Plustek Opticfilm 7400 vs. Epson 4990

[C.Kline]

I hate to make my first post here some sort of crazy "this vs. that" comparison about scanners, but I was hoping that someone could shed some light, and possibly personal experience, on the Plustek Opticfilm 7400.

Currently this model is on sale for a fairly reasonable price, presumably because it's being replaced, and it seems like a good deal but I want to be certain that I am not chasing silver bullets. Right now I have an Epson 4990 that will not resolve film grain in 35mm negs. I've tried flattening the negs, ANR glass, performing voodoo rituals, and anything else I can think of but get consistently unacceptable scans. The Epson works fantastically for my medium format work and large format negs.

So the question is this: Although the Plustek Opticfilm 7400 is not a pro scanner, or the best scanner on the market will I see any difference between this scanner and my Epson? Or am I better off spending the money on beers so my vision is as blurry as my scans?

Thanks in advance everyone.

 

[gmikol]

I'll just leave this right here...

All scans are straight scans, no sharpening. These are from the Plustek 7500...not sure what the exact differences are.

Even scanning at 3600 DPI, the Plustek outresolves the Epson, IMO.

If you can live with the limitations of the Plustek (no AF, no multi-sampling (?), manual film feed/frame advance), it's a decent scanner for the price. Silverfast SE has some limitations, you may want to evaluate VueScan to see if it would work better for you.

Ooops...just checked, the 7400 is only 3600 DPI hardware, so ignore the 7200 dpi scan. I would guess the 7400's 3600 DPI is close to the 7500's, but maybe not.

Hope that helps...

--Greg

 

[C.Kline]

Greg,

Thanks for taking the time to post that. I think I might just bite the bullet and go for it with the Plustek. Everything I've seen thus far points to it being far better for my usage than the Epson.

I have no illusions that it will be on par with a Nikon Coolscan or an Imacon, and realistically I don't see myself spending $2k on a scanner anytime soon. I think with those expectations being in mind I will probably be pleased with the 7400.

Side note: I used to live in Vancouver (Fishers Landing area). Small world.

 

[gmikol]

Greg,

Thanks for taking the time to post that. I think I might just bite the bullet and go for it with the Plustek. Everything I've seen thus far points to it being far better for my usage than the Epson.

...

Side note: I used to live in Vancouver (Fishers Landing area). Small world.

I think the Plusteks get a bit of of a bad rap, largely due to lack of features (as I mentioned in my first post), but IQ-wise they're quite good, as you can see.

Re: Vancouver...small, indeed, if you were to know my address! Depending on how long ago you lived here, you might not recognize the place.

Best of luck with the new scanner.

--Greg

 

[mdruziak]

I'll just leave this right here...

All scans are straight scans, no sharpening. These are from the Plustek 7500...not sure what the exact differences are.

Even scanning at 3600 DPI, the Plustek outresolves the Epson, IMO.

If you can live with the limitations of the Plustek (no AF, no multi-sampling (?), manual film feed/frame advance), it's a decent scanner for the price. Silverfast SE has some limitations, you may want to evaluate VueScan to see if it would work better for you.

Ooops...just checked, the 7400 is only 3600 DPI hardware, so ignore the 7200 dpi scan. I would guess the 7400's 3600 DPI is close to the 7500's, but maybe not.

Hope that helps...

--Greg

Greg, Mark from Plustek here. That's a good series of images. The 7xxx series and 8xxx series have 7200 dpi sensors. There is no hardware interpolation to get 7200 dpi on any of our scanners. However, all scanners are somewhat limited by their optics so that's why you won't see a 7200 dpi scan resolve 7200 lpi or dpi. The 7500 and the newer 7600i series do use different sensors but the resolution results are similar. I just measured the 7600i that I have in my office and got almost identical results to yours.

 

[gmikol]

Hi, Mark, welcome to DPUG. Thanks for the clarification on the resolution specs. B&H has the specs for the 7400 as 3600 dpi hardware/7200 dpi interpolated. I should have checked Plustek's site directly.

--Greg

 

[mdruziak]

Hi, Mark, welcome to DPUG. Thanks for the clarification on the resolution specs. B&H has the specs for the 7400 as 3600 dpi hardware/7200 dpi interpolated. I should have checked Plustek's site directly.

--Greg

Thanks for pointing that out. The 7xxx series has been discontinued, but the have been replaced with the 8xxx series. The hardware is identical but the 8xxx scanners ship with Lasersoft SilverFast 8. B&H has the description correct on the 8100 and 8200i scanners.

 

[nolanr66]

Hello:

I have the 7600 Plustek that I bought to replace my Epson V500. Basically i think the Plustek is flat out a better scanner. I did just take a look at BHPhoto and they have a new model the 8100 and it's only $229.00 with a discount. If I were looking for a scanner I would just buy that one.

 

[artobest]

The Epson's resolution is dependent on it being set up just right. This usually requires a betterscanning.com holder and a couple of hours' intensive testing to get the film at the plane of best sharpness. Since this is rarely done (or at least gone into) in comparisons such as the one above, their usefulness is somewhat limited, IMO. Even the much-cited scandig.com test of the V750 uses the stock Epson holders, and is therefore unlikely to have come close to tapping the machine's full potential.

That's not to say the Plustek is a bad scanner, far from it. But there are other things than resolution to think about when choosing a scanner, such as exposure range. For what it's worth, I wouldn't choose the Epson V750 as a 35mm scanner simply because it's a relatively painful operation to scan film strips on it. Apart from that, it suffers from a degree of chromatic aberration that becomes more apparent with smaller formats. On the plus side, it copes with thin negatives extremely well (using Silverfast) and gives a rather pleasing, smooth rendition of the photo that I often find more appealing than the rather grainy results from cheap film scanners.

 

[chuck94022]

For what it's worth, I wouldn't choose the Epson V750 as a 35mm scanner simply because it's a relatively painful operation to scan film strips on it.

Just out of curiosity, have you tried the Digitaliza holders available on Lomography.com? For ease of use these are pretty sweet for 35mm and 120 strips. They hold pretty flat too. They have enough room underneath in the corners to tape on shims (I use little clipped squares from a stack of postit notes of the required thickness, taped to the corners). At least two 35mm holders (each holds one strip) can fit, maybe three on the 750. They also allow scanning of the sprockets if that floats your boat.

I still use my betterscanning holder when I want ultimate flatness and precise placement, but these things are fast and easy, which is all I need for a lot of my scans.

 

[nolanr66]

I gave my Epson V500 away yesterday. I am glad to have the space that it was taking up out in the garage. Spring cleaning so to speak. That leaves me with my Plustek scanner for the future. I recently used it to scan a roll of Provia and I am very satisfied with the results. I am not planning on shooting a lot of film any longer as there are no longer any labs within a days drive so it's all mail order. I guess a roll of Provia and a Fuji mailer on occasion is about the end of it for me. Around $20.00 a roll total cost so the price is a bit over the top for me. I will be taking my D200 with me to Disneyland which is an upcoming trip on Jan 2. It's a pretty good camera. I have owned it for about 6 years now and it's never missed a beat. I have 9000 clicks on it so far so I figure it has years of use left in it.