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

[Radost]

First I want to support companies that still provide products to our community.

Second for 35 it is hard to beat Pacific Image XAS. Autofocus and great quality. I like some scans better than Noritsu and frontier. I have the 3 slide fuji calibration and silver fast.
For 120 I have Pacific Image 120 Pro. It does a great job. "flat negatives for 120 required since it does not have autofocus"

And honestly, I want to support a company that still produces film scanners.
Buying Coolscans that break and have zero serviceability does not do any good to the community.
Is Nikon scanning better than PI? For 135 i would say no. Not by much. For 120?? Maybe if you pixel peep.
Especially when my home development produces slightly worst results than Richard's Lab development.
And If I really want to print a frame digitally I can send just scan that frame. I shoot a lot of film and develop and scan at home. Coolscan 9000 will not make my pictures better.
At the end of the day I want my money to go to companies that are dedicated to the film community.

And my fear is if not a lot of people purchase those scanners PI and Plustek might decide to drop manifacturing.

The same go for a company that produces a new film camera "not leica". I will buy it right away. Just to show my support.

 

[Les Sarile]

First I want to support companies that still provide products to our community.

Second for 35 it is hard to beat Pacific Image XAS. Autofocus and great quality. I like some scans better than Noritsu and frontier. I have the 3 slide fuji calibration and silver fast.
For 120 I have Pacific Image 120 Pro. It does a great job. "flat negatives for 120 required since it does not have autofocus"

And honestly, I want to support a company that still produces film scanners.
Buying Coolscans that break and have zero serviceability does not do any good to the community.
Is Nikon scanning better than PI? For 135 i would say no. Not by much. For 120?? Maybe if you pixel peep.
Especially when my home development produces slightly worst results than Richard's Lab development.
And If I really want to print a frame digitally I can send just scan that frame. I shoot a lot of film and develop and scan at home. Coolscan 9000 will not make my pictures better.
At the end of the day I want my money to go to companies that are dedicated to the film community.

The same go for a company that produces a new film camera "not leica". I will buy it right away. Just to show my support.

Are you aware of comparison scans between the Coolscans (V, 5000 & 9000) to the Pacific Image XAS and Pacific Image 120 Pro?
Couldn't find those models on https://www.filmscanner.info/en/FilmscannerTestberichte.html but perhaps they're under different brand/model in Europe?

 

[Radost]

Are you aware of comparison scans between the Coolscans (V, 5000 & 9000) to the Pacific Image XAS and Pacific Image 120 Pro?
Couldn't find those models on https://www.filmscanner.info/en/FilmscannerTestberichte.html but perhaps they're under different brand/model in Europe?

https://www.filmscanner.info/en/ReflectaRPS10M.html is the older version of Pacific image XAS called XA
https://www.filmscanner.info/en/ReflectaMF5000.html. is the older version of Pacific Image 120 pro called just 120

 

[gone]

I'd like to see a comparison between a good film scanner like the op mentioned and a DSLR. People seem to get good results from those. If you don't have a DSLR, good lighting, and a copy stand, it may not be that cheaper though.

 

[Les Sarile]

https://www.filmscanner.info/en/ReflectaRPS10M.html is the older version of Pacific image XAS called XA
https://www.filmscanner.info/en/ReflectaMF5000.html. is the older version of Pacific Image 120 pro called just 120

The Reflecta RPS10M seems like a reasonably priced alternative to the Coolscans. It seems slower then even the V which is much slower then the 5000 but I like that you can just feed strips of film - or the whole roll and don't need film holders. How do you like it's output particularly when it comes to color negatives as well as dust and scratch removal?

 

[Les Sarile]

I'd like to see a comparison between a good film scanner like the op mentioned and a DSLR. People seem to get good results from those. If you don't have a DSLR, good lighting, and a copy stand, it may not be that cheaper though.

Unfortunately there is no one "DSLR scanning" as there are dependencies on the DSLR, mounting, lens and an infinite more when it comes to color negative conversion.

 

[Radost]

The Reflecta RPS10M seems like a reasonably priced alternative to the Coolscans. It seems slower then even the V which is much slower then the 5000 but I like that you can just feed strips of film - or the whole roll and don't need film holders. How do you like it's output particularly when it comes to color negatives as well as dust and scratch removal?

I like it a lot. it is amazing with slides. Great dynamic Range and color with B&W and C41. "apart from my shitty development"
The AutoFocus is what makes it special.

 

[Radost]

Unfortunately there is no one "DSLR scanning" as there are dependencies on the DSLR, mounting, lens and an infinite more when it comes to color negative conversion.

I have zero interest in DSLR scanning for a few reasons:
First 2 of mirrorless digital cameras died.
Second it seams like a lot of work and trouble.
Third no IR dust scratch tech in DSLR scanning.
Fourth I might be crazy but for some reason CCD looks more natural to me comapred to CMOS. CMOS look......Digital...

 

[albireo]

I'd like to see a comparison between a good film scanner like the op mentioned and a DSLR.

In general, I think the problem with DSRL scanning is that the variance on the quality of DSRL scanning results is huge.

If done well, with an extremely well thought-out and continuously calibrated set-up, including an excellent lens, excellent light source, good system to keep the negative flat, well designed negative inversion tools - then potentially the results can be very good.

I've seen a few 35mm DSLR scans that almost compete with those one can get with a dedicated 35mm film scanner (Nikon, Minolta made some excellent ones). Though those I've seen were obtained with setups 10x the price of the film scanner (if one doesn't own the DSLR/mirrorless camera already).

Most often though, I think the sources of error are so many (many more than with a factory-built and tested scanner operating according to specs) that DSLR scanning results can be shockingly mediocre. If you quickly check out flickr or a number of blogs, you'll find a bit of everything, including good DSRL scans but also DSRLs scans that pale in comparison with what could have been obtained with a humble £150 Epson V500 used correctly.

 

[Radost]

My PI XAS cost as much as much as Negative Supply film carrier and a good light source. Not even including a stand, camera and macro lens.
XAS automatically feeds the film has autofocus and resolves great dynamic range and color. I can do it while watching TV or doing work and dont need to be in the dark.
Also it gets inside a shelf with one move of my hands. No disassembly required.

In general, I think the problem with DSRL scanning is that the variance on the quality of DSRL scanning results is huge.

If done well, with an extremely well thought-out and continuously calibrated set-up, including an excellent lens, excellent light source, good system to keep the negative flat, well designed negative inversion tools - then potentially the results can be very good.

I've seen a few 35mm scans that almost compete with those one can get with a dedicated 35mm film scanner (Nikon, Minolta made some excellent ones). Though those I've seen were obtained with setups 10x the price, eg, of a used Minolta/Nikon film scanner (if one doesn't own the DSLR/mirrorless camera already).

Most often though, I think the sources of error are so many (many more than with a factory-built and tested scanner operating according to specs) that DSLR scanning results can be shockingly mediocre. If you quickly check out flickr or a number of blogs, you'll find a bit of everything, including good DSRL scans but also DSRLs scans that pale in comparison with what could have been obtained with a humble £150 Epson V500 used correctly.

 

[albireo]

My PI XAS cost as much as much as Negative Supply film carrier and a good light source. Not even including a stand, camera and macro lens.

I don't doubt it. I've never used a PI (they are known as 'Reflecta' this side of the pond) but I've seen some stunning results. I have personally some experience with the often vilified Plusteks. I played around with a used 7600i for a bit - purchased locally, lightly used, for 90£. Stunning value for money. In spite of the lack of autofocus, it gave truly respectable results. I ended up moving it on because of the lack of automatic strip advance. But I could have quite happily lived with it for 35mm duties.

 

[Radost]

I don't doubt it. I've never used a PI (they are known as 'Reflecta' this side of the pond) but I've seen some stunning results. I have personally some experience with the often vilified Plusteks. I played around with a used 7600i for a bit - purchased locally, lightly used, for 90£. Stunning value for money. In spite of the lack of autofocus, it gave truly respectable results. I ended up moving it on because of the lack of automatic strip advancement. But I could have happily lived with it for 35mm duties.

PI XAS Reflecta has frame advance.

 

[brbo]

Can it scan panoramic frames (Xpan and Widelux/Horizon)?

 

[Alan Johnson]

The Plustek 8100 is better than its relatively low price would suggest.
Here it is with Adox CMS20 microfilm, click twice for full magnification.
For 1920 resolution screens the full picture size is then 3.2 x the width of the screen.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/98816417@N08/51577870188/

 

[Radost]

The Plustek 8100 is better than its relatively low price would suggest.
Here it is with Adox CMS20 microfilm, click twice for full magnification.
For 1920 resolution screens the full picture size is then 3.2 x the width of the screen.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/98816417@N08/51577870188/

Wow.This film is always impressive. I was just able to get some in stock from BHPhoto.
Question about this print. It looks like infinity focus is off. or is the film not flat towards the top right.

 

[Helge]

In general, I think the problem with DSRL scanning is that the variance on the quality of DSRL scanning results is huge.

If done well, with an extremely well thought-out and continuously calibrated set-up, including an excellent lens, excellent light source, good system to keep the negative flat, well designed negative inversion tools - then potentially the results can be very good.

I've seen a few 35mm DSLR scans that almost compete with those one can get with a dedicated 35mm film scanner (Nikon, Minolta made some excellent ones). Though those I've seen were obtained with setups 10x the price of the film scanner (if one doesn't own the DSLR/mirrorless camera already).

Most often though, I think the sources of error are so many (many more than with a factory-built and tested scanner operating according to specs) that DSLR scanning results can be shockingly mediocre. If you quickly check out flickr or a number of blogs, you'll find a bit of everything, including good DSRL scans but also DSRLs scans that pale in comparison with what could have been obtained with a humble £150 Epson V500 used correctly.

Most people just grab a single shot and call it a day, that can be tricky. And will of course be below the resolution the “scanning” camera would be capable of pointed at the same scene from a tripod.
DSLR scanning really comes into its own when you go beyond 1:1, and stitch.
Then it’s easier to affirm focus and you somewhat lessen the interpolation and Bayer filter effects.
For hobo scans for Instagram, a single shot is probably mostly fine. But why waste time on doing something half well, only to have the nagging feeling your photos could be so much better represented?

You need bellows or extension rings to do that with most affordable macros.

Using a bluish cyan filter to get you in the ballpark of the orange mask, will make colour correction for C-41 a lot easier. It will take the peaks out of most light sources and give a good starting point for tweaking.

 

[Alan Johnson]

Might be camera shake or lens issue at EI 16, not a scanner issue, here's a Plustek 8100 scan at EI=100:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/98816417@N08/51870294214/
The grain is sharp in the area you refer to.

 

[Radost]

Might be camera shake or lens issue at EI 16, not a scanner issue, here's a Plustek 8100 scan at EI=100:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/98816417@N08/51870294214/
The grain is sharp in the area you refer to.

copy. Again this film is so impressive! What development do you use. Side note if you can elaborate on the MeCD4 3m + 3m 25C maybe in a another subject

 

[albireo]

For hobo scans for Instagram, a single shot is probably mostly fine.

I don't use Instagram - sorry.

 

[Helge]

I don't use Instagram - sorry.

Don’t be.
For other 1000 pixel horizontal res uses then.

 

[Radost]

Most people just grab a single shot and call it a day, that can be tricky. And will of course be below the resolution the “scanning” camera would be capable of pointed at the same scene from a tripod.
DSLR scanning really comes into its own when you go beyond 1:1, and stitch.
Then it’s easier to affirm focus and you somewhat lessen the interpolation and Bayer filter effects.
For hobo scans for Instagram, a single shot is probably mostly fine. But why waste time on doing something half well, only to have the nagging feeling your photos could be so much better represented?

You need bellows or extension rings to do that with most affordable macros.

Using a bluish cyan filter to get you in the ballpark of the orange mask, will make colour correction for C-41 a lot easier. It will take the peaks out of most light sources and give a good starting point for tweaking.

Or just use a film scanner.

 

[Les Sarile]

The Plustek 8100 is better than its relatively low price would suggest.
Here it is with Adox CMS20 microfilm, click twice for full magnification.
For 1920 resolution screens the full picture size is then 3.2 x the width of the screen.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/98816417@N08/51577870188/

Been meaning to try that film out and see how it compares to the Kodak Techpan I have shot @ ISO25. BTW, why the significant difference in grain seen in the sky between the "From Waterloo Bridge" and the "Copex EI 100 contrast reduced" scans?

 

[Helge]

Or just use a film scanner.

Even a drum would be worse for 135.

 

[Alan Johnson]

It seems to be because Adox CMS20 @ EI=16 really is less grainy than Copex Rapid @EI=100.
I use copex rapid as EI =100 can be hand held.

 

[Les Sarile]

I'd like to see a comparison between a good film scanner like the op mentioned and a DSLR. People seem to get good results from those. If you don't have a DSLR, good lighting, and a copy stand, it may not be that cheaper though.

One component of DSLR scanning that I can compare is how much a Coolscan's 4000dpi can achieve compared to a couple of DSLRs - Pentax K20D 14.6MP 4672 X 3104 and Nikon D800 36MP 7360 X 4912 vs Coolscan 4000dpi 5700 X 3780.

Resolution testing my SMC Pentax-M 50mm F4 macro lens by Les DMess, on Flickr

Of course the detail that can be achieved by Kodak Techpan @ ISO25 processed in Kodak Technidol under ideal situations can far exceed a typical handheld real world scene on less resolving film. But this is ideal for this comparison. I DSLR scanned this same frame of film with the Pentax and Nikon using autobellows from each under ideal setup to maximize their results. On the right bottom shows the full target - a 4 X 4 arrangment of 12233 resolution charts. Above it are the 100% crops of the center section of the target from the Pentax, Coolscan and Nikon. You can clearly see that 14.6MP is not even close to the Coolscan. Even though the D850 applies more pixels then the Coolscan it can only achieve about the same as the Coolscan. However, none of these methods can come close to fully realizing all the detail that was captured on the single frame as the crop on the right is a 4.5X optical magnification that clearly shows much more detail that was not achieved.