the old model

https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2982927#post2982927

As I wrote earlier this scanner makes zero sense for 35mm film scanning because DSLR scanning is 5x faster.

This scanner makes a lot of sense for those of use who shoot both 35mm and medium format. Speed is not an issue personally, as I do not scan and archive the full 36 frame roll, but choose what to scan via the preview function in vuescan, which takes few seconds per frame on most dedicated scanners.

Further to that, DSLR scanning is just not a great option for many people. I, for instance, don't own a DSLR anymore and don't plan on buying one for scanning. Further to that, I've yet to see a decent medium format DSLR scan. But to each their own!

 

[guangong]

I am glad I began to use Vuescan. Have used it for at least more than two decades. Constant upgrades. Simple to use and really great support. Silverfast came bundled with my Eason, but I never bothered with it.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

One of the difficulties I've had with camera based "scanning" is keeping the 120 film in position and reasonably flat. A sheet of 4"x5" poses far fewer problems in my limited experience, however I'm using the method for web display not high quality print reproduction so expectations may vary. Unsurprisingly the Coolscan delivers massively better files compared to a 24 megapixel APS-C camera, but the Nikon can't scan 4"x5"...

 

[138S]

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".

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

With any scanner, avoid banding by setting the levels range ample enough, scann 16bits/channel, save TIFF (for example) to conserve the bit depth, then edit proficiently. Even a drum scanner generates banding if not being careful.

 

[grat]

Try a different USB cable, gold plated connectors preferable, before sending it back.

Gold plated connectors, by and large, are a rip-off. They're used when you really, really, really don't want corrosion. Most consumer-grade connectors are resistant enough to corrosion that it's not an issue.

Claims of better conductivity are true, but what they don't tell you is that again, standard connectors have more conductivity than you need.

Finally, USB is a digital signal-- either "0" or "1". Precision, such as you might find on analog connections, isn't an issue.

 

[grat]

95% of this device problems have nothing to do with USB. When it's "processing" the CPU utilization is 100%. The problem is LaserSoft and their "engineers".

Well, you kind of summed it up there-- whatever processing it's doing, your system is hammered by it. I have 16 gb of memory, and Epson scan broke down and wept (actually, it crashed-- out of memory) when I tried to scan three 6x6 negatives at 6400 PPI. How much CPU / memory do you have?

You're experiencing issues with SilverFast that other people don't have. I don't know if you've got a buggy version, a hacked version, or if there's problems with the scanner (and you've already admitted the calibration target is damaged)-- certainly, PlusTek has been known to release products with poor quality control.

Personally, nothing you've described sounds like a USB problem-- the scanner is detected, the scanner is communicating, and no errors are being generated by the scan. I have seen USB cables fail, but typically, only really old cables, and they tend to either "work" or "not work".

 

[Alan9940]

Wouldn't this unit be a possible alternative to Plustek 120?

https://www.filmscanner.info/en/BraunFS120.html

Does anyone know anything about the Braun scanner? Are they both made by the same company? I was pretty excited when I heard the news of the Plustek 120 Pro, but, after reading this mini-review I'm not sure I'm gonna risk $2.2K of my retirement $$$. I keep hoping that a clear 120 scanner winner will come along some day... (not holding breath, though)

 

[albireo]

I am glad I began to use Vuescan. Have used it for at least more than two decades. Constant upgrades.

Same here. Spent something like 99$ on it 15 years ago, works flawlessly with all the scanners I've ever had. No brainer really.

 

[Les Sarile]

With any scanner, avoid banding by setting the levels range ample enough, scann 16bits/channel, save TIFF (for example) to conserve the bit depth, then edit proficiently. Even a drum scanner generates banding if not being careful.

I've owned and operated many scanners - scanned tens of thousands of frames of films, and have never once encountered banding even witth 8bit jpegs. However, it obviously exists as Bormental states about a brand new product and Tom states about his used Coolscan as well as some others with different scanner/drivers. Since dark/hot pixels do showup with digital sensors in cameras, there is reasonable expectation that this can happen to scanner sensors too. I believe in cameras, firmware can map this out.

 

[Les Sarile]

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.

I wonder if the light source is a florescent type? Used in previous scanners, these used to take some time to warmup. I wonder if you just turn it on for a time before even using it?

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Gold plated connectors, by and large, are a rip-off. They're used when you really, really, really don't want corrosion. Most consumer-grade connectors are resistant enough to corrosion that it's not an issue.

Claims of better conductivity are true, but what they don't tell you is that again, standard connectors have more conductivity than you need.

Finally, USB is a digital signal-- either "0" or "1". Precision, such as you might find on analog connections, isn't an issue.

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.