Plustek scanners?

[Blighty]

What are the forums opinions on Plustek scanners. I'm thinking in particular of the 7600AI model. A (very) cursory search throws up some differing opinions on the earlier models; but what about the above? A friend has suggested I trawl the used market for a Nikon coolscan or Minolta Dimage. Aside from the usual caveat emptor issues, are there any pitfalls in buying used Nikon/Minolta scanners? I want to archive my large stock of 35mm trannies, so quality of scanned image is important. Many thanks, Blighty.

 

[rnwhalley]

I have owned two Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400's. I sold the first because it captured loads of film grain and bought an Epson V700 (big mistake). Having tried everything I could think of to get a decent high res crisp scan from the Epson I bought abother Dimage 5400. I now use this with VueScan which produces great results from this scanner.

Points to watch out for:

The scanner software from Minolta is very poor so I would recommend getting VueScan.

If you are running a 64bit operating system such as Vista 64 the Minolta Scanner driver won't work (I believe its the same for Nikon but check their web site for the latest). You can easily get around this by using VueScan and installing the driver that ships with it.

When the Minolta scanner is being shipped there is a small wire pin that should be inserted into the scanner to stop the internals moving and getting damaged. Ensure it gets shipped with this and then remove it before use.

With my first scanner I had problems scanning slides in that the slide holder would start to slip and get stuck in the transport. I checked the internet and there were a few people complaining of the same fault and that Minolta had checked the scanner and reported no issue. I finally cracked the problem myself, it turned out to be a problem slide holder that expanded and and started to slip in the transport when it got hot. Purchased a new slide holder and it never happened again.

Don't scan using "Grain Dissolver" unless you have several hours to waste. It gives only slightly better results than 16x sampling with VueScan but the time it adds to the scan is terrible.

I have never used the Nikon scanners but have friends who rate them highly. I cant see how the Plustek scanner will be able to compete against these. They both have a high DMax (the Minolta is 4.8) so they should pull all the detail out of your slides. They are also both able to perform to their stated optical resolution which again I doub't the Plustek can.

 

[pellicle]

Hi

What are the forums opinions on Plustek scanners. I'm thinking in particular of the 7600AI model. A (very) cursory search throws up some differing opinions on the earlier models; but what about the above? A friend has suggested I trawl the used market for a Nikon coolscan or Minolta Dimage. Aside from the usual caveat emptor issues, are there any pitfalls in buying used Nikon/Minolta scanners? I want to archive my large stock of 35mm trannies, so quality of scanned image is important. Many thanks, Blighty.

I agree with your friends.

I'm sure there is tons you can read on the various Nikon or Minolta scanners. I won't add more to that except to say that I have Nikons. Have a read on my blog for my observations on the Nikon scanners and what you can and can't get from them all.

Plustec ... can't say anything positive, can't say I've ever read anything reliable that is positive.

However as someone with a reasonable legacy of 35mm film stock I will say that in the last 10 years of scanning I have moved away from the idea of archiving my film in scans. I archive my film as film. I scan film sufficiently for my www and on screen access and then scan with care when I want to print something.

For example scanning something like this:



it takes a little effort to ensure focus, exposure are optimal. Expect a mimum of 5 minutes per image ... with experience and practice.

 

[mrred]

Hi
Plustec ... can't say anything positive, can't say I've ever read anything reliable that is positive.

It's amazing how many people put the thing down and have never tried one. There is life beyond a Nikon.

Try these.... Dead Link Removed

 

[Blighty]

Well, I've just seen a Nikon IV ED 4 scanner on Fleabay. Any opinions?

 

[SWphoto]

David Brooks, in Shutterbug magazine (prob. available online), reviewed the Plustek and rated it the best he's used. He's well-respected in this area. Try to find his comments- I think he reviewed the 7600.

 

[pellicle]

Hi

Well, I've just seen a Nikon IV ED 4 scanner on Fleabay. Any opinions?

I had one, sold it to get my LS-4000. IV ED is quite good for 35mm only

Opinions:

http://cjeastwd.blogspot.com/2009/03/nikon-iv-ed-vs-epson-flatbed.html

http://cjeastwd.blogspot.com/2009/03/noritsu-vs-nikon-ls-iv-ed.html

http://cjeastwd.blogspot.com/2009/04/negative-film-scans-on-nikon-coolscans.html

don't pay too much for it, but it's a good scanner all the same. If you expect to be doing larger formats get an Epson 4990

 

[pschwart]

David Brooks, in Shutterbug magazine (prob. available online), reviewed the Plustek and rated it the best he's used. He's well-respected in this area. Try to find his comments- I think he reviewed the 7600.

Not quite. Brooks said it was a "mixed bag" and a "great value." The review
was of the 7200i:
http://www.shutterbug.com/equipmentreviews/scanners_printers/0907plustek/

 

[pellicle]

Hi

It's amazing how many people put the thing down and have never tried one. There is life beyond a Nikon.

Try these.... Dead Link Removed

nice pictures, but nothing that I could make any judgement on as they are simply too small to evaluate the performance. I could (and do) do equally well with my ancient HP s20, Epson 3200 or even LS-20 (before ICE).

I would welcome some good review, and if you have one I will happily send you some negative and slide so we can do a joint comparison. I'm happy to publish images on my blog and credit your work fully.

 

[pellicle]

Hi

Not quite. Brooks said it was a "mixed bag" and a "great value." The review
was of the 7200i:
http://www.shutterbug.com/equipmentreviews/scanners_printers/0907plustek/

thanks for that link. While reading it I came across this section:

If I were to compare it to my no longer available Konica Minolta DiMAGE Scan Elite 5400 II, the Konica Minolta does a better quality job of scanning slides, but not nearly as good a job scanning color negatives, both of which are largely a function of the Plusteks lower dynamic range and the Konica Minoltas much higher D-max,

I have a feeling that people misunderstand negative quite a bit. In fact you need quite a significant dmax to properly penetrate the blue channel of negative film as it is quite dense ...

now I know most people turn their brain off when they see a graph, but pick an exposure value on the X axis (like 0) and read off the density of the red and blue levels.

Sky often has quite an amount of blue in it and so is really quite dense in blue while being thin in red...

take a dig through this article on my blog
http://cjeastwd.blogspot.com/2008/10/epson-3200-more-optimal-scans.html


I have a working theory that as much of the "pepper grain" noise comes from inter channel noise when the 3 do not match and also from excessive noise in the blue channel (when compared to the others).

I also know that Epson flatbeds can be 'tuned' by covering the 'calibration' area with some sheet of coloured transparent material. Last night I did a quick and dirty with a #5 Multigrade filter over it and found that my blue channel data cleared up noticably (though my green hit the limits, so clearly another filter is more ideal).

 

[mrred]

I would welcome some good review, and if you have one I will happily send you some negative and slide so we can do a joint comparison. I'm happy to publish images on my blog and credit your work fully.

PM me and I wil scan what you need.

 

[SWphoto]

Not quite. Brooks said it was a "mixed bag" and a "great value." The review was of the 7200i:
http://www.shutterbug.com/equipmentr...s/0907plustek/

Well, not quite "not quite" ....

we're talking the 7600, not the 7200 reviewed in 2007. In Dec. 2008, Brooks said re. the 7500 model:

I still have and use my Minolta DiMAGE Scan Elite 5400 II scanner and it works fine. However, that scanner was discontinued a couple of years ago and you cannot therefore buy a new one. So, what other choices are there? That is why I tested, and wrote up, and now recommend the Plustek OpticFilm 7500i.
With some 35mm film images, especially certain films, I prefer the Plustek as I obtain sharper, less grainy image files because of its 7200dpi optical resolution compared to the Minolta’s 5400dpi, even though I seldom make a print as large as the Plustek supports with its resolution. In other words, high resolution is not an advantage just to make big prints, but to obtain better quality scans in sharpness and accurate grain reproduction, which usually yields a better 12x18” print image, for instance

If, as you say, you have mostly 35mm to scan and want the best quality, I would not recommend either the Epson Perfection V700 or the Microtek ArtixScan M1, although both are excellent scanners. If you want mostly excellent 12x18” image size prints and larger you might want to consider the strategy I adopted recently. For 35mm I use a dedicated film scanner, the Plustek OpticFilm 7500i, which scans at 7200dpi. For 120 medium format film I purchased an Epson Perfection V500 scanner. The cost of the two scanners is well within your budget, and I think you will find your scan quality is not compromised in any dimension with the Plustek for 35mm and the Epson for 120 medium format film.

Sounds like a pretty strong endorsement to me! And what product doesn't have plusses and minuses? Unfortunately, it's the nature of the beast. for about 50% of a Nikon LS5000 (which I happen to have and use), the Plustek has a lot of appeal.

 

[pellicle]

Rick

Well, not quite "not quite" ....

we're talking the 7600, not the 7200 reviewed in 2007. In Dec. 2008, Brooks said re. the 7500 model:

I still have and use my Minolta DiMAGE Scan Elite 5400 II scanner and it works fine. However, that scanner was discontinued a couple of years ago and you cannot therefore buy a new one. So, what other choices are there? That is why I tested, and wrote up, and now recommend the Plustek OpticFilm 7500i.
With some 35mm film images,

is that your review? The one I read is by David Brooks on shutter bug. Do you have a link to your review?

thanks

 

[SWphoto]

is that your review? The one I read is by David Brooks on shutter bug. Do you have a link to your review?

As the preface to David Brooks comments stated:
"we're talking the 7600, not the 7200 reviewed in 2007. In Dec. 2008, Brooks said re. the 7500 model:" Note the "David Brooks said...", followed by the colon, leading to his review.

 

[pellicle]

As the preface to David Brooks comments stated:
"we're talking the 7600, not the 7200 reviewed in 2007. In Dec. 2008, Brooks said re. the 7500 model:" Note the "David Brooks said...", followed by the colon, leading to his review.

thanks for clearing that up ... the quote was unclearly started and ended so I wasn't sure where it was your writing and his.

I've PM'd mrred so as soon as I'm out of my work commitment shambles next week hopefully we can work on a test comparison.

We have some mighty stunning speed scanners at work (such as this) which we use to scan 35mm sized film at about 4800dpi in amazing speeds (monochrome only) So I well I know that there is life beyond Nikon

I appreciate that the Plustek's are new and the 5000 is dear (so sad to see the LS-V disappear).

Just as film scanners come of age the public moves away to digital ... sigh

 

[nsouto]

The only thing I find scary about the Plustek range is the fixed focus in all models I know of.

Correctly focusing a 35mm image is one of the hardest tasks in dedicated film scanners, mainly due to non-flatness and/or slightly slanted film paths.

I know I've gone through hoops to make both my Nikons - a VED and a 9000ED - focus accurately across the entire frame of an image.

And that's at 4000dpi. Perfect focusing is harder to achieve the higher the resolution of the scan is.

I find it hard to believe at 7200dpi, with fixed focus, the Plustek range doesn't have a problem. It immediately flashes "that's not 7200dpi" in front of my eyes...

 

[mrred]

The only thing I find scary about the Plustek range is the fixed focus in all models I know of.

Correctly focusing a 35mm image is one of the hardest tasks in dedicated film scanners, mainly due to non-flatness and/or slightly slanted film paths.

I know I've gone through hoops to make both my Nikons - a VED and a 9000ED - focus accurately across the entire frame of an image.

And that's at 4000dpi. Perfect focusing is harder to achieve the higher the resolution of the scan is.

I find it hard to believe at 7200dpi, with fixed focus, the Plustek range doesn't have a problem. It immediately flashes "that's not 7200dpi" in front of my eyes...

I agree that fixed focus would normally be an issue, as it has been (and still is) an issue with the epson scanners that I have owned. However the tray that is used with the plustek insures that 1) the negitive stays flat and 2) stays in the optimal position without the need of glass between the film and the optics. The grain is in focus, as is the real test on that count. How is that scary? Do you fear much?

As for the dpi issue, my Epson 4490 specs state that is has 4800x9600. I find it hard to stay on my chair from laughter! All manufacturers stretch that one. 2400 is my real guess at the 4490 and 3600 is for my Plustek. I am amused to think you feel an apifiny has occurred. Maybe your "flashes" are more related to the 60's....

 

[pellicle]

Hi

I agree that fixed focus would normally be an issue, as it has been (and still is) an issue with the epson scanners that I have owned. However the tray that is used with the plustek insures that 1) the negitive stays flat and 2) stays in the optimal position without the need of glass between the film and the optics. The grain is in focus, as is the real test on that count.

firstly I think its an aussie turn of phrase ... translate to semantic meaning of "worried about".

If you're aware of the fixed focus issues (and refocusing with holder adjustment) then you should be wondering how this can be effected (adjusting the precise focus plane) in a device which is not hand assembled or calibrated (meaning the Plustek).

As long as you are willing (as you seem to be) to accept that the device yeilds lower dpi than claimed then it shouldn't be a problem.

The problem I see for the Nikon is that many 'casual users' never grasp how to get the most out of it (focus, level settings ...) so the Plustek for significantly less money probably represents some sort of value for money.

(posted from the conference)

 

[mrred]

...
If you're aware of the fixed focus issues (and refocusing with holder adjustment) then you should be wondering how this can be effected (adjusting the precise focus plane) in a device which is not hand assembled or calibrated (meaning the Plustek).

As long as you are willing (as you seem to be) to accept that the device yeilds lower dpi than claimed then it shouldn't be a problem.

The problem I see for the Nikon is that many 'casual users' never grasp how to get the most out of it (focus, level settings ...) so the Plustek for significantly less money probably represents some sort of value for money.

(posted from the conference)

Oddly the only scanners I have with focus issues are my epsons. Considering the price point of these machines (under 300) I guess it would be expected. My plustek is only slightly above this point, due to the Silverfast that came with it. They have done what epson (obviously) should have done and provided a decently engineered holder. I know a couple of people with these scanners (plustek) and we all enjoy good focus. I would guess then, it must be better build quality.

I didn't by any of my scanners expecting more that 2000 dpi. As I have worked with scanners for 15+ years, I know better.

I love technology that works and dislike the stuff that doesn't. I actually bought my 4490 when I started doing MF and I expected the same satisfaction from it as my plustek; they both have approximately the same elevated specs. I had hoped to just have one scanner on my desk. Just not the case and it wound up costing me double in 3rd party trays and ANR glass. At least it became usable for MF. From this I can make two statements; 1) I will never own another Epson 2) I truely wish Plustek would make a MF scanner.

I have never owned/used a Nikon scanner, so I can't comment specifically. I have epson scan for the epson, Silverfast Ai for both, and vuescan for both. I can honestly say, it has been a rather steep learning curve to get anything consistent out of any software/hardware combination. ColorNeg/ColorPos plugins for PS has made that a consistency. So much so I believe that that could be some of the differences I see between 'scanners', as in its the conversion part of the software making the largest difference.

Note that the word 'value' is used to describe the unit. It is, but I would be hard pressed to give it up for a unit twice the price. I would buy one again, price irrelevant. Its biggest flaw is that it is marketed with Silverfast which does not do it any justice; but that is another story.

 

[pellicle]

Hi

Oddly the only scanners I have with focus issues are my epsons....They have done what epson (obviously) should have done and provided a decently engineered holder.

personally I think that the engineering of the epson film holders is fine, and that the problems lay in the scan head. I'm sure that it alters focus point (either deliberately or as a side effect) when changing between document and film scanning.

I have epson scan for the epson, Silverfast Ai for both, and vuescan for both. I can honestly say, it has been a rather steep learning curve to get anything consistent out of any software/hardware combination. ColorNeg/ColorPos plugins for PS has made that a consistency.

I have some issues with that software, finding that while consistent will result in greater blue channel noise, for example:

in that blog article I put up my findings of how to get better results from the Epson in terms of dealing with colour negatives. Handling the negative as a positve and processing yourself will give much much more consistent results. See this article (and the link to the other article at the beginning of it) which explains what I've found. Setting things this way I've found I get very repeatable results from the Epson with the only variations being the colour temperature of the light the film was exposed with.

Anyway, soon as I'm finished in Helsinki I'll shoot some film and sent it to you for the comparisons. I'm quite interested to see how the Plustec does.

 

[nsouto]

I really want to believe the Plusteks can do genuine7200. This, because I could use half that - 3600dpi - as a general purpose faster scan speed for the thousands of 35mm images I have to scan. With 4000 and higher only reserved for special cases.

The Nikons are very fast at 2000 but that is a bit too low for the level of detail I'm used to in 35mm film. 4000 is OK, but takes a long time and requires fastidious precision with the focus in order to really be worth that investment. And they don't really handle 3600 natively - it's an interpolation, which makes that rez not much faster than native 4000.

3600 would be a compromise I could accept. The Epson 4990 does 3600 with ease and reasonably fast, but its focus is faaaaaar from perfect at that resolution. Hence my interest in the Plusteks and the gap they could fill.

But having had my fair share of problems with focusing particularly at the higher 4000 of the Nikons, I'm a bit reluctant to believe all of a sudden Plustek has solved what has been a bugbear of most dedicated film scanners - and some flat beds!

Mrred's suggestion that they really only do 3600 is more in line with what I'd expect of a fixed focus device. And that rez would suit me fine. Hopefully their focus would be better than the Epson 4990, which is absolutely atrocious.

I've often toyed with the idea of opening the 4990 and removing and fixing the flat bed glass at a lower position to see if I can correct the focus problem. I could then use spacers on the frames for absolutely perfect focus. The 4990 at least is reasonably easy to open, done that many times to clean the glass bed. Wonder if anyone has been down that path?

Very interested in seeing comparative results of the Plustek, folks. Please post them as soon as available.

 

[Blighty]

Very interested in seeing comparative results of the Plustek, folks. Please post them as soon as available.

Me too, especially as the Coolscan I bid on went for over 400 on Fleabay.

 

[mrred]

Something to sink your teeth into

Dead Link Removed

Here are four scans. Two are raw (one using ps invert and one using ColorNeg) and the other two use vuescan (one using autobw and the other using infrared for bw conversion).

To the eye, I do prefer the infrared as there is noticeable improvement in depth, further enhanced by a staining developer. There should be ridges in the flowers, as they are fake. The film is foma100 and the developer is wd2d+. The film development was tuned to give a .75 (+fog+base) for a 18% grey card and I consider it optimal for scanning.

I uploaded full res as I am sure you will want to 'peep'....

 

[nsouto]

Thanks heaps, mrred. Much appreciated.

I agree: the vuescan results look better and the infrared seems to have the edge.

One thing I think I see is the limits of the lower dmax of the Plustek, in the shadow areas of the flowers. But it's plenty enough for the vast majority of shots.

Hmmm, this makes me think the Plustek - 7600i? - might be worth a try.

It's good indeed there is an option beyond the Nikons, as their 35mm scanners have stopped being made and only the 9000 is still sold by them.

Another one I was planning on trying or learning more about is the Pacific Image Primefilm 7250.

This is a similar scanner to the old Kodak 3600, but faster and with IR.

I have an old 3600 and it is a great scanner with good dmax, good auto focus and film transport mechanism but the lack of IR destroys its usefulness to me. A bit slow as well. I'm told the 7250 is a lot faster but when it involves IR, I doubt it.

Still very interested in seeing pellicle's image scanned in the Plustek and then side-by-sided.

 

[mrred]

Thanks heaps, mrred. Much appreciated.

One thing I think I see is the limits of the lower dmax of the Plustek, in the shadow areas of the flowers. But it's plenty enough for the vast majority of shots.

Actually this may not be the best shot to reveal dmax. 1) It's fairly low contrast, 2) Foma100 is fairly low contrast, 3) a stain developer compresses dynamic range, 4) I did nothing to the images beyond scan/convert (which was the point), and 5) the shots were intended to be a lighting test (new strobe). Even the DOF is too shallow for all the flowers.

I did have some old FijuChrome that astonished me on the dmax. I gave my F601 to a 7 year old that knew nothing about flashes and she burned off a roll. I looked at the film and gave up on 5 or 6 "dark" images. This was right about the time when I had introduced myself to ColorNeg/ColorPos and was impressed with what it got out of them. Some of that may have been due to raw/linear scans.