# Plustek 7200 film scanner - too good to be true?



## Mitica100 (Dec 25, 2004)

I read the following article:

http://www.letsgodigital.org/en/news/articles/story_1970.html

That's a hell of a scanner for the price! 



> The OpticFilm 7200 offers a physical resolution of 7200x7200 dpi and true 48-Bit color depth. At this resolution even the smallest slide details are scanned with brilliant quality. The scanner is able to generate an uncompressed picture file (24-bit color depth) that is 200 MB or larger or equal to about a 75-megapixel resolution digital camera.



Any thoughts?


----------



## Brently (Jan 2, 2005)

2 ccd's and a mini light box on top. I am very interested!


----------



## photobug (Jan 2, 2005)

Whoa, that's gotta be a misprint. It must be $1999 or maybe $1199.

If not they're gonna fly off the shelves.


----------



## sbalsama (Jan 2, 2005)

I looked on the website, and it indeed is 200 bucks. The question is, should I purchase it? I'm definitely interested at that price!


----------



## photobug (Jan 2, 2005)

Well, if it works as well as the review says, it's a hell of a deal. If it doesn't, you can always sell it on ebay.

And I checked it out also. several places have it for $199. Amazing!


----------



## Mitica100 (Jan 2, 2005)

Well folks...  I got one from http:www.tigerdirect.com, for about $190 plus shipping. Can't wait to get it and will post a review of it. But from what I read, this scanner is pretty awesome.


----------



## photobug (Jan 2, 2005)

Don't take this the wrong way, but I almost hope it _doesn't_ work.

If it does then _I'll_ have to get one!


----------



## John Orrell (Jan 2, 2005)

Bloody hell! That's cheap! I wonder if it's any better than the scans from my all-in-one Epson RX500...


----------



## sbalsama (Jan 2, 2005)

Definitely update us on that scanner, Mitica. I'm bouncing either that one or the Minolta Dual Scan III in my head. Maybe you could even post some test scans...pleeeeease?


----------



## Mitica100 (Jan 2, 2005)

sbalsama said:
			
		

> Definitely update us on that scanner, Mitica. I'm bouncing either that one or the Minolta Dual Scan III in my head. Maybe you could even post some test scans...pleeeeease?



Definitely! After getting it I will scan some slides and post up.


----------



## mrsid99 (Jan 2, 2005)

photobug said:
			
		

> Don't take this the wrong way, but I almost hope it _doesn't_ work.
> 
> If it does then _I'll_ have to get one!



 Oh nooooo! Yet another expense!


----------



## Brently (Jan 2, 2005)

according to kodak


The highest resolution level (2048 x 3072 pixels) captures all the image data 35 mm film has to offer


so will a 7200 scanner pickup film grain only?


----------



## Mitica100 (Jan 7, 2005)

Guess what I got in the mail today??  Yep, the Plustek film scanner.

I unpacked the baby, installed it and ran a few slides through. Very easy to work with and very intuitive.  For now I'm just learning how to work it but soon I should have some samples for ya.  So far I have tried it at 3600 dpi and 7200 dpi. At the 7200 dpi setting I scanned a slide into a 180MB TIFF file in about 1 minute and a half. At 3600 dpi it takes only around 40 seconds to finish the scan.

So far I am very pleased with the ease of operation, the adjustments that are included with the software (dust/scratch removal, grain reducer, sharpening, color balance and many more) and they are all very easy to understand.  

In conclusion, I've played with it for a couple of hours and when I'll have something for you to see I will post it.  Meanwhile be patient...


----------



## Mitica100 (Jan 7, 2005)

These are quick scans:











The lower one (Canyon X in Page, AZ) is actually a crop of the 35mm slide, about 1/3 of it.


----------



## sbalsama (Jan 7, 2005)

^_^!

Those shots look great - good photographer, and apparently good scanning equipment  I think I'll have to pick one up now, which site did you get it at? Also, scan any color negs in yet? Thanks for being the guinea pig


----------



## aggiezach (Jan 7, 2005)

WOW! Those look pretty good! I maybe have to invest in one as well! 


Zach


----------



## Mitica100 (Jan 7, 2005)

Thanks guys! I got mine at Tiger Direct in Florida.  Here is the page:

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=1076959&amp;CatId=297

As I mentioned before, these two were quick scans, I gotta play with the thing and learn more about it but it seems to be worth of the $200 I spent on it.


----------



## Brently (Jan 7, 2005)

I want to see more!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Unimaxium (Jan 9, 2005)

Wow, awesome! Have you tried negative film with it? How about B&amp;W film? I'm very interested in this. I just got a konicaminolta film scanner for about the same price but I really don't like it. This might make a good replacement.


----------



## Mitica100 (Jan 9, 2005)

Unimaxium said:
			
		

> Wow, awesome! Have you tried negative film with it? How about B&amp;W film? I'm very interested in this. I just got a konicaminolta film scanner for about the same price but I really don't like it. This might make a good replacement.



Not yet on both accounts.  But getting ready to do it soon.  Will definitely let you know.


----------



## Digital Matt (Jan 9, 2005)

Can you show us some 100% crops?  That would be most helpful.


----------



## Mitica100 (Jan 10, 2005)

Digital Matt said:
			
		

> Can you show us some 100% crops?  That would be most helpful.



Sure thing!  Lemme go fetch it.


----------



## Mitica100 (Jan 10, 2005)

Unimaxium said:
			
		

> Wow, awesome! Have you tried negative film with it? How about B&amp;W film? I'm very interested in this. I just got a konicaminolta film scanner for about the same price but I really don't like it. This might make a good replacement.









Color film above. I believe it was Fuji, taken a few good years ago in Wyoming.


----------



## Mitica100 (Jan 10, 2005)

Mitica100 said:
			
		

> Digital Matt said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



OK, let me try it here:


----------



## Slnce-z-GSI (Feb 21, 2005)

Hello,

I just paide for film development & scann of 1 film 13 euro so I immeidately started to think of film scanner.  On this page I found that there is a good and rather cheap scanner out there - Plustek 7200. I had a look at lokal stores and it really can be found bellow 200 euro. So. Still having some time I started to search for some scanner reviews and the first I found says something a bit different.
Here is the link (for German speaking people):

http://www.filmscanner.info/PlustekOpticFilm7200.html

And here is a very bad quality translation of myself:
"... the actual optical resolution at the setting of 7200 dpi is cca 2900 dpi...
(see the test image No1 with black lines under given link.)

// _BTW How to insert images here???_//

... And than they say that the color range (and/or brightness) is not so good and they show a comparison to Nikon CoolScan 5000 ED. The difference is certainly visible..."

*What do you think about it ???*

...


----------



## steve817 (Feb 21, 2005)

Whats the largest acceptable print size that would yield? About 16X20? I know acceptable is open to interpretation, I was just trying to get an idea.


----------



## Slnce-z-GSI (Feb 22, 2005)

steve817 said:
			
		

> Whats the largest acceptable print size that would yield? About 16X20? I know acceptable is open to interpretation, I was just trying to get an idea.



Look, to get full quality, you need 300 dpi (of the picture, not of the printer - there should be something like 1800dpi). For still acceptable quality you can go to ~ 200dpi. This results for 16x20 in 4980 x 6000 = 30Mpix (or 3200 x 4000 =  12Mpix for 200 dpi).  So far so good. Now we have a scanner which makes scanning at resolution 7200 dpi and our scanning region is 35 x 24 mm what is cca 7200 x 5000 = 36Mpix of scanned image. So you can say - I can make even bigger prints than 16x20 !!! 
But thats not true basicaly for 2 reasons:
*1)* Our scanner although it has 7200 dpi resolution holds actualy information equal only to 2900 dpi. What that mean? This means that the information is partialy lost on its way from slide to CCD and also that you can forget about those huge prints. You actualy have only ~ 2900 x 2000 = 6Mpix and for full quality (300dpi) you can make prints ~ 10 x 7 (or ~ 14 x 10 for m200 dpi) to get the full quality. 
BUT !!! you made a scan at 7200 dpi and the file size of you picture is somewhere at about 100 - 200MB !!! and it still holds information which is only of ~ 15 - 30MB. *This is the point! *

*2)* None film has actualy so fine grain to make  reasonable scan at 7200 anyhow (I would like to see some pixel-to-pixel scanned slide at this resolution - you have to be able to count the grain distribution). One friend of mine told me that accirding to his experience, the film (35x24mm) is equal os ~ 5 - 7 efective Mpixels. He got this from the fact that it is really not easy to get an enlargement of A4 size without any wisible grain (ths of course much depends on the film and shooting conditions).
You can also make a small computation.  If you expect that resolution of 7200 dpi should result into smooth images  - it menas that  all grains on the slide are not bigger as ~ 3.5 micrometer and actualy thay would have to be even smaller to have the scan really smooth. If you check the booklet of the fujifilm about their concrete films you will find out that the grain has some size distribution (I do not remeber the numbers now - I can have a look for tomorrow) but be sure that large part of th grains are bigger than this.

Anyhow I would like to hear some few words about the possible enlargements and size of scans from some experienced photographer as my own experience is very small. *So, please - if there is anyone out there - let us know. Maybee  I got it wrong.*
...

Hm, yes all of you are right - it is not fair to compare a scanner for 200 $ to the one which costs 1200 $ anyhow but I wanted to bring up the point that this wonderfull machine has also some faws. Maybee you should also check something from Microtek  or some other companies before buying.

M..


----------



## Slnce-z-GSI (Feb 23, 2005)

Slnce-z-GSI said:
			
		

> .... Now we have a scanner which makes scanning at resolution 7200 dpi and our scanning region is 35 x 24 mm what is cca 7200 x 5000 = 36Mpix of scanned image. So you can say - I can make even bigger prints than 16x20 !!! ...


Oh, excuse me, I did one BIG error. I considered one inch as ~3.5 cm. Actualy on inch is ~ 2.5 cm (for an european guy  ), so all tohose numbers will be larger by a factor 1.4. so for the case of 7200 dpi 35x24 is not 7200x5000 but rather 10000x7000 = ~ 70Mpix...


----------



## Kodan_Txips (Mar 2, 2005)

http://www.compshopper.co.uk/shopper/reviews/63663/plustek-opticfilm-7200.html

This and a couple of other magazines in the UK had reservations about it - one  mag suggested that unless you do a LOT of neg or slide scans, you would be better off with a good scanner with a film/transparency adapter.

Considering the price of this, I will still save up to buy an Epson 2580 first.  Half the price, and it does print scans too.


----------



## Shutterbug (Mar 2, 2005)

Oh MAN. 

I have like several thousand slides and a two inch binder full of neg sheets, and I want to DIGITIZE THEM! THis is like a godsent... Something I can afford ;_;

Have you tried this with B&W yet? I have tons of HP5+ and TMAX100 that I hate leaving in binder that I'd love to start working with 

Not to mention some negs that aren't good enough to be used in a Darkroom but could be slightly fixed in Photoshop


----------



## Canon Fan (Mar 3, 2005)

Well for the amount of film I shoot nowadays this would be plenty for me. It's officially on my list  :thumbup: 

Didn't read eveything though. Does it do MF?


----------



## lathamemmons (Mar 10, 2005)

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBar&A=search&Q=&ci=1151

i dont know much about negitive scanners but i work with alot of pros and this what my boss (pro photogher) bought i belive he got the top one


----------



## Unimaxium (Mar 11, 2005)

lathamemmons said:
			
		

> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBar&A=search&Q=&ci=1151
> 
> i dont know much about negitive scanners but i work with alot of pros and this what my boss (pro photogher) bought i belive he got the top one



Really? Interesting. That's the one I have. And I must say, I'm not thrilled with it, although it's OK I guess. But I don't have anything to compare it to. The scanner is in a fairly unique price bracket. There aren't actually very many film scanners below $500. Most I know of I think are above $1000.


----------



## derekxcole (Mar 12, 2005)

Holy crap I hope its compatiable with Macs!


----------



## Unimaxium (Mar 13, 2005)

If you mean the plustek one then unfortunately I believe it is not, which is one of the reasons I don't have one now


----------



## Esher (Mar 18, 2005)

If anyone is looking to buy one of these and would like to save some money I am selling mine. You can see the info here: http://thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18918


----------

