Any news on the new Plustek 120 scanner?

Ugh I'm at work and I can't check them out. Looking forward to seeing them! They said they should have color samples by next week.
 
Judging by the .jpg sample (which might not be fair):

a) this is not a 5300dpi scanner
or
b) negative wasn't focused correctly
or
c) dof of the scanner is very very thin and the negative isn't held perfectly flat


Maybe the negative itself isn't the sharpest (and as there is no comparison scan from Flextight that Plustek wanted us to believe this scanner will be competing with (and not the lowly Coolscan 9000 ;))), but if you look at the dust on the negative - it isn't sharp at 100%.

I think that b) is not that big of a problem if this is just unfortunate miss that happens with every scanner. a) is only a problem for those who want to scan 35mm with very high resolution. We knew that c) would definitely be a problem as is with every desktop high resolution scanner.

It will take some time to download the .tif files from the link billkoe provided...
 
With some minor sharpening these look great. About what I would expect from a straight from the scanner file. Even better when the file size is reduced to something more suitable for output. 16" at 300dpi or so.

Some of the original negs to appear to be moderately soft. I'd love to see some sharp 6x6 slides scanned for a test.
 
andrewnelles said:
Some of the original negs to appear to be moderately soft. I'd love to see some sharp 6x6 slides scanned for a test.
Click to expand...

I really don't think the negs themselves are necessarily soft. The scan just looks out of focus. Neither details in the negative nor the dust sitting on the negative are in focus. In my previous post I said that this is no big deal because scanner autofocus can also miss sometimes but then I remembered that Plustek said there is no autofocus in this scanner. I forgot about no AF as I didn't believe it at the time, how can you make a scanner with a real 5300dpi and have dof large enough to get a good scan without autofocusing on the negative, righ?!

I will try to scan a frame with my Minolta 5400 (v1) and upload it somewhere. I'm pretty sure it won't look that soft.
 
The samples aren't bad... I don't know though. A little out of focus, and I'm not particularly convinced on the D-max rating.

But obviously the samples are not optimized - I'm still interested. Can't wait till someone from here gets their hands on one.

On the side - thanks to Mark for getting these samples out.
 
Not bad at all. For unprocessed images.
But they should realy get their hands on some great negatives for illustration purposes.
 
Here is a link to an unprocessed BW scan with Vuescan in my Minolta 5400* v1 (35mm only scanner). Inverted and only auto contrast applied in PS (my inverted files are really flat). Film is Ilford Delta 100.

As suspected, Plustek scan (well, ALL three of them!) is definitely out of focus. I hope Plustek can fix this before shipping this scanner if this is fixable at all without implementing autofocus mechanism in the scanner.


* Minolta DiMage 5400 v1 is know as a good 35mm scanner, but I haven't heard many claims of it being a Nikon Coolscan 5000/8000/9000 killer. Sadly, I suspect Plustek 120 isn't either.
 
brbo said:
Here is a link to an unprocessed BW scan with Vuescan in my Minolta 5400* v1 (35mm only scanner). Inverted and only auto contrast applied in PS (my inverted files are really flat). Film is Ilford Delta 100.

As suspected, Plustek scan (well, ALL three of them!) is definitely out of focus. I hope Plustek can fix this before shipping this scanner if this is fixable at all without implementing autofocus mechanism in the scanner.


* Minolta DiMage 5400 v1 is know as a good 35mm scanner, but I haven't heard many claims of it being a Nikon Coolscan 5000/8000/9000 killer. Sadly, I suspect Plustek 120 isn't either.
Click to expand...

That looks fairly similar - maybe a little higher resolution than my plustek 8100, which cost me $300 brand new. I'm fairly sure in capable hands the 120 should be a lot better...
 
I checked out these scans at home and I don't know what you guys mean by soft. They say these are straight out of the scanner, and were shot on Tri-X in vintage cameras. The grain is sharp, and so are the details after the requisite sharpening. I think they look great! And they are 5300ppi according CS5.
 
I look forward to hearing more about the Plustek scanner for 120.

My current 120 scanner is an ancient Epson 2450 ... for high-resolution scans I can rent time on an Imacon Flextight ($60@hour, two hour minimum). I haven't used the service yet, but given that scanning a 12 exposure roll of film with the Epson tends to be about a 2.5 hour endeavor, I'd be very surprised if I can scan more than a roll per hour with the Imacon. That's about $5 per frame, which is not horrendous but certainly adds up if I do a lot of 6x6 work. (And of course, I can be selective about what I scan too... ;-)

A new 120 format scanner at a reasonable price enables me to both eventually reduce the cost (a long time down the road, depending on just how much it costs) but, more importantly, work when I have time rather than when the Imacon is available for use.

Ah, the joy of it all... ;-)
 
My Nikon 9000 has started having some hiccups after 6 years of intensive work, and it would be nice to know, there will be a replacement scanner available. However, I do not understand, how it could be, that the scanner does not have autofocus - are we supposed to focus each scan manually ??? This would be pure madness...
 
Godfrey said:
A new 120 format scanner at a reasonable price enables me to both eventually reduce the cost (a long time down the road, depending on just how much it costs) but, more importantly, work when I have time rather than when the Imacon is available for use.

Ah, the joy of it all... ;-)
Click to expand...

This is an important point for me as well, i have a 5000ed for 35mm and need to ask a friend when he has available time to scan my 120 on his scanner, which of course is something slowing down my desire to shoot 120.
robert
 
mfogiel said:
My Nikon 9000 has started having some hiccups after 6 years of intensive work, and it would be nice to know, there will be a replacement scanner available. However, I do not understand, how it could be, that the scanner does not have autofocus - are we supposed to focus each scan manually ??? This would be pure madness...
Click to expand...
I suspect that focus is fixed, which makes the accuracy of positioning the negative rather critical. That's just a guess, though, which isn't based on any real knowledge of the unit.

...Mike
 
The grain looks a little soft or out of focus compared to my 9000ED. Hopefully this is just operator error or due to it being a pre-production machine.

The sky is on the edge of being blown, with very little detail in there. My guess is the exposure on the Rollei or the scan is off by at least one stop, maybe two.

I hate to say it but these are not the best samples. My advice would be to pull the images and release new ones that are technically more competent.
 
Harry Lime said:
The gain looks a little soft or out of focus compared to my 9000ED. Hopefully this is just operator error or due to it being a pre-production machine.

The sky is on the edge of being blown, with very little detail in there. My guess is the exposure on the Rollei or the scan is off by at least one stop, maybe two.

I hate to say it but these are not the best samples. My advice would be to pull the images and release new ones that are technically more competent.
Click to expand...

Exactly my observation. I have a Microtek 120tf (4000dpi MF scanner) and in comparison Plustek 120 files resampled (with PS bicubic sharpening algorithm) to 4000dpi are still softer than Microtek's untouched straight out of the scanner.

I wouldn't worry about blown highlights, though. The file accompanying the scans says that scans were made in "auto something something mode"... Actually, it says it was scanned with 'Auto CCR' and no other adjustments in SilverFast. It's been a while since I used SilverFast, but doesn't 'Auto CCR' stand for 'automatic colour cast removal'? Why would you enable that when scanning BW negs? It's obvious that the one who made the scans is not that familiar with scanning (or maybe just SilverFast software). But (lack) of sharpness/detail is a problem, since this scanner, as far as we know, doesn't have autofocus and no manual way of adjusting the focus. So this means that focus plane with it's thin dof comes preset from factory. Same as in flatbed scanners.

I agree that those are poor scans, but as we see many seem to like them, so I guess they are not doing much damage to Plustek...
 
I do not see much improvement over a v750 scan (except that it produces huge files, and it has a hefty price tag). It has the same look, slightly out of focus, with plenty of mushy useless pixels.

At this price, you can have a 5dmkii with a macro lens and a macro stand like a CNC machine, and the 5d can take other pictures. Or a used Imacon.

I hope it can be possible to do better.
 
The price point puts me out for being able to afford this. But I just want to point out that the caveat for these samples are that they are preliminary and Silverfast is still working on drivers and, most important of all, the camera they were shot with isn't exactly a high quality camera. Maybe Silverfast should use one of it's own color correction targets or even a USAF 1951 Test Chart.

At any rate, with Nikons becoming scarce about the only thing this scanner has to compete with are flatbeds, drum scanners, and the Primefilm 120 scanner. If it outdoes the Primefilm scanner it has it's niche. If it doesn't outdo a flatbed Plustek has a problem.
 
S.H. said:
I do not see much improvement over a v750 scan (except that it produces huge files, and it has a hefty price tag). It has the same look, slightly out of focus, with plenty of mushy useless pixels.

At this price, you can have a 5dmkii with a macro lens and a macro stand like a CNC machine, and the 5d can take other pictures. Or a used Imacon.

I hope it can be possible to do better.
Click to expand...

I don't mean to single you out but this is why manufacturers generally don't like providing samples based on pre-production models. A lot can happen before the scanners are actually shipped to consumers and these scans may not be totally representative of what the "real thing" will be able to achieve. A bad first impression can be fatal to what is already going to be a niche product.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top