Plustek OpticFilm 120 Pro

[Deleted member 88956]

Great review, thanks for sharing. Basically it comes down to lack of auto-focus (perhaps focus issues affected its true optical resolution) and awful scan times. 1hr for a single 6x7 frame is insane... I was thinking about a dedicated scanner as DSLR scanning of color negatives takes me 15-20 minutes per frame, primarily spent stitching and tinkering with color, but this apparently is still three times (!) faster than OpticFilm 120 scan time, not even counting the Silverfast adjustments that seem to require non-negligible time per frame as well.

The more I read into the new Pro the more it looks like Plustek did little to actually change the "new" scanner. USB 3.0 and the so far illogical looking (IMO) feature of lens calibration is looking like the only difference. Your noted 1 hr+ scan times for 6x7 are with iSRD on, but still all scan times look rather long or longer than one would hope for. The Pro should have an improvement in scan times, but I wouldn't take Plustek's word for it.

 

[Les Sarile]

The Pro should have an improvement in scan times, but I wouldn't take Plustek's word for it.

What with the USB3 support for faster data transfer should therefore be able to support faster stepper motor movement and theoretically faster scan times. Interesting that they wouldn't tout faster scan speeds given the previous model's considerably slower speeds . . .

 

[Deleted member 88956]

What with the USB3 support for faster data transfer should therefore be able to support faster stepper motor movement and theoretically faster scan times. Interesting that they wouldn't tout faster scan speeds given the previous model's considerably slower speeds . . .

Yeah, I don't see any indication hardware was updated much. Seems like Silverfast involvement was "key" player in claimed scanning improvements. I suppose nobody will have a good clue until some decent tests are done.

 

[Bormental]

I placed an order on Amazon. Can't promise a "reputable" review, but will share my impressions in a week or so.

 

[dkonigs]

Definitely curious to hear how it compares to the Nikon CoolScan 9000 that I currently use. Seems similar in terms of film format support. (I just wish that someone, anyone, made a 4x5" capable scanner in this category besides the Flextight X1/X5.)

 

[Lachlan Young]

(I just wish that someone, anyone, made a 4x5" capable scanner in this category besides the Flextight X1/X5.)

What's ridiculous is that it should be quite easy to do - & be better optically and mechanically than the cheap 20+ year old designs currently in the marketplace. In fact, if someone just copied a Nikon LS-4500AF & stuck a 10,600px sensor in it & and gave it USB-c connectability...

 

[grat]

What's ridiculous is that it should be quite easy to do - & be better optically and mechanically than the cheap 20+ year old designs currently in the marketplace. In fact, if someone just copied a Nikon LS-4500AF & stuck a 10,600px sensor in it & and gave it USB-c connectability...

I wish people wouldn't do that sort of thing.

It occurred to me that you're describing a very low resolution 3D printer-- an XY gantry controlled by stepper motors, only instead of a print head, you could mount something like the 12MP IMX477 Sony CMOS sensor.

It wouldn't be fast, but it would produce some lovely scans.

 

[Lachlan Young]

I wish people wouldn't do that sort of thing.

It occurred to me that you're describing a very low resolution 3D printer-- an XY gantry controlled by stepper motors, only instead of a print head, you could mount something like the 12MP IMX477 Sony CMOS sensor.

It wouldn't be fast, but it would produce some lovely scans.

What you're essentially describing is not a million miles away conceptually from the Harvard DASCH scanner - without the air bearings and granite surface plates.

It's not that the technology and know-how isn't there to build a really good scanning device and software, it's that no one (at a corporate level) seems to want to spend the money on putting it all together in a coherent way.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

What you're essentially describing is not a million miles away conceptually from the Harvard DASCH scanner - without the air bearings and granite surface plates.

It's not that the technology and know-how isn't there to build a really good scanning device and software, it's that no one (at a corporate level) seems to want to spend the money on putting it all together in a coherent way.

It is unfortunate, but without a major shift in demand for film shooting at a level that would compete with digital imaging, I see no corporate interest in what still is a niche demand. Nikon could certainly get back to the table, so could Canon. Not sure if Sony wound up with Minolta scanning technology rights as that might be an option to revive the good old too.

There is nothing but greed holding a new high grade scanning device from surfacing. Plustek appears to have designed a box that is capable of hiding much better hardware, although they appear to have hard time understanding precise focus vs. scanning quality. It feels like a waste of available resources.

 

[MattKing]

There is nothing but greed holding a new high grade scanning device from surfacing.

More accurately, nothing but a need to obtain a reasonable return on investment.
The market for high quality scans outside of labs is real, but not large.
I just don't expect to see anything that combines mechanical, electrical, electronic and software components at higher quality than the Epson flatbeds, without a significantly higher price, and I think that significantly higher price prevents seeing it at all.

 

[albireo]

Plustek appears to have designed a box that is capable of hiding much better hardware, although they appear to have hard time understanding precise focus vs. scanning quality. It feels like a waste of available resources.

Have you purchased the new device? Have you done any thorough testing with it? If not, on what are you basing your statements above?

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Have you purchased the new device? Have you done any thorough testing with it? If not, on what are you basing your statements above?

I can have an opinion based on Plustek's manual, can I not?

It does not AF and does not allow MF either. Lens calibration is an odd, and possibly ill-described, feature that allows some lens "adjustment" but way outside of scanning time. So you spend 20 minutes going through a lens adjustment routine, then pop in your negative and see if that made any difference. In other words you scan, then see focus off, then adjust the lens and scan again. One hour later you're either happy or go through same again. On paper its a joke, so actual tests results will be ones to watch. But it sure seems like a huge missed opportunity to get this fixed. This is the reason why I said "Plustek does not seem to get the critical correlation as important", especially on a 2K device. Does this explain my reasoning to you or do I need to go further?

 

[grat]

Actually, having read the manual, you pop in a slide holder, spend 20 minutes scanning it at various heights, determine which one is most appropriate for your hardware, and forget about it.

Unless you put in an absurdly warped negative, in which case it probably just doesn't matter.

This is an automated version of the process I went through with my v800, and strangely, I've only had to do it once.

We're both speculating on a process neither of us has experienced, but at least I'm willing to let the film take care of the negativity.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Actually, having read the manual, you pop in a slide holder, spend 20 minutes scanning it at various heights, determine which one is most appropriate for your hardware, and forget about it.

Unless you put in an absurdly warped negative, in which case it probably just doesn't matter.

This is an automated version of the process I went through with my v800, and strangely, I've only had to do it once.

We're both speculating on a process neither of us has experienced, but at least I'm willing to let the film take care of the negativity.

My gripe is no AF and no MF, so unless Plustek forgot to say there is at least one of these, it's not a serious upgrade on a 2k device. As for the feature, not what I get from manual as it seems to be alluding to "warped" negatives when this calibration may be needed. Otherwise why can't they get it set up in factory? Crappy QC, so let's have the customer do it when things go out of alignment? Again, on a 2k machine?

Someone will have it soon and will hopefully test it and give us some real life feedback. But is it a competitor to Nikon 9000? I'd be quite surprised if competitiveness isn't only random and far between.

 

[dkonigs]

Someone will have it soon and will hopefully test it and give us some real life feedback. But is it a competitor to Nikon 9000? I'd be quite surprised if competitiveness isn't only random and far between.

FWIW, I really like the design of the 120 film holder they show off on the product page. I desperately wish I had something similar for my 9000. It appears as though their new 120 holder has movable frame divider thingies, which might help hold 120 film flat (and possibly help with other issues) during glassless scanning.

Meanwhile, the 9000's glassless 120 holder just came with some sort of "you cut it yourself" frame masking strips that have likely long since been lost to time. And nearly all the improved holders (first-party and 3rd party) seem designed around a "load/mask one frame at a time" workflow, which IMHO is more annoying than I want to deal with for the majority of my scanning.

 

[brbo]

My gripe is no AF and no MF, so unless Plustek forgot to say there is at least one of these, it's not a serious upgrade on a 2k device. As for the feature, not what I get from manual as it seems to be alluding to "warped" negatives when this calibration may be needed. Otherwise why can't they get it set up in factory? Crappy QC, so let's have the customer do it when things go out of alignment? Again, on a 2k machine?

FYI, 20k scanners use same principle to get the lens into a proper position. And, yes, those 20k machines get out of alignment, too.