Plustek???

[Helge]

There's a lot of emotional energy in this thread dedicated to getting working properly what is essentially an obsolete piece of kit. If anybody has a DSLR that has 24mp or above put your energy into that as a scanning tool.

Well there is convenience, size and portability. That camscanning can not beat.
I’d suggest Plustek make a matrix sensor based scanner real soon though.

 

[JerseyDoug]

Well there is convenience, size and portability. That camscanning can not beat.
I’d suggest Plustek make a matrix sensor based scanner real soon though.

If you already have a digital camera with a macro lens the VALOI easy35 is more convenient, smaller and more portable than a Plustek 35mm scanner. It's cheaper too.

 

[Helge]

If you already have a digital camera with a macro lens the VALOI easy35 is more convenient, smaller and more portable than a Plustek 35mm scanner. It's cheaper too.

I’ve had a great deal of fun with the 8300i this evening.
A “7200” scan takes about 3 minutes with colour and a little under 1 minute with B&W.
Not too bad compared to all the stuff involved in DSLR scanning.
I bought it mainly for easy inversion of C-41 and for doing it when out and about.
But it’s turns out the output quality is quite good. I’d have to do stitching in 135 to get the same quality. So about the same speed.
It’s nice with options and variation.

 

[JParker]

I’ve had a great deal of fun with the 8300i this evening.
A “7200” scan takes about 3 minutes with colour and a little under 1 minutes with B&W.
Not too bad compared to all the stuff involved in DSLR scanning.
I bought it mainly for easy inversion of C-41 and for doing it when out and about.
But it’s turns out the output quality is quite good. I’d have to do stitching in 135 to get the same quality. So about the same speed.
It’s nice with options and variation.

So you have meanwhile ordered the Plustek 8300i from Amazon Europe?
Please keep us updated with your experiences and results!

 

[groddoneright]

Buy a used one. I bought a 7600i in the box for a hundred usd. They're fine but slow. You can use it with the bundled Silverfast or upgrade to VueScan. Use it for a while and see if it's something you want to contiiue with.

where the heck did you find one in box for $100?????? lol I just made an offer in one in box new for $250. Cannot find any 8200 less than $350 so I tried looking for a 7600 instead.

 

[madNbad]

where the heck did you find one in box for $100?????? lol I just made an offer in one in box new for $250. Cannot find any 8200 less than $350 so I tried looking for a 7600 instead.

It was in 2013. The guy had just finished scanning all his slides and didn't want it hanging around. I donated it to the local high school when I switched to camera scanning in 2018.

 

[250swb]

I’ve had a great deal of fun with the 8300i this evening.
A “7200” scan takes about 3 minutes with colour and a little under 1 minute with B&W.

You do realise that a 7200 dpi scan is interpolated don't you? Extra information is added by the scanner software to bloat the file. The native resolution of the Plustek is 3600 dpi above which there can be no improvement in quality, only bigger file size.

 

[250swb]

where the heck did you find one in box for $100?????? lol I just made an offer in one in box new for $250. Cannot find any 8200 less than $350 so I tried looking for a 7600 instead.

It's worth looking at older NOS models of the Plustek if you are committed to get one. They are all essentially the same scanner in terms of scanning performance, the designations change with newer versions of Silverfast being introduced and cosmetic makeovers. The latest 8100i is a bit faster, the first improvement in ages, but the scan quality is the same as before. Some of the very early versions didn't have the IR dust removal ability, not useful for a B&W photographer anyway, but I doubt you'd find any still for sale.

 

[Helge]

You do realise that a 7200 dpi scan is interpolated don't you? Extra information is added by the scanner software to bloat the file. The native resolution of the Plustek is 3600 dpi above which there can be no improvement in quality, only bigger file size.

It’s the optical quality that is not quite up to the task, but you still get a little bit of improvement with 7200. The sensor really has that resolution, so why not? It’s not that much slower.

It's worth looking at older NOS models of the Plustek if you are committed to get one. They are all essentially the same scanner in terms of scanning performance, the designations change with newer versions of Silverfast being introduced and cosmetic makeovers. The latest 8100i is a bit faster, the first improvement in ages, but the scan quality is the same as before. Some of the very early versions didn't have the IR dust removal ability, not useful for a B&W photographer anyway, but I doubt you'd find any still for sale.

The new 8300 is noticeable faster. Essentially your only real value in life is time, so with slow scanning you are saving ultimately a little, in the wrong place.

Plustek is missing a huge opportunity though in not doing a complete new scanner based on a small CMOS sensor walked over the film.
Would also make it trivial to scan multible formats on the same scanner.

 

[brbo]

You do realise that a 7200 dpi scan is interpolated don't you? Extra information is added by the scanner software to bloat the file. The native resolution of the Plustek is 3600 dpi above which there can be no improvement in quality, only bigger file size.

Is that a fact?!

It would probably be more expensive to source a ccd line sensor with such low resolution nowadays. A number of scanners offer mechanical resolution in that bracket so that also not a problem to source. I guess if scan times at 7200 are longer than 3600, that is a pretty good indication that the scanner is indeed sampling at 7200dpi. The limiting factor is the lens. That is why there probably is not a lot of difference between real measured resolution of 3600 and 7200dpi scan. Software interpolation has got nothing to with this.

 

[snusmumriken]

You do realise that a 7200 dpi scan is interpolated don't you? Extra information is added by the scanner software to bloat the file. The native resolution of the Plustek is 3600 dpi above which there can be no improvement in quality, only bigger file size.

Thanks for that! I realised soon after purchase that there was no visible on-screen improvement by going to 7200 dpi, and decided 3600 dpi files were plenty big enough anyway. But I didn't know the reason.

 

[koraks]

Now that you have this (false) information, start spreading it. It's how internet works...

Your statement seems to be based on an unfounded expectation, just like the statement you ridicule. I'd be careful with that. Especially since Plustek (much like Epson) has been known to stick with the same CCD through consecutive scanner generations.

Instead of ridiculing what others say, it would make more sense to provide some firm evidence for your statement.

 

[brbo]

Your statement seems to be based on an unfounded expectation, just like the statement you ridicule. I'd be careful with that. Especially since Plustek (much like Epson) has been known to stick with the same CCD through consecutive scanner generations.

You are right. I deleted my pointless and offensive post.

I'll just expand on my reasoning in post #85 which I thought was way more founded than that of post #82, but obviously not...

8.000/10.000 element linear CCD sensors have been around for decades. I've pulled out lenses out of a dozens of 35mm desktop scanners, I have zero reason to believe that Plustek would use a lens with circle that wasn't large enough to occupy at least 7200 pixels of such a sensor. Scanning time and stepping motor frequencies at full (i.e. "interpolated") and half resolution do not support insinuations that "interpolated" resolution is really interpolated.

 

[koraks]

Alright, that maybe was not necessary, but I appreciate the gesture. I see what you mean about the optics, but for some reason, scanner manufacturers (the few serious ones that actually exist) are surprisingly slow to adopt newer sensor technology. Apparently, they see insufficient benefit in higher real resolution. The question why this is the case would be an interesting one, but I couldn't answer it.

 

[brbo]

Apparently, they see insufficient benefit in higher real resolution. The question why this is the case would be an interesting one, but I couldn't answer it.

I don't think they don't see the benefit of higher real resolution. I just think that they know that they can't get it easily (and cheaply) from higher resolution sensors.

Epson has been using CCD sensors with 40.000*+ pixels (per channel) for two decades now. The sensors are not the problem. On the other hand, lenses inside Epson desktop scanners are a fraction of a size of those in pro desktop scanners made 30 years. And I'm talking about lenses in "xy-stitch" scanners where lens only needs to cover small part of the scanning bed!

This is your typical consumer scanner lens (left) that I took from Canoscan 9000f - Canons equivalent to Epson 4990 vs. Componon-S 100/5.6 enlarger lens (right):

Here the same Componon-S 100/5.6 (left) and lens from Scitex EverSmart pro desktop scanner (right):

Remember, this lens from Eversmart needs to cover only a fraction of the area, Canon lens needs to cover the entire width of the scanning bed. I think one can safely assume where the "softness" in consumer desktop scanners comes from even if we don't count or worry about all the individual pixels of the sensor. There are plenty of them, there is not much need for additional software interpolation (which is still used in some modes to match vertical vs. horizontal resolution).

You'd only need even better sensor in a scanner if you'd have much better lens. Which means bigger size, higher weight, better build, more expensive...

 

[madNbad]

Plustek has been selling basically the same scanner for ages and trying to hold on to their share of a shrinking market. Negative Supply rolls out a Kickstarter negative carrier in 2019, moved from a warehouse in Philadelphia to a much larger manufacturing facility in California, rolling out new products across several price points every few months. If there was a larger market for dedicated scanners, we would see new and better designs.

 

[Helge]

Your statement seems to be based on an unfounded expectation, just like the statement you ridicule. I'd be careful with that. Especially since Plustek (much like Epson) has been known to stick with the same CCD through consecutive scanner generations.

Instead of ridiculing what others say, it would make more sense to provide some firm evidence for your statement

They could be lying, but I doubt it.

Alright, that maybe was not necessary, but I appreciate the gesture. I see what you mean about the optics, but for some reason, scanner manufacturers (the few serious ones that actually exist) are surprisingly slow to adopt newer sensor technology. Apparently, they see insufficient benefit in higher real resolution. The question why this is the case would be an interesting one, but I couldn't answer it.

Plustek has been selling basically the same scanner for ages and trying to hold on to their share of a shrinking market. Negative Supply rolls out a Kickstarter negative carrier in 2019, moved from a warehouse in Philadelphia to a much larger manufacturing facility in California, rolling out new products across several price points every few months. If there was a larger market for dedicated scanners, we would see new and better designs.

Plustek is basically the only game in town for 135 scanning. They can do whatever they want. When they want.
The major factor holding them back from doing a modern scanner is probably just tooling and manufacture chain. That is the costly part. Once that is set up things get cheaper.
And also the fact that there isn’t any good stitching software off the shelf. They’d have to commission someone (Lasersoft to write it).

 

[koraks]

They could be lying, but I doubt it.

The "chip" might as well refer to the ADC - and given the claimed speed increase, this is in fact rather likely. Same CCD strip, new ADC backend.

 

[faberryman]

I have not seen any reviews of the PlusTek 8300i. filmscanner.info has a review of the 8200i, and states that there were no changes to the hardware between the 7600i and the 8200i, only newer versions of the Silverfast software. The 8200i has an actual resolution of 3250 when scanned at 7200. The resulting image file contains mostly interpolated data. Actual resolution of 7200 is what you get with a drum scanner on a good day.

 

[Helge]

The "chip" might as well refer to the ADC - and given the claimed speed increase, this is in fact rather likely. Same CCD strip, new ADC backend.

You might be right. But it does have a higher Dmax, which indicates a new CCD.

 

[koraks]

But it does have a higher Dmax, which indicates a new CCD.

No, that too can be attributed to a new ADC.

 

[Helge]

No, that too can be attributed to a new ADC.

At some point they are bound to run out of their old favorite Chinese linear CCD.

 

[Helge]

I have not seen any reviews of the PlusTek 8300i. filmscanner.info has a review of the 8200i, and states that there were no changes to the hardware between the 7600i and the 8200i, only newer versions of the Silverfast software. The 8200i has an actual resolution of 3250 when scanned at 7200. The resulting image file contains mostly interpolated data. Actual resolution of 7200 is what you get with a drum scanner on a good day.

Again, I or Plustek at no point claimed ultimate quality. It’s as good or better than a single shot with a 24MP SLR. And it’s a whole hell of a lot more portable and easy to get going with.

 

[koraks]

At some point they are bound to run out of their old favorite Chinese linear CCD.

Well, you'd expect the same of Epson, and here we are!

 

[Helge]

Well, you'd expect the same of Epson, and here we are!

Are they “new”? How long since Epson ran the line?