# Plustek Scanner



## Sw1tchFX (Oct 17, 2012)

Check it out!
A Look at the Image Quality of Plustek&#8217;s $2,000 OpticFilm 120 Film Scanner



I'm pretty excited about this, I would SO rather have this than a D600, but these examples are pretty blah.. I know that the scans are 40" wide @ 300dpi on the short end, but I expected alot sharper. At 100% they look completely out of focus. I don't know if these really have significantly more information in them than the 6MP scans I get from RPL.



Do I just have no idea at what i'm looking at or something?


----------



## Mike_E (Oct 18, 2012)

Images straight out of camera RAW need sharpening too.  If you could get the full res scans and then do post on them you'd have a better idea just how good they are.


----------



## Helen B (Oct 18, 2012)

The original negatives look soft, because there is a mismatch between the sharpness of the 'grain' and that of the image details. I would like to see scans of better images before judging the scanner itself.


----------



## amolitor (Oct 18, 2012)

It's my understanding that wet scanning on a good flatbed scanner is pretty much the gold standard.

I guess this sort of thing is good if you want to scan a bunch of film efficiently, though?


----------



## bhop (Oct 18, 2012)

It'd be easier to tell if it were sharp if the "100%" sizes were of the _focal points_.. or if it wasn't all 400 speed, high grain film.  It doesn't look that bad to me though.  I'll wait for more tests to make my judgement.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Oct 19, 2012)

Well here's the thing, you click on the link the article, and you CAN get the full images!


----------



## Derrel (Oct 19, 2012)

I downloaded a mere 13.4 MB scan on the brick building, and it was a pretty good-sized scan, but as others pointed out, it had been shot on what looked like 400-speed film...so when I zoomed it it wasn't much more than oatmealy...so it was hard to get a real "feel" for how much detail it could pull out. I might have to go back and take a better look, maybe see exactly what they have, perhaps download those 115 megabyte files at the top. One thing the d-slr biz has taught us: manufacturer's sample pictures are often poor indicators of the actual quality equipment is capable of with a good operator and sound working methods.


----------



## Helen B (Oct 19, 2012)

amolitor said:


> It's my understanding that wet scanning on a good flatbed scanner is pretty much the gold standard.
> 
> I guess this sort of thing is good if you want to scan a bunch of film efficiently, though?



I think drum scanning is probably the gold standard. The Plustek, if it does indeed meet the resolution (about 5000 ppi) and density claims of the manufacturer, offers advantages in price, compactness and availability as well as speed, when compared to high end flatbeds or drum scanners. They are comparatively large and heavy, and either old or very expensive. You may need an old Mac to run them.

The closest competitors are the Nikon 9000 and the likes of the Imacon/Hasselblad 646, 848, 949, X1 and X5  - all of which are more expensive than the Plustek, and they have lower resolution with medium format film. The Nikon 9000 is selling used for about twice the cost of the new Plustek.

It may prove possible to wet mount with the Plustek - we need to get one to see what is possible. It is possible with the Nikon 8000 and 9000, though Nikon themselves never made a wet holder. There has been one concern about the Plustek: the lack of a focusing mechanism (along with the lack of a glass holder to hold the film in one focus plane). It may be that to fully realize the resolution the scanner is capable of we need an aftermarket glass holder, possibly with height adjustment. Plustek need to get some examples of the scanner into the hands of experienced independent photographers and reviewers.

I think that it is great that Plustek are trying to satisfy the demand for a high quality, reasonably priced film scanner.


----------



## gsgary (Oct 19, 2012)

It must mean film is not dead


----------



## Derrel (Oct 19, 2012)

I downloaded both of their larger, 114 MB .TIF files and opened them in PS and reduced and sharpened the images in stages...ehhh...the original negatives that were scanned are just not very good samples...the 13.5 MB image, the Elk Hotel one has been down-rezzed so much that it falls apart when looked at at 100% pixels...and the Rolleiflex T and the TMAX 400 or HP-5 source film...and three so-so negatives to start with??? I mean, the one shot from the old church or cemetary yard, of the moss-covered urn on the pedestal...ugh...  It seems like maybe these few sample images are designed to show what the scanner can do on "real people's old 120 TLR negatives", or "grandpa's old negatives" or "The Seagull negatives I shot back in college"...that sort of thing...you know, negs shot on higher-speed B&W rollfilm with "average" optics of "average" scenes...

For example, if the sample images were of some model who had spent 3 hrs in makeup and then been photographed with a $10k Profoto light kit by some bigshot NYC fashionista...the target market of people from Omaha and Dubuque and Austin might not get the message that they need to go out and buy this $2,000 scanner. I dunno....these are the very FIRST files they have leaked...I bet we see better from it soon enough.


----------



## amolitor (Oct 19, 2012)

Thank you, Helen. As always, a balanced and informative post!


----------



## bhop (Oct 19, 2012)

Sw1tchFX said:


> Well here's the thing, you click on the link the article, and you CAN get the full images!




Oh.. I missed that part.

Still, when I scan 400 speed film, it's a huge difference in detail from when I scan 100 speed film on the same scanner.  Just sayin..

also, from what I understand and have been reading on rangefinder forums, is this is still a pre-production model they're scanning on.  I'm still pretty optimistic about the 'real world" results.  I'm still pretty happy with my V700, but if I could get 9000ed quality for $2k, then i'd probably sell some junk to get one.


----------



## gsgary (Oct 19, 2012)

I posted about this scanner about 6 months ago


----------



## bhop (Oct 19, 2012)

gsgary said:


> I posted about this scanner about 6 months ago



Yeah, but 6 months ago it was still a rumor, or early in production, or delayed or whatever.  Now it's actually available for pre-order, and there's samples.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 19, 2012)

gsgary said:


> I posted about this scanner about 6 months ago



Awesome gary...here...here's an internet glass of gin for you....   " Y " ...served in a martini glass...


----------



## gsgary (Oct 26, 2012)

Derrel said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > I posted about this scanner about 6 months ago
> ...



That glass would fall over, but i would probably knock it back in one


----------



## Mike_E (Oct 26, 2012)

SO, does anyone know when these are supposed to be on the shelves?


----------



## unpopular (Oct 26, 2012)

For $2K you may as well just get a used Howtek or Scanview desktop drum scanner.


----------



## Mike_E (Oct 26, 2012)

unpopular said:


> For $2K you may as well just get a used Howtek or Scanview desktop drum scanner.



I saw a referbed Nikon 9000 for $2500 the other day.

Drum scanners are great but it seems that they take too long.  (never used one but if somebody can describe the work flow and times I'd appreciate it)


----------



## bhop (Oct 26, 2012)

Mike_E said:


> Drum scanners are great but it seems that they take too long.  (never used one but if somebody can describe the work flow and times I'd appreciate it)



..and take up a crapload of space compared to a tiny desktop scanner.


----------



## unpopular (Oct 26, 2012)

^^ desktop drum scanners aren't too bad, larger than a flatbed but not like a Crossfield or Hiedelburg. 

They are going to be slow, but you probably have more surface area. The big problem I see with drum scanners is mounting.

You may want to look into Imacon or late model Creo/Scitex, like the Jazz or Eversmart. These are older machines, but I am sure a $20,000 scanner from the late 1990's will out perform a $2000 scanner today.


----------



## unpopular (Oct 26, 2012)

Mike_E said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > For $2K you may as well just get a used Howtek or Scanview desktop drum scanner.
> ...



I never, ever liked the Nikon film scanners, they tend to get streaky, the film holders are pretty delicate - if not flimsy. The Minolta Dimage MultiPro is the best film scanner of this type I've used, the medium format glass holders are the best. There is a 35mm version also.

Unfortunately, the MultiPro hasn't depreciated much - considering it's age.


----------

