rail
Newbie
Isn't it primarily a color calibration? The grey scale is there to check it dosen't have any color tint? If all the colors are right then the grey scale are also right, namely plain black-white grey sacle without any color tint. Just a theory from my side..
hanskerensky
Well-known
Yes, the IT8 target is for the color calibration of the scanner and in the standard delivery of the OF120 scanners.
But my guess is that the grey scale on it can be used to determine the darkest and lightest patches that can be differentiated and thus say something about the scanners dynamic range.
But maybe because the value i measure is in % I only have 100 steps. Will do some other scans in 48bit mode and see what happens.
hanskerensky
Well-known
48Bit scans performed. The PSE11 Histograms are still made when in 48bit mode but I had to convert to 24bit mode to publish the image.
Well, I cannot see any difference between the 2 scans, and neither do the Photoshop Elements histograms.
So this either means that the OF120 Pro is already good with a single scan pass
OR
that the Multi-Exposure feature just doesn't work at all.
When Multi-Exposure is selected the scanner does make a second pass at lower speed, so that part seems to work.
OpticFilm 120 Pro Multi Exposure Test (01) by Hans Kerensky, on Flickr
Well, I cannot see any difference between the 2 scans, and neither do the Photoshop Elements histograms.
So this either means that the OF120 Pro is already good with a single scan pass
OR
that the Multi-Exposure feature just doesn't work at all.
When Multi-Exposure is selected the scanner does make a second pass at lower speed, so that part seems to work.
OpticFilm 120 Pro Multi Exposure Test (01) by Hans Kerensky, on Flickr
iliks
Member
I think all it shows is that the real life target that was photographed on the slide had not very wide brightness difference between its grey patches. I guess it was just paper print out placed on wall, lit and photographed. And we know paper has quite limited dr.
You need to test some dense slides, of real nature scenes, with deep shadows, to really see the benefit of ME, which I‘m almost sure will be present - at least that surely was my previous experience with an older plustek.
hanskerensky
Well-known
Actually the it8 target used is the one from Silverfast and is according to the international standard :
https://www.silverfast.com/show/it8-targets/en.html
I do measure in photoshop elements 11 the lightest part as being RGB value 248 / Greyvalue 3% and the darkest part as RGB value 5 / Greyvalue 98%. Guess these values are very good and no indication that Silverfast did photograph a print.
That said I agree with you that it would be worthwhile to do some testing with underexposed slides or overexposed negatives.
Zhares
Newbie
Hi! First thread or discussion that I find around this scanner. its been difficult to find information 
anyway, I decided to get onboard and purchase it, it worked perfectly, goo speed and quality (tho a bit over-saturated, but this is something i need to change.)
But, after a couple of rolls the scanner started to fail, I cannot tell if it is the film holder or anything else but it makes a horrible noise and to not scan.
( https://youtu.be/C98THC42Ypo )
I hope this can be solved remotely by Plustek technicians.
Cheers!
anyway, I decided to get onboard and purchase it, it worked perfectly, goo speed and quality (tho a bit over-saturated, but this is something i need to change.)
But, after a couple of rolls the scanner started to fail, I cannot tell if it is the film holder or anything else but it makes a horrible noise and to not scan.
( https://youtu.be/C98THC42Ypo )
I hope this can be solved remotely by Plustek technicians.
Cheers!
hanskerensky
Well-known
Just had a look at your video and that does not sound good at all !
Do you have this problem also with the other holders ?
If yes then I guess the scanner has to be send back to a Plustek service department
Zhares
Newbie
Just had a look at your video and that does not sound good at all !
Do you have this problem also with the other holders ?
If yes then I guess the scanner has to be send back to a Plustek service department
Yeah, it was weird. it started out of nothing. after discussing it with Plustek technical support they said it was DOA. I went to the store and luckily was able to get a replacement, this weekend will test it with dozens of rolls to make sure it is ok.
rail
Newbie
Is this thread totally dead? OpticFilm 120 Pro have now been out for a while but no comments on it whatsoerver here....
hanskerensky
Well-known
rail
Newbie
I want to have comments from owners how they feel about OpticFilm 120 Pro. Cons and pros.
hanskerensky
Well-known
Some of those you can find here :
https://www.flickr.com/groups/plustek_opticfilm_120/
It is much the same as the old 120 except for the possibility to alter the focus offset and it has a faster (USB3) interface.
Here one of my latest scans :
Pentacon Six.Fuji Pro 160NS.Testfilm (04) by Hans Kerensky, on Flickr
das
Well-known
Anyone have problems with the Pro and Vuecan on a Mac? I installed all of the drivers, etc., Silverfast works perfectly fine. No banding for now! . However, I got one 6x6 negative to scan correctly in Vuescan. On the next strip, Vuescan would preview the images just fine, but when scanning, it produces a smushed image taking up 1/8 of the frame and then the scanner starts making some horrible noise. I quit, restarted, restarted the scanner, etc. Again, when going back to Silverfast, everything works fine. But Silverfast is just HORRIBLE. I emailed Hamrick and waiting to hear back, but it appears that this has been a problem with Vuescan and the Opticfilm going back years, even before the Pro.
So far, the Pro creates absolutely wonderful scans. We'll see if it goes south, though.
. However, I got one 6x6 negative to scan correctly in Vuescan. On the next strip, Vuescan would preview the images just fine, but when scanning, it produces a smushed image taking up 1/8 of the frame and then the scanner starts making some horrible noise. I quit, restarted, restarted the scanner, etc. Again, when going back to Silverfast, everything works fine. But Silverfast is just HORRIBLE. I emailed Hamrick and waiting to hear back, but it appears that this has been a problem with Vuescan and the Opticfilm going back years, even before the Pro.So far, the Pro creates absolutely wonderful scans. We'll see if it goes south, though.
das
Well-known
I think I figured it out. Vuescan only seems to error if you attempt to crop the frame of the scan in any way in the program. If you have no crop, then it will scan just fine, but alot of extra out-of-frame space gets included. So far, so good.
hanskerensky
Well-known
Did you select the correct holder and did you set the preview area to maximum (crop tab) ?
davidswiss
Established
Can I butt in and ask a maybe silly question. I've never owned a scanner but am interested in buying one in the next few months. The 120 pro is £2000 in the UK, the 8200I SE is about £340 on Amazon. The 8200 seems to have good specification including dust and scratch removal and as I'm retired I am not too worried if it takes a bit longer to scan the negatives. Can the experts please explain the advantages of the (much) more expensive machine ?
albireo
Established
David - whereas the 8200 only scans 35mm negative strips and 35mm mounted slides, the 120 pro adds on top of that the possibility of scanning 120 roll film. Does this answer your question?
davidswiss
Established
Thank you. It answers it partly but I'm intrigued that the addition of hardware and software for 120 scanning really adds up to that difference in price ?
It has certainly answered me as far as what I'll be buying so thanks again.
rail
Newbie
It's common when you step up to the 120 size the scanners become much more expensive.
Ted Striker
Well-known
Where can you buy the Opticfilm 120 Pro? That scanner was pulled from the market some time ago due to major quality problems.