The case for buing Pacific Image and Plustek scanners instead of old discontinued models

[Radost]

Even a drum would be worse for 135.

worst than what?

 

[Helge]

worst than what?

DSLR scanning with stitching done well.

 

[Radost]

DSLR scanning with stitching done well.

Digital cameras do sharpening and digital voodoo that might give you perceivable pixel peeping advantage.
Can you send me your best 120 and 135 dslr photos?
Also you must not shoot a lot of film or have a lot of free time to dslr stitch. I still have maybe 20 films i need to scan from last summer. I have not gotten around to do it.
With DSLR 100% of the time is dedicated on the taking the photos. With the scanner I press a button and can do other things especially with the 35mm one.

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

I gave up on trying to buy a Plustek in 2020 after buying and returning five of them. My old Nikon had died and needed replaced. All of the Plusteks had decentered or misaligned optics that caused the scans to be soft on one side. Bought another old Nikon and the results are, as expected, flawless.

 

[braxus]

With the price of some old film scanners these days, especially for medium format film, you're better off using a digital camera with high rez to do the transferring. One Youtuber I watched used his Fuji X camera for a while, and then moved up to a GFX medium format digital camera. With the rez out of the GFX, and the quality of the files, it far surpasses what he was getting out of his Nikon Coolscan 9000. He ended up selling the Nikon, because the quality was better on the GFX. With GFX used bodies going for half price today, that might be a better option for you. You'd have to get a stand, film holder, and light source of course. And a manual focus macro lens adapted to the GFX. Only issue is trying to get critical focus on the lens, but the camera has a 100% view mode which zooms in to see focus.

 

[Radost]

With the price of some old film scanners these days, especially for medium format film, you're better off using a digital camera with high rez to do the transferring. One Youtuber I watched used his Fuji X camera for a while, and then moved up to a GFX medium format digital camera. With the rez out of the GFX, and the quality of the files, it far surpasses what he was getting out of his Nikon Coolscan 9000. He ended up selling the Nikon, because the quality was better on the GFX. With GFX used bodies going for half price today, that might be a better option for you. You'd have to get a stand, film holder, and light source of course. And a manual focus macro lens adapted to the GFX. Only issue is trying to get critical focus on the lens, but the camera has a 100% view mode which zooms in to see focus.

I don't have a digital camera and also the film holders are expansive.
Having a scanner with infrared and a good scanning software like SIlverfast helps a lot.

 

[Helge]

I don't have a digital camera and also the film holders are expansive.
Having a scanner with infrared and a good scanning software like SIlverfast helps a lot.

Film holders are super easy to make, or can be appropriated from an enlarger.
It’s basically a non issue.

Digital cameras are cheap used. All you need is 16 MP and up. APS and M43 is actually preferable because of their higher pixel pitch.

There is no scanner currently produced that can compete, at all with either:
Quality (resolution, dynamics (with the exception of drum scanners for medium format or up) or noise).
Speed of scanning
Or Cost.

 

[Radost]

Film holders are super easy to make, or can be appropriated from an enlarger.
It’s basically a non issue.

Digital cameras are cheap used. All you need is 16 MP and up. APS and M43 is actually preferable because of their higher pixel pitch.

There is no scanner currently produced that can compete, at all with either:
Quality (resolution, dynamics (with the exception of drum scanners for medium format or up) or noise).
Speed of scanning
Or Cost.

For 35 the PI XAS is great.
For 120 the PI 120 PRO is very very good.
Using a digital camera for me and my c41 development will create a lot of post production.
Scanner just scans it and gives me super clean result.

Maybe the Pacific Image 120 Pro is too expansive but the XAS for $499 with a silverfast software is a great solution and I doubt a Digital camera will give me results that good by taking a picture of the negative.

 

[Radost]

P.S. Also I can scan in daylight on the kitchen table while watching my toddler play.

 

[gone]

I'd much rather use a scanner than a DSLR, but you can see the writing on the wall w/ scanners. They won't be around much longer, and the old war horses like the Epson 2450 flatbeds either will die, or they won't work w/ the newer OS on our computers.

 

[Radost]

I'd much rather use a scanner than a DSLR, but you can see the writing on the wall w/ scanners. They won't be around much longer, and the old war horses like the Epson 2450 flatbeds either will die, or they won't work w/ the newer OS on our computers.

And thus why I want people to support those companies.
To be honest I believe the PI XAS is so popular it is barely in stock.
I don't even need new better models. Just support my PI scanners or if they break beyond repair have them available to buy.
If I hear something about PI going out of business I will buy at least 4 XAS and 2 120 Pro to have for the future.

 

[Radost]

Here is Pacific Image 120 pro scans of 6x4.5 and my mediocre shooting skills and development.

 

[albireo]

Speaking purely for myself:

-I don't own a DSLR/mirrorless camera
-I do not want to own a DSLR/mirrorless camera
-If I decided to own a DSLR/mirrorless camera, I would do so to actually go out and take photographs with it.
-I have a film scanner which has been fully restored to full factory operation (plenty of technicians still able to do this), a scanner I know how to use correctly, a scanner that cost me a fraction of what I would have paid for DSLR/mirrorless equipment plus all the added overpriced paraphernalia needed to get a decent scan.
-I'm fully happy with my scans. I'm puzzled by most of these DSLR scan results I see on blogs, personal photography websites, flickr, where the owner proudly announces the negatives have been DSLR-scanned. Most of the times I would be ashamed to show such results. But I'm sure someone, somewhere, is doing professional work via DSLR scanning - all power to them.
-When/if my Coolscan fails, if I'm still into film photography, I will buy a Reflecta/Pacific Image/Plustek or equivalent.

Again, personally: I think the point is that many people in this hobby want to tinker with equipment, rather that take pictures. Setting up a DSLR scanning rig might sound like fun to those. Myself, I have a well functioning scanner that sits there and does its thing. I am learning how to make the most of it. I would not be interested in fine tuning a bunch of gadgets just because some shill on Instagram tells me the latest and greatest $400 'film holder' does miracles.

I am not interested in sitting home on a Saturday afternoon 'stitching' or 'pixel shifting' my photos of a negative to try to approach the results the line sensor in my film scanner obtains without any tweaking (and that's because Bayer, and especially Xtrans sensors, are inherently compromised 'scanning' devices due to interpolation, but this is a separate topic).

Personally, on a Saturday afternoon, I'd rather hop on my bicycle with my Rolleicord hanging from my neck and explore somewhere new and interesting and concentrate on what I like to do the most, which is finding a composition of interest.

However, I fully understand if somebody has e.g. limited mobility, or can't be bothered with reading a scanner manual and learning to use Vuescan, or has lost the appetite for actual photography, or has a $4000 DSLR lying around collecting dust and wants to tinker around a repro stand. It's just .. Not the only way to do it. I wish DSLR scanning fanboys would realise this.

 

[Helge]

For 35 the PI XAS is great.
For 120 the PI 120 PRO is very very good.
Using a digital camera for me and my c41 development will create a lot of post production.
Scanner just scans it and gives me super clean result.

Maybe the Pacific Image 120 Pro is too expansive but the XAS for $499 with a silverfast software is a great solution and I doubt a Digital camera will give me results that good by taking a picture of the negative.

120 scanners are obscenely expensive for what you get. And super expensive full stop.
135 scanners are bad to mediocre and are slow and inflexible (no Robot frames, no half frame, no Xpan, no 16mm etc.)

You can shoot in indoor light just fine with camera scanning, if you use flash as backlight and use hoods.

You can play with your toddler all you want m, after the five minutes it takes you to snap a roll.
Instead of just looking on, while you use half an hour to an hour to scan your 36 photos.

You can stitch and colour correct at any time thereafter at your convenience.

Remember it’s only C-41 that needs work.
Slide and B&W comes out pretty much perfect.
You can help C-41 conversion tremendously by filtering the backlight with a blue-cyan filter. It will take out the worst peaks, of whatever light you’re using.

NLP as much as I don’t like LightRoom, is right there for a one time fee if you need fast C-41 colour correction.

Thing is, you don’t get clean results from any scanner currently sold.
The sensor is quite noisy and the the color correction is very McDonalds. That is, done to a schema that pleases most and is analogous to drugstore prints (which the algorithm was probably made for originally).
C-41 should be hand tweaked. It was made for high colour fidelity negative prints (after you review the roll from drugstore prints), with at least some kind of brain guiding the result. Not for some standard sausage machine “just give me the damn photos” scheme.

 

[Helge]

Speaking purely for myself:

-I don't own a DSLR/mirrorless camera
-I do not want to own a DSLR/mirrorless camera
-If I decided to own a DSLR/mirrorless camera, I would do so to actually go out and take photographs with it.
-I have a film scanner which has been fully restored to full factory operation (plenty of technicians still able to do this), a scanner I know how to use correctly, a scanner that cost me a fraction of what I would have paid for DSLR/mirrorless equipment plus all the added overpriced paraphernalia needed to get a decent scan.
-I'm fully happy with my scans. I'm puzzled by most of these DSLR scan results I see on blogs, personal photography websites, flickr, where the owner proudly announces the negatives have been DSLR-scanned. Most of the times I would be ashamed to show such results. But I'm sure someone, somewhere, is doing professional work via DSLR scanning - all the power to them.

Again, personally: I think the point is that many people in this hobby want to tinker with equipment, rather that take pictures. I have a well functioning scanner that sits there and does its thing. I am learning how to make the most of it. I would not be interested in fine tuning a bunch of gadgets just because some shill on Instagram tells me the latest and greatest $400 'film holder' does miracles.

I am not interested in sitting home on a Saturday afternoon 'stitching' or 'pixel shifting' my photos of a negative to try to approach the results the line sensor in my film scanner obtains without any tweaking (and that's because Bayer, and especially Xtrans sensors, are inherently compromised 'scanning' devices due to interpolation, but this is a separate topic).

Personally, on a Saturday afternoon, I'd rather hop on my bicycle with my Rolleicord hanging from my neck and explore somewhere new and interesting and concentrate on what I like to do the most.

However, I fully understand if somebody has limited mobility or has lost the appetite for actual photography, or has a $4000 DSLR lying around collecting dust and wants to tinker around a repro stand. It's just .. Not the only way to do it. I wish DSLR fanboys would realise this.

There is no fundamental difference between a scanner and a DSLR or mirrorless setup. It’s the exact same basic technology.
Only the digital camera is using several decades newer versions of that basic technology.

It’s not more expensive. That is the whole point. Otherwise people would be clawing over Flextights and drum scanners.

Even if you are daft enough to buy one of the super overpriced film holders, it’s not more expensive.

Consumer scanners is also doing film a huge disservice in misrepresenting how good image quality is actually possible.

A digital camera used with a macro used to take partial shots that are then stitched, can get absolutely mind blowing results. Far better than the camera would be able to do alone “in the field”.
Camera scanning is a highly controlled method, where all elements can be made to perform their very best (and more actually).

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Here is Pacific Image 120 pro scans of 6x4.5 and my mediocre shooting skills and development.

Are you eating your pet pig?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Speaking purely for myself:

-I don't own a DSLR/mirrorless camera
-I do not want to own a DSLR/mirrorless camera
-If I decided to own a DSLR/mirrorless camera, I would do so to actually go out and take photographs with it.
-I have a film scanner which has been fully restored to full factory operation (plenty of technicians still able to do this), a scanner I know how to use correctly, a scanner that cost me a fraction of what I would have paid for DSLR/mirrorless equipment plus all the added overpriced paraphernalia needed to get a decent scan.
-I'm fully happy with my scans. I'm puzzled by most of these DSLR scan results I see on blogs, personal photography websites, flickr, where the owner proudly announces the negatives have been DSLR-scanned. Most of the times I would be ashamed to show such results. But I'm sure someone, somewhere, is doing professional work via DSLR scanning - all the power to them.
-When/if my Coolscan fails, if I'm still into film photography, I will buy a Reflecta/Pacific Image/Plustek or equivalent.

Again, personally: I think the point is that many people in this hobby want to tinker with equipment, rather that take pictures. Setting up a DSLR scanning rig might sound like fun to those. Myself, I have a well functioning scanner that sits there and does its thing. I am learning how to make the most of it. I would not be interested in fine tuning a bunch of gadgets just because some shill on Instagram tells me the latest and greatest $400 'film holder' does miracles.

I am not interested in sitting home on a Saturday afternoon 'stitching' or 'pixel shifting' my photos of a negative to try to approach the results the line sensor in my film scanner obtains without any tweaking (and that's because Bayer, and especially Xtrans sensors, are inherently compromised 'scanning' devices due to interpolation, but this is a separate topic).

Personally, on a Saturday afternoon, I'd rather hop on my bicycle with my Rolleicord hanging from my neck and explore somewhere new and interesting and concentrate on what I like to do the most, which is finding a composition of interest.

However, I fully understand if somebody has e.g. limited mobility, or can't be bothered with reading a scanner manual and learning to use Vuescan, or has lost the appetite for actual photography, or has a $4000 DSLR lying around collecting dust and wants to tinker around a repro stand. It's just .. Not the only way to do it. I wish DSLR scanning fanboys would realise this.

I'm in the same position. I only own a micro 4/3 digital camera. Now that I'm shooting 4x5 as well as medium format and sometimes 35mm, buying and setting up a camera scanner seems to be too complicated. Right now I have a V850 and was using a V600 before I started shooting 4x5. I think the V850 does a pretty good job even with 35mm. Here are some samples of 35mm. https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums/72157716777378896

 

[Radost]

No.
His name is Elvis.
Once you name them you can not eat them.

 

[MattKing]

There is an absolutely fundamental difference between the technology in scanners and camera scanning - scanners scan one line at a time, while camera scanning "photographs" one frame (or potentially one portion of a frame) at a time.
If you put together a high quality sensor, high quality lens(es), high quality source of illumination and high quality film handling and transport into a single package that successfully maintains consistency and evenness of illumination, flatness of film, flat field lens performance and convenient desktop footprint, then you will have something that would interest me.

 

[madNbad]

Scanner technology peaked in the early 2000s' when the Nikon D2 was the hot new camera and "Friends" was the number one show on US television. The only changes since then have been in the area of third party software suppliers, the introduction of the OptiFilm/Plustek line to fill a gap and Epson upgrading to LEDs in their bed scanner. Much in the same way scanners replaced darkroom work for many enthusiast, digital capture is nudging out traditional scanners. As much of the variance comes down to set ups, everything from a shoebox with a LED pad and an old negative carrier using an adapted lens with extension tubes to the full blown Negative Supply with a Sony A7RIV. Film is doing better at this point than any of the pundits could have predicted. A younger generation is embracing it and does it really matter how the image is made available for display?

 

[Radost]

There is no fundamental difference between a scanner and a DSLR or mirrorless setup. It’s the exact same basic technology.
Only the digital camera is using several decades newer versions of that basic technology.

It’s not more expensive. That is the whole point. Otherwise people would be clawing over Flextights and drum scanners.

Even if you are daft enough to buy one of the super overpriced film holders, it’s not more expensive.

Consumer scanners is also doing film a huge disservice in misrepresenting how good image quality is actually possible.

A digital camera used with a macro used to take partial shots that are then stitched, can get absolutely mind blowing results. Far better than the camera would be able to do alone “in the field”.
Camera scanning is a highly controlled method, where all elements can be made to perform their very best (and more actually).

IMHO film scanning is "a highly controlled method, where all elements can be made to perform their very best (and more actually)."


Stitching negatives sounds crazy time consuming. I still have a lot of films that I have not processed and at least a dozen I have not had the time to scan.
Maybe if you shoot very little film might be a good solution.

Show me a sample of stitched digital camera scan.

 

[Helge]

There is an absolutely fundamental difference between the technology in scanners and camera scanning - scanners scan one line at a time, while camera scanning "photographs" one frame (or potentially one portion of a frame) at a time.
If you put together a high quality sensor, high quality lens(es), high quality source of illumination and high quality film handling and transport into a single package that successfully maintains consistency and evenness of illumination, flatness of film, flat field lens performance and convenient desktop footprint, then you will have something that would interest me.

That’s not a fundamental difference.
Drum scanner yes. But not consumer CCD or CMOS.
Whether it’s a line CCD or a matrix matters little.
Many scanners work with a matrix sensor too. Essentially a camera scanner in a box. Nothing magical about that.
Flatness and consistency is up to the user and setup, and is quite easily attainable in a number of ways.

Scanner technology peaked in the early 2000s' when the Nikon D2 was the hot new camera and "Friends" was the number one show on US television. The only changes since then have been in the area of third party software suppliers, the introduction of the OptiFilm/Plustek line to fill a gap and Epson upgrading to LEDs in their bed scanner. Much in the same way scanners replaced darkroom work for many enthusiast, digital capture is nudging out traditional scanners. As much of the variance comes down to set ups, everything from a shoebox with a LED pad and an old negative carrier using an adapted lens with extension tubes to the full blown Negative Supply with a Sony A7RIV. Film is doing better at this point than any of the pundits could have predicted. A younger generation is embracing it and does it really matter how the image is made available for display?

The quality and ease and cost matters. How could it not?

IMHO film scanning is "a highly controlled method, where all elements can be made to perform their very best (and more actually)."


Stitching negatives sounds crazy time consuming. I still have a lot of films that I have not processed and at least a dozen I have not had the time to scan.
Maybe if you shoot very little film might be a good solution.

Show me a sample of stitched digital camera scan.

Take quick snaps of the whole roll and decide which ones warrant working on, and giving the treatment.
Same as with printing.

Do your own search for “stitched digital camera scan”.

 

[MattKing]

Flatness and consistency is up to the user and setup, and is quite easily attainable in a number of ways.

We will have to agree to disagree about the "easily attainable" part . Same applies to flatness of field in the optics - at least to the standard I think is necessary.

 

[Radost]

Do your own search for “stitched digital camera scan”.

How do you take a snap of the whole role? Are you pulling my leg?

Also put together a list for me for everything I need for 35mm digital camera scan.

Show me your examples of stitched camera.

 

[Radost]

We will have to agree to disagree about the "easily attainable" part . Same applies to flatness of field in the optics - at least to the standard I think is necessary.

I have had zero problems with XAS selectable position autofocus. Getting very good scans. The autofocus is a must for me. I wish PI makes a 120 Pro with an autofocus. But to be honest I have not had focus issues with 99.99% of films.