Plustek Opticfilm 120 Pro Multiformat Scanner coming soon

[Henning Serger]

Hello,
it has been a long wait so far, but it looks like the new, improved Plustek Opticfilm 120 Pro Scanner for 135 and 120 film formats is coming soon:



Best regards,
Henning

 

[Tom Kershaw]

It will be interesting to find out how this new Plustek machine handles film flatness compared to the Nikon Coolscan 9000.

 

[Henning Serger]

It will be interesting to find out how this new Plustek machine handles film flatness compared to the Nikon Coolscan 9000.

Tom, my big hope is that this new scanner finally reaches the quality level of the excellent Nikon Coolscan 9000.
Or even surpasses it (a bit).
If that is the case, then that would be really great news. I am eagerly waiting for the introduction and following first test results.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

I'm glad it has focusing capability but why NOT AUTOFOCUS blahhhh??? Even though I really think camera scanning is the future I do see advantages to a unit like there where you can set it up for a high res scan and walk away. Presumably it has a version of ICE that works as well....one hopes.

 

[Henning Serger]

Hello Mark,

I'm glad it has focusing capability but why NOT AUTOFOCUS blahhhh???

one of the biggest problems of the forerunner model was the lack of any focussing options. Some customers haven't had any problems and praised the scanner, but lots of customers have had problems because the film was not perfectly in the focus plane. And often even sending it back for service didn't solve the problem. I guess therefore Plustek has now chosen a focussing system which gives the user full control over a quite wide range.
And as we all know, autofocusing systems aren't always to 100% accurate. I have no problems with adjusting focus in a more 'manual' way, as long as it works, and the range fits the purpose.
But that are just my thoughts and guesses why Plustek may have chosen this option.

Even though I really think camera scanning is the future .....

Camera scanning has indeed made some significant progress recently. Especially for 35mm film. But not every film photographer has a high-megapixel digital camera. And for camera scanning of medium format film the current options are less convincing. I think that you can easily use this new scanner from 35mm up to 6x12cm rollfilm makes it quite attractive for multi-format shooters (like me ). Of course only if now the design offers the quality we wish for.
A very good friend of mine is running a professional scan service: https://www.high-end-scans.de/ His customers are mostly professional photographers, archives, museums, art galleries. He uses an ICG drum scanner. He always wants the best quality possible. We have also done lots of tests together. For years he is also testing 100MP and 150MP medium format digital backs with special lenses for scanning. But so far the overall best quality he still gets with his drum scanner.
Probably the future of film scanning will not be "either - or" but "and": Scanners and camera scanning. For certain applications one solution, for other applications the other solution. Horses for courses.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Presumably it has a version of ICE that works as well....one hopes.

I've found the ICE works on the Nikon scanner.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Henning,

Slightly off topic, but have you seen anything about wet mounted scans with the Coolscan 9000 on the European market? I've only managed to find one USA based resource.

Tom

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

Hello Mark,

Camera scanning has indeed made some significant progress recently. Especially for 35mm film. But not every film photographer has a high-megapixel digital camera. And for camera scanning of medium format film the current options are less convincing. I think that you can easily use this new scanner from 35mm up to 6x12cm rollfilm makes it quite attractive for multi-format shooters (like me ). Of course only if now the design offers the quality we wish for.
A very good friend of mine is running a professional scan service: https://www.high-end-scans.de/ His customers are mostly professional photographers, archives, museums, art galleries. He uses an ICG drum scanner. He always wants the best quality possible. We have also done lots of tests together. For years he is also testing 100MP and 150MP medium format digital backs with special lenses for scanning. But so far the overall best quality he still gets with his drum scanner.
Probably the future of film scanning will not be "either - or" but "and": Scanners and camera scanning. For certain applications one solution, for other applications the other solution. Horses for courses.

Best regards,
Henning

I've mentioned my workflow on some other forums ad nauseam but I use a Panasonic S1R in pixel shift to scan. I do this on formats from 35mm to 8x10 and the results are excellent. My target resolution for any of these formats is usually about 100mp so that allows me to do a downsample from the native scan capture. With stitching techniques I could push it much farther but I only have a 24" printer, and have yet to have a request for something larger. I would hope that enough people can keep those drum scanners running because I would agree that there are certain areas where they do a better job, specifically those extremely high resolution figures being one of them. On the other hand, a friend who makes Tango scans was just telling me a full drum of 6x6 frames (something like 20 frames or + or -) takes 13-14 hours for 6000ppi scans.

Pixel shifting / multi capture sensors are IMHO the way to go for scanning. Using a Phase One 150mp back I'm sure creates a lovely image but a 24x36 sensor from Sony can make a non-bayer interpolated file that is north of 200mp with much less cost and complication. However, I'd be interested in trying the Fuji GFX100 which will make a 400mp pixel shifted file.

But again, I come at it a bit differently than most people. My needs are 360dpi print at 24" in the short dimension. Not much! But...realistic.

 

[Henning Serger]

Henning,

Slightly off topic, but have you seen anything about wet mounted scans with the Coolscan 9000 on the European market? I've only managed to find one USA based resource.

Tom

Tom,
no sorry, I haven't. But I also have not been actively looking for it, because my focus concerning scanning have been on other aspects.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

Hello Mark,

I've mentioned my workflow on some other forums ad nauseam but I use a Panasonic S1R in pixel shift to scan.....

I know, I have seen your postings. The S1R and pixel shift are certainly excellent options. But the camera body alone costs 3,700€ (here in Germany). Then you need an excellent lens and the other accessoires for camera scanning. Because of the overall costs for this camera scanning system that isn't an option for the majority of film photographers who want / need scans.
That is one reason why I think that the film photography scene would benefit best if we have several options, on different cost and quality levels - including scanners.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

No argument from me there. And any R&D is good these days.

 

[jtk]

I've found the ICE works on the Nikon scanner.

I've used a Nikon 50ED since they were introduced. Zero grief (except with some Kodachrome) .

Epson apparently offers two versions of ICE..the lesser is/was OK when scanning flat copy (prints) but wasn't OK with film. The more expensive Epson's have the version of ICE that works well with film. I think Epson initially imagined that people wanted to scan (and perhaps restore/repair) old prints, or proofs for which they hadn't paid) rather than scanning film.

 

[Helge]

If it has the same ticket price as Plusteks other 120 scanners, they might as well not bother.

There is simply no competition to DSLR scanning if you are up in that range.

People willing to spend that much, will be willing to put in the effort to set up the camera scan and learn it.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

If it has the same ticket price as Plusteks other 120 scanners, they might as well not bother.

There is simply no competition to DSLR scanning if you are up in that range.

People willing to spend that much, will be willing to put in the effort to set up the camera scan and learn it.

I suspect you need to be up around the level of Mark's pixel shift S1R approach to compete with scanners. In my experience, a single capture APS-C sensor camera at 24megapixels is no way competitive with the Coolscan 9000.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I know, I have seen your postings. The S1R and pixel shift are certainly excellent options. But the camera body alone costs 3,700€ (here in Germany). Then you need an excellent lens and the other accessoires for camera scanning.

The S1R seems to suffer from unusually high depreciation - i.e https://www.wexphotovideo.com/panasonic-lumix-s1r-digital-camera-body-used-1746077/

 

[Bormental]

I've mentioned my workflow on some other forums ad nauseam but I use a Panasonic S1R in pixel shift to scan. I do this on formats from 35mm to 8x10 and the results are excellent. My target resolution for any of these formats is usually about 100mp so that allows me to do a downsample from the native scan capture. With stitching techniques I could push it much farther but I only have a 24" printer, and have yet to have a request for something larger.

What do you use for stitching? I am stuck between Hugin (tedious, with color shifts if stitching color) or Capture One Panoramas which applies unnecessary corrections, distorting the image. Is there something simpler, optimized for "linear" stitching?

 

[MattKing]

Have you tried Microsoft I.C.E. - no charge Microsoft software!?

 

[Bormental]

Will take a look, thanks Matt.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

What do you use for stitching? I am stuck between Hugin (tedious, with color shifts if stitching color) or Capture One Panoramas which applies unnecessary corrections, distorting the image. Is there something simpler, optimized for "linear" stitching?

From what I've read the S1R does the work in-camera.

 

[Bormental]

Ah, that's right. You don't need to stitch with S1R because of insane resolution via pixel-shift. Nice.

 

[MattKing]

I believe the initial reference to stitching was in relation to putting together more than one huge file, into a really, really huge file - for mural sized prints.

 

[Helge]

Ah, that's right. You don't need to stitch with S1R because of insane resolution via pixel-shift. Nice.

Pixelshift is not as good as a real high resolution sensor, or cropping/stitching.

 

[foveon_m]

and scanners like Nikons dont bayer

 

[Lachlan Young]

If it has the same ticket price as Plusteks other 120 scanners, they might as well not bother.

There is simply no competition to DSLR scanning if you are up in that range.

People willing to spend that much, will be willing to put in the effort to set up the camera scan and learn it.

What's really annoying is that the technology is there to build amazing scanners - a monochrome sensor, RGB (and IR) LED's, a suitable lens, film carriers etc are all extant technology - it just needs someone to put it all together well. Basically I'd like to see Fuji produce a Frontier SP3000 sort of device that can handle up to 8x10 & gives me full control over the file & output. Ideally with USB compatibility. Not going to be cheap, but I suspect the market is there.

 

[Helge]

What's really annoying is that the technology is there to build amazing scanners - a monochrome sensor, RGB (and IR) LED's, a suitable lens, film carriers etc are all extant technology - it just needs someone to put it all together well. Basically I'd like to see Fuji produce a Frontier SP3000 sort of device that can handle up to 8x10 & gives me full control over the file & output. Ideally with USB compatibility. Not going to be cheap, but I suspect the market is there.

What drives the price of scanners up is the whole spiel with elaborate cases, motors and mechanics.
You don’t need any of that if you can make the user move the scanner head (and/or the film).
Registration/orientation is self managing with generous overlap and the right software (and perhaps an establishing low resolution reference shot.

You could simplify (or even eliminate) optics tremendously by putting the carrier and sensor head in scanning fluid.
As well as of course get the rid of scratches and much of the micro dust that crops up on badly stored film.

Imagine something like a simple negative carrier, backlit by diffused RGB(IR) LED (or filtered xenon).
The sensor head with optics, put in a small pantograph mounted head that could be moved freely around and put down anywhere on the film plane.
Whenever the user put down the head and pressed the button, the colour carrier ( in case if colour film of course) would cycle through the LEDs in a split second, giving three (or four) clean peak (as opposed to the dulled colours of the Bayer filter) colour separated exposures, without any spatial difference between them or any interpolation needed.

Such a simple device could be made for $100 in smaller batches (hundred thousand or so for starters) and be sold for 3 - $500.

You would easily be able to make such a device scan at 8000 dpi, which is kind of agreed upon to be a good starting point for most film (though of course there is film stock out there, that warrants far higher resolution).

A device like that would not only make all legacy scanners (even more) redundant in one fell swoop, it would also mean a freeing of the real potential of film, opening the eyes of 90% percent of the naysayers, or people who think it’s a “low fi” “analogue” medium.
And, it would mean a tremendous democratizing of film as a still recording medium in this day and age.

Question is if the powers at be really has an interest in, or a fearful of such a democratization.
And if there is someone out there who has the guts to put their ass on the line for this to happen.

None of the big boys would do it. And the little ones are too chicken.
So it’s the medium size manufacturers and electronics companies who’d have to be convinced to take a small chance.

But considering the amount of utter crap, and hopelessly conceived concepts that is on the market today, I’m surprised no one has actually attempted it.