Would you buy a 120 version of the Plustek Opticfilm range?

Athiril · May 2, 2010

The 7400 for 35mm looks great... effective 3800 dpi resolving power.. better density scanning range than predecessors, mutli-exposure that scans at different hardware (whether it's exposure time, or backlight etc) exposure that actually scans at different hardware exposure unlike predecessors...

Anyway its all very nice stuff.

Where is our 120 option?

How many of you would buy a 120 version of their OpticFilm range? I'm tired of my V500 and its lack of ability to scan even negatives at times, the scanner noise and artefacts and uneven scanner exposure that really shows up with denser films (and on negs at that!) from having to set levels.. it's inability to resolve a decent dpi.. etc etc.

Pipe dreams I guess.

TareqPhoto · May 2, 2010

And how much this scanner will cost if available?

pellicle · May 2, 2010

no : because its film handling systems suck and I have zero evidence it does any better than a Epson 4990. On the 4990 I can put at least strips on it and do some more scanning than one at a time.

Athiril · May 3, 2010

No idea TareqPhoto.

pellicle: Well you 4990 must have superior holders to my V500. In any case the density range, singal to noise ratio, and actual detail the plusteks resolve are several orders of magnitude greater than any flatbed.

pellicle · May 3, 2010

Athiril said:
pellicle: Well you 4990 must have superior holders to my V500. In any case the density range, singal to noise ratio, and actual detail the plusteks resolve are several orders of magnitude greater than any flatbed.

well I keep hearing how shitty the holders are for the Epsons, and in all honesty compared to the standard holders for other scanners (for example the Nikon) I actually like them. I have the holders for my progression of epson scanners (3200, 4870, 4990) and see iterative improvement over the years. I also have the betterscanning holder to make comparisons with too.

As the job is to hold film (and not some bucking steer) I guess that the comments are largely a reflection of the difficulty in handling film with bad curl. In that case I've never seen anything which does a good job other than sandwhiching it between glass sheets (I prefer not to) or wrapping it round a drum (which is out of the scope of a flatbed).

I've always kept my negs in sleeves which can be kept flat and in low humidity. This prevents curl to an extent, but some 35mm was born to curl.

what would you propose?

I might like to adapt my Epson so that it has a moving glass bed (for focus) and be able to use that and some tape for the problem negatives ... but then I might just as well use the wet mount kits available.

I'm also intending to remove my glass on my Epson so I'll be blogging about that when it gets done.

But thats after the hardwood floors are polished and the main room is painted.

prioritys

Athiril · May 3, 2010

Curl isn't a problem if you deal with it, simply placing the film (good idea to wet the film and glass with photoflo dilution though first) two sheets of glass, placing in a bucket of tap hot water for 60 seconds, the film is now basically flat, all it needs to do is dry.

In any case the holders are still ridiculous, a 120 roll is usually cut into frames of 3 for negative folder holders, 2x3 and 2x2 for 6x7, or whatever for other formats, the design of the 120 holder is so bad, that you must either cut single frame and hope that its so perfectly flat you can get it the door down on the film before it curls (or have to put a finger on it somewhere, or go flatten the film), or risk scratching and damaging the film from clamping it with the door frame of the holder.

As for focus?

They actually need to put a non piece of crap lens in a flatbed to actually bother with adjustable glass. 18th century lenses are sharper than the rubbish they put in any flatbed.

Epson also have the hide to say a second extra high resolution lens is engaged when scaning @ 6400 dpi, which is crap, because when compared with a scan @ 3200 dpi, there is no extra detail, in fact is not sharper like it should be according to Epson, its not softer either, it is identical.

cupcake_ham · May 3, 2010

Athiril said:
Curl isn't a problem if you deal with it, simply placing the film (good idea to wet the film and glass with photoflo dilution though first) two sheets of glass, placing in a bucket of tap hot water for 60 seconds, the film is now basically flat, all it needs to do is dry.

In any case the holders are still ridiculous, a 120 roll is usually cut into frames of 3 for negative folder holders, 2x3 and 2x2 for 6x7, or whatever for other formats, the design of the 120 holder is so bad, that you must either cut single frame and hope that its so perfectly flat you can get it the door down on the film before it curls (or have to put a finger on it somewhere, or go flatten the film), or risk scratching and damaging the film from clamping it with the door frame of the holder.

As for focus?

They actually need to put a non piece of crap lens in a flatbed to actually bother with adjustable glass. 18th century lenses are sharper than the rubbish they put in any flatbed.

Epson also have the hide to say a second extra high resolution lens is engaged when scaning @ 6400 dpi, which is crap, because when compared with a scan @ 3200 dpi, there is no extra detail, in fact is not sharper like it should be according to Epson, its not softer either, it is identical.

Sorry. It's not crap. When I scan at 6400, the other lens is indeed used. It has a different aperture and is able to capture more detail. I see it in use all the time.

Other have commented on this and it shows in reviews as well. Also, I believe Sandy King on these forums has spoken of this topic....and I consider him to be an expert at scanning.

I'd suggest you check you focus height and film flatness. I fluid mount and I notice a difference .

pellicle · May 4, 2010

Athiril said:
In any case the holders are still ridiculous, a 120 roll is usually cut into frames of 3 for negative folder holders, 2x3 and 2x2 for 6x7,

any comments relating to how much better the plustek is?

At least with 35mm I can scan 4 strips of 6 no problems ... I also custom made my own holder for 35mm and then there is the better scanning holders for 120, will they be available for the Plustek?

Bear in mind I am not claiming the Epson is 6400dpi ... just that operationally it is convenient for batch work.

As to perfomrance of scans, I would welcome a comparison. I've already wasted time / effort / money on sending some negs to another loud Plustek supporter on this forum, and never had anything back ... so if you'd be willing to engage in such a comparison with your Plustek we can go forwards.

Athiril · May 4, 2010

The 35mm holder is flimsy and annoying for the V500, I can do strips of 6 with it, but 1-2 mp worth of detail with the other problems makes it not worth shooting 35mm with it.

if you dont cut individual frames (individual frames = pita storage in neg holders afterwards) it gets clamped by the frame the holds the film in place.

I have't seen any dedicated scanner that has such a ridiuclously bad design. as to have the have the holder damage the film it's designed to hold.

I dont have a plustek, I have an Epson V500, Im very tempted to get the 7400 from what I've seen of it (no IR dust removal though), there's no doubting the resolution of the plusteks, they're great, but previous models still lacked a little in density range, the newer models are better.

But Im a MF guy mostly.

pellicle · May 4, 2010

Hi

Athiril said:
there's no doubting the resolution of the plusteks, they're great,

never seen anything to suggest that ... would love to actually be able to compare one with a Nikon and really see.

Great? Well the results I got from an X-5 scan were great, compared to my LS-4000 they were larger by a margin and very clean. Until I can find any comparisons between the Plustek and a Nikon it remains only claims. I have read from people who own both that the Plustek is on par with the Epson.

Athiril · May 4, 2010

Here is one of the older models compared to a CoolScan actually, they're pretty close: http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/plustek_opticfilm_7500i_review/

You dont need to see a coolscan comparison though, just a test of the plustek on it's own really, to gauge quality.

No flatbed can hold a candle to that level of quality regardless. They're just in totally different leagues. It'd be a god send for 120.

There's a Howtek 4000 dpi scanner for ~$1500 on ebay atm I'm tempted by even.

pellicle · May 5, 2010

Athiril said:
Here is one of the older models compared to a CoolScan actually, they're pretty close: http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/plustek_opticfilm_7500i_review/

to quote from that review:

Even though the Nikon scan is interpolated up from a lower resolution, it is clear that it's sharper and more detailed than the Plustek at its native 7200dpi. How can this be? I think the Plustek's presumably cheaper, fixed-focus optic can be one of the culprits here, which probably doesn't compare well with the Nikon's high-grade ED lens and auto-focus

glhs116 · May 6, 2010

I would not buy any scanner that forced me to move the film manually for every single frame. Not for all the tea in China!

Athiril · May 7, 2010

What is the problem with that? They are close in performance if you read the whole thing, the coolscan resolves a little more detail than the Plustek does, meaning, that particular model Plustek resolves under 3900 dpi, but not too far away.

And on top of that, the newer plusteks are sharper than previous models (7400 being the sharpest) and have better density range.

AgentX · May 8, 2010

I have a Nikon CS IV and an Epson 700 for MF. MUCH prefer using the dedicated film scanner; I'm even considering the exorbitant price for the CS 9000 at the moment... If there was a decent-quality medium format scanner in production by Plustek or anyone else, I'd probably jump on it.

pschwart · May 8, 2010

AgentX said:
I have a Nikon CS IV and an Epson 700 for MF. MUCH prefer using the dedicated film scanner; I'm even considering the exorbitant price for the CS 9000 at the moment... If there was a decent-quality medium format scanner in production by Plustek or anyone else, I'd probably jump on it.

Regardless of whether I would buy one, it would be a Good Thing to see more products available.

pellicle · May 8, 2010

pschwart said:
Regardless of whether I would buy one, it would be a Good Thing to see more products available.

a very hearty HERE HERE on that one!

sanking · May 8, 2010

You can find a few comparisons of film scanners here. http://www.filmscanner.info/en/FilmscannerTestberichte.html

The tests are ScanDig for the Epson V700 are very similar to tests that I have done, and I use the same target, USAF 1951.

Actual effective resolution of the Epson V700 is around 2300 spi, which is good enough for magnifications of about 5X-6X from 4X5 negatives (with no interpolation), somewhat larger if you massage the files carefully.

Sandy King

mesh · Jun 22, 2010

Yeah I'd buy one.. what else is there now? Here in Australia I saw a second hand 9000 go for 5K! Second hand! Can't find them new at all. X1 and X5 a little too expensive for me ;-)

filmamigo · Jul 5, 2010

YES!

I would definitely buy one.

I have been waiting for Plustek to introduce 120 for a while....

wblynch · Jul 20, 2010

Where is it? I have cash in my hands to buy today.

cooltouch · Jul 26, 2010

David Luttmann said:
Sorry. It's not crap. When I scan at 6400, the other lens is indeed used. It has a different aperture and is able to capture more detail. I see it in use all the time.

Other have commented on this and it shows in reviews as well. Also, I believe Sandy King on these forums has spoken of this topic....and I consider him to be an expert at scanning.

I'd suggest you check you focus height and film flatness. I fluid mount and I notice a difference .

Just curious -- which Epson is this second lens found on? The V500?

donbga · Jul 26, 2010

cooltouch said:
Just curious -- which Epson is this second lens found on? The V500? Not the 4990, right?

The V750.

wblynch · Jul 26, 2010

I want a Plustek for Medium format.

I will buy it today!

Where can I order one?

I have an Epson flatbed (4490 - predecessor to the V500) and it's really crap. The images all 'bloom', (if that would be the word) meaning they are overlit and all the sharpness is blown out.

Plus, nothing ever seems to be in focus. Not scanned film, not scanned prints. I have scanned film flat on the glass and it is sharper than from the holders but still not in focus.

Why can't Epson put a focusing mechanism in these flatbeds?

My 10 year old Canon FS2710 blows the Epson away but it is 35mm only.

I have a lot of weird film left to scan. 127, 126, 110, 120, 70mm and I need something better than these stinking flatbeds.

Come on Plustek, we know you can do it!!

Thank you

Loris Medici · Jul 27, 2010

cooltouch said:
Just curious -- which Epson is this second lens found on? The V500?

V750 (as Don says), AND V700...

Actually those two are identical except few differences in bundled software and some other points. See here.

Would you buy a 120 version of the Plustek Opticfilm range?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency