Any news on the new Plustek 120 scanner?

[BOD]

Not sure if anyone else spotted this, but my daily google search for the Opticfilm 120 found this today..looks like Mark has posted a new scanned image on Flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mdruzia...n/photostream/

[venchka]

Originally Posted by BOD

Not sure if anyone else spotted this, but my daily google search for the Opticfilm 120 found this today..looks like Mark has posted a new scanned image on Flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mdruzia...n/photostream/

Not the kind of sample that would get me to upgrade from an Epson flat bed scanner.

Wayne

[bwcolor]

I take the label, "This is only a test", to indicate that it is only a test. Not much to be gained here, other than the scanner is up and working.. at least in a test mode. The next few months should flesh things out. Check out some of his other photos.. good to have a photographer in the loop.

[venchka]

Wayne's Rule #1: A product is judged by it's output and presentation. If a sample is a sub-par "test", don't show it to the world.
Early adopters beware. Remember the Microtek ArtixScan F1.

Wayne

[wblynch]

Well many were requesting to see any samples at all. Poor guy is damned either way.

Myself, I'll take the sample.

[venchka]

Must be the "Emporer's New Clothes".
Samples should be provided. They should be an accurate example of the performance of the hardware. They should not be overworked in software.
Based on the 1600 pixel sample posted at Flickr, this scanner isn't as good as the Epson 4990. Or the operator does't know how to use the hardware and bundled software.
My opinion based on my experience and the experience of several of my friends. Look at my work in my LUG gallery scanned on an Epson 1680 which is older than the 4990. Epson scanners may not be the end all to beat all, but they are the best for the price.

Wayne

[Anil Kalagatla]

Yeah, this is baffling to say the least; from what I can see, Plustek has a very loyal and understanding fan base on RFF and a few other forums. It seems to me that they have very little downside in being open about the delay and the lack of any real world scanning examples, especially given that they have pretty much zero competition in this space. And very little upside by not doing so: at best they will merely meet the super-hyped up expectations.

Just my 2c to Mark and team at Plustek: you guys have built up a lot of good will (rightfully, by communicating with and actively supporting your customers). I recommend that you leverage and build on it by being more transparent about this scanner - arguably one of the more anticipated digital imaging products recently (not quite a D800, but right up there for film buffs). I think you'll find that almost everyone is rooting for you to succeed and will do their best to help you with this.

Anil

[Joosep]

Just go out and shoot or you wont have negs to scan...


Only thing im interested is the shadow detail. Gonna wait for a proper review.

[venchka]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fizzlesticks

If you think an Epson flatbed is great I don't know what to tell you.......




This thread is full of an awful lot of bitching for no reason.

Why would I, or anyone, spend at least $1,300 more on the Plustek 120 for lower quality? Admittedly, we have only been offered one sample after several months of internet buzz. That in itself speaks volumes about this new product. To quote an old friend, "Sumthin ain't right."

Attention Mr. Plustek! Send me a Plustek 120 scanner. I'll throw everything I have at it. Wring all the quality that an average human being can get from the product. No fancy techno babble. No numbers ad nausea. Just the best scans possible by a normal user. A user who is picky about his scans without any O.C.D. preconceived notions about what a scanner should or should not do. A user who appreciates high value for dollar spent.

At the end of the exercise I will state my honest opinion of the Plustek 120 on this and other fourms frequented by like minded normal folks who shoot 35mm & medium format film. I will compare the output from your scanner to the output of my own Epson scanner. May the best scanner win.
When I am finished I will return the Plustek 120. Depending on the results, I may entertain purchasing a Plustek 120.
Standing by.

Wayne

[Harry Lime]

For Pete's sake, everyone take a deep breath and relax. Any discussion of how well this scanner performs is pointless until it's released. Anything else is speculation based on hearsay and the output of preproduction machines.

So, why don't we just put away the pitchforks and torches and hold our horses until this thing hits the street and we have the facts.

[RedLion]

Saw this today on their Facebook fan page:

Plustek OpticFilm 120 Update

We recently announced that the Plustek OpticFilm 120 scanner would start shipping at the end of September. Unfortunately, the scanner has been delayed. Testing and the final development work is ongoing and we do not expect that this delay will be lengthy.

For more information please contact Mark Druziak (markdruziak@plustek.com) or for press inquiries, please contact Betsy Roberts (betsy@rms-pr.com).

Plustek is committed to providing you with high-quality, reliable scanners and we need to ensure the OpticFilm 120 delivers on this commitment. Thank you for your patience during this delay.

I will post updates to this situation as they become available.

[wblynch]

They probably outsourced the programming to a firm in a country far-far-away...

[buzzardkid]

Originally Posted by wblynch

They probably outsourced the programming to a firm in a country far-far-away...

... and those Ogers ain't got no typing skills!

[Pete B]

I would rather they relax and take another 4 months to get it working superbly.
Pete

[wkkato]

In this mornings Los Angeles Times, the Plustek 120 is advertised for $1399. Probably the copy for this ad went to press before the more recent delay in availability. I just hope the delay is not due to changing the price.

Warren

[kmallick]

Originally Posted by wkkato

In this mornings Los Angeles Times, the Plustek 120 is advertised for $1399.
Warren

Is that the new price without drivers?

[wkkato]

This was the Pacific Image 120 and not the Plustek.



Warren

[MIkhail]

Originally Posted by venchka

Why would I, or anyone, spend at least $1,300 more on the Plustek 120 for lower quality? Admittedly, we have only been offered one sample after several months of internet buzz. That in itself speaks volumes about this new product. To quote an old friend, "Sumthin ain't right."

Attention Mr. Plustek! Send me a Plustek 120 scanner. I'll throw everything I have at it. Wring all the quality that an average human being can get from the product. No fancy techno babble. No numbers ad nausea. Just the best scans possible by a normal user. A user who is picky about his scans without any O.C.D. preconceived notions about what a scanner should or should not do. A user who appreciates high value for dollar spent.

At the end of the exercise I will state my honest opinion of the Plustek 120 on this and other fourms frequented by like minded normal folks who shoot 35mm & medium format film. I will compare the output from your scanner to the output of my own Epson scanner. May the best scanner win.
When I am finished I will return the Plustek 120. Depending on the results, I may entertain purchasing a Plustek 120.
Standing by.

Wayne

Can you please provide the full size sample of what you can do with Epson 4990? You site shows quite impressive sharplness but it's resized and processed. I have 4990 myself but my results wth it are not as sharp for some reasons.
Thank you.

[venchka]

All of the Kodachrome scans were made with my circa 2000 Epson Expression 1680.

http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/ven...odachrome_001/

Everything in the LUG Yearbook, except the digital pano, were also made on my Epson 1680.

http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/ven...yearbook+2010/

Gruene, Texas was scanned on a friend's Epson 4990.

http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/ven...ads/Gruene+TX/

Don't misunderstand, I'm not touting the Epson flatbeds as the best scanners. I am touting the Epson scanners as the best scanners for the price. Epson also provides up to support for drivers and Epson Scan software.

Wayne

[MIkhail]

Originally Posted by venchka

All of the Kodachrome scans were made with my circa 2000 Epson Expression 1680.

http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/ven...odachrome_001/

Everything in the LUG Yearbook, except the digital pano, were also made on my Epson 1680.

http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/ven...yearbook+2010/

Gruene, Texas was scanned on a friend's Epson 4990.

http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/ven...ads/Gruene+TX/

Don't misunderstand, I'm not touting the Epson flatbeds as the best scanners. I am touting the Epson scanners as the best scanners for the price. Epson also provides up to support for drivers and Epson Scan software.

Wayne

So do I assume correctly that full size of each picture there is actually a full size file? Was the sharpening in photoshop used or any other processing that would influence the result for sharpness?
Again, teh reason I am asking- I was never satisfied with Epson 4990 on MF negatives, you are seems to be OK with it.
Thanks.

[BOD]

As nice as the images are... this proves what we all already know: That flatbeds will make nice scans for web-sized display images.

I have an Epson V700 myself, and while I've tweaked it to death and I can get nicely sharp prints well above 8x10 from a 6x7 negative, unless I can pull fine detail out of my negative, I might as well be shooting my 5D MKII for prints of this size.
I want the scan to have as much of the beautiful detail as possible, and I can see where the finest details are just not as sharp as they could be.

Here is a test shot I did with the Mamiya and it's first roll of Velvia, scanned on the V700.
Go to 'Original' size and see the 5000x4000pix version which was downsized from the 6400ppi scan. It is sharpish, but I later recalibrated the height of my holder on the V700 and picked up much more detail! (I actually have been meaning to re-post that image with the newer higher detail version).
Even saying this however, why not just pick up my digital if I can get 21MP of crisp sharp pixels with my nice lenses with that? I know it's not all about pixels, I love to shoot film, but I do want the most from it, and hence my anticipation of the Plustek.
Anyway, my point is simply that there are scanning solutions out there that are affordable, but we dont want flatbeds that leave you guessing how much you're missing... we want the highest quality we can get, while maintaining a 'reasonable' price tag:

Mamiya 7 + Velvia 50 Test Shot by B.O.D, on Flickr

[redisburning]

this is the best I can do on my 4990



please note this is 100% and massively, massively zoomed in

[MIkhail]

Originally Posted by redisburning

this is the best I can do on my 4990



please note this is 100% and massively, massively zoomed in

That's pretty much what I was able to get.
No grain.

[venchka]

Originally Posted by MIkhail

So do I assume correctly that full size of each picture there is actually a full size file? Was the sharpening in photoshop used or any other processing that would influence the result for sharpness?
Again, teh reason I am asking- I was never satisfied with Epson 4990 on MF negatives, you are seems to be OK with it.
Thanks.

No. I don't upload files that large to the LUG Gallery. The files in the LUG Yearbook album are the largest that I upload. They were specifically sized for publication in the LUG Yearbook published by Blurb.
I only use the two sharpening presets found in Lightroom: Hard Edge and Soft Edge, depending on the subject and the effect I want. Until recently I only used Screen Sharpen Low for web files. Lately, I have bumped up to Screen Sharpen Standard. It seems to be ok. I am deathly afraid of over sharpened JPEGs. I cringe whenever I see one on the web.

Wayne

[MIkhail]

Originally Posted by venchka

No. I don't upload files that large to the LUG Gallery. The files in the LUG Yearbook album are the largest that I upload. They were specifically sized for publication in the LUG Yearbook published by Blurb.
I only use the two sharpening presets found in Lightroom: Hard Edge and Soft Edge, depending on the subject and the effect I want. Until recently I only used Screen Sharpen Low for web files. Lately, I have bumped up to Screen Sharpen Standard. It seems to be ok. I am deathly afraid of over sharpened JPEGs. I cringe whenever I see one on the web.

Wayne

I hate over-sharpened images as well.

By the way, I started doing search online and stumbled onto this neat trick.
It's in Russian but pictures are self-explanatory.
http://photopad.com.ua/fototehnika/s...vaniya-plenki/
Today I tried it, made first prototype (for one window only, using fridge stickers) and it does work! I can show you results - definite improvement.