kanzlr
Hexaneur
For now I scanned mostly black and white films, so no clue how infrared and multipass scanning impacts speed. It is certainly fast, especially compared to a flatbed for 120 film.
I did some more 35mm scans and I am fairly happy. Not quite as sharp as the Coolscan, but way less grain, too. And heads above the Epson.
I did some more 35mm scans and I am fairly happy. Not quite as sharp as the Coolscan, but way less grain, too. And heads above the Epson.
XFer
-
If you are so sure... me, I would not hold my breath about it.
For example: it has 2-pass infrared cleaning, while the Nikon 8000 (introduced in 2001) did that in a single pass...
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
It actually runs the film through a second time to do the IR cleaning scan? Damn, that's primitive.
kanzlr
Hexaneur
hm...I have to try that tomorrow...
XFer
-
Yes, that's what Sny wrote in the other thread:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2062707&postcount=13
Fer
XFer
-
I see that a lot of people here wonder about the actual image quality difference between a decent flatbed (like the V700) and a dedicated filmscanner.
Well I did not get a Plustek 120 to review (yes I asked for it. I'll ask again), but I reviewed the V700 and a few filmscanners.
Short answer is, there's a GREAT difference.
My review is in italian, but the images speak for themselves (and of course, I can translate some parts if someone is interested).
http://www.effeunoequattro.net/htdocs/freecontent/FC_ProvaV700/index.php
Scroll down from 1/3 to 2/3 page to see test charts comparisons and real-world scan comparisons.
Fer
Well I did not get a Plustek 120 to review (yes I asked for it. I'll ask again), but I reviewed the V700 and a few filmscanners.
Short answer is, there's a GREAT difference.
My review is in italian, but the images speak for themselves (and of course, I can translate some parts if someone is interested).
http://www.effeunoequattro.net/htdocs/freecontent/FC_ProvaV700/index.php
Scroll down from 1/3 to 2/3 page to see test charts comparisons and real-world scan comparisons.
Fer
mani
Well-known
Very interesting - and Chrome does an excellent job of automatically translating the whole article. Thanks!
XFer
-
I also reviewed the Nikon 8000ED and the Minolta ScanElite 5400; may be of interest to those looking for a scanner (or just as a reference point):
http://www.effeunoequattro.net/htdocs/freecontent/FC_ProvaNikon8000/index.php
http://www.effeunoequattro.net/htdocs/freecontent/FC_minolta_elite/index.php
http://www.effeunoequattro.net/htdocs/freecontent/FC_ProvaNikon8000/index.php
http://www.effeunoequattro.net/htdocs/freecontent/FC_minolta_elite/index.php
sny
Member
Great reviews. I will try to take some time this week-end to make some scans with no post processing. I have had quite a lot of work to do this week and last week and I look forward to testing the Plustek 120 correctly.
Regards,
S.
PS: by the way I see you live in Rome, I was there this summer, I will post some pictures of my trip on the forum...
brbo
Well-known
There are more ways of implementing IR cleanup. We know that Plustek 120 is a budget device (although current price doesn't quite reflect that), so no surprise that it uses same IR cleanup principle as flatbeds. I wish that second-pass-IR-cleanup was actually chosen for superior IR cleanup (adjusting focus of the lens for IR light source), but since focus adjustment (auto or manual) is absent in this scanner, I fear that is not the case.
But multisampling can only be done in one way, afaik. And there is no cost saving if you don't enable multisampling in a scanner. You just hold the film at the same position long enough to do multiple reads off the sensor and then do 'blending' in software and Silverfast has had that routine developed since... well, forever.
If in fact multisampling (which for me is much much more useful than multipass) is not supported then I can only say that Plustek people are crazy. And I don't think they are.
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
Interesting - while many of you have reported receiving notifications that it's in stock I just received a "too bad, but it's still unavailable" notice from B&H.
In the meantime, I'll keep reading about people's experiences with this scanner (if it exists of course
)
Cheers,
Dave
In the meantime, I'll keep reading about people's experiences with this scanner (if it exists of course
)Cheers,
Dave
XFer
-
Yes but 2-pass cleanup is a bad way of doing it.
More wear on the mechanics, more chances of registration issues (misregistration leads to less effective cleanup and more artifacts), longer scans, more heat build up, which in turn has a negative effect on film flatness.
No filmscanner I know (and I tested/owned a lot of filmscanners) refocuses when doing the IR pass.
For example, the venerable Canon FS4000 does two-pass IR cleaning, but without refocusing. And with registration issues.
Multisampling is a firmware feature. You have to develop a proper procedure in firmware, which implies embedded programmer's work, which requires time and implies cost.
Of course I agree with you that it would be crazy not to implement it, at least with a firmware upgrade (to get sooner on the market, given the huge delay they already had), but still, we have no evidence the function exists, at the moment.
Fingers crossed.
Another important feature IQ-wise, which this scanner may or may not have, is independent R-G-B CCD exposure time.
When scanning negative film, if you can't count on longer CCD exposure for G (2x typical) and B (4x typical) vs R, you get poor SNR and poor gradation for the G and (expecially) B channel, due to the orange mask.
Many filmscanners have this function (just to name a few: Nikon LS-50, 5000, 8000, 9000; Minolta Scan Dual IV, 5400, 5400-II) but, for example, Epson V7x0 don't.
Fer
brbo
Well-known
Yes but 2-pass cleanup is a bad way of doing it.
More wear on the mechanics, more chances of registration issues (misregistration leads to less effective cleanup and more artifacts), longer scans, more heat build up, which in turn has a negative effect on film flatness.
If you have good software part of the IR cleanup, you don't need 100% alignment or ultra high resolution in IR layer. So you can spend less time at visible color scanning (no need to alternate visible and IR light source) which helps film flatness and then do a quick IR scan in second pass. Now, as I said, I don't believe this is why Plustek/Silverfast are doing IR cleanup in seperate pass, but in theory this could actually yield better scan. Just look at PS content aware fill. Make a RGB scan and a separate IR only scan of a negative and use IR scan as a mask (you can even expand the mask so it's in fact not that precise - as a simulation for less than perfect registration and lower resolution of an IR channel scan) in PS. Then do a content aware fill. It totally wipes the floor with ANY IR cleanup implementation I've seen.
Ok, I just assumed that would be the problem with IR channel scan as I heard that is in fact a common thing in IR photography. I guess refocusing in scanners is not really needed, then.
Multisampling is a firmware feature. You have to develop a proper procedure in firmware, which implies embedded programmer's work, which requires time and implies cost.
Of course I agree with you that it would be crazy not to implement it, at least with a firmware upgrade (to get sooner on the market, given the huge delay they already had), but still, we have no evidence the function exists, at the moment.
Fingers crossed.
But is there a requirement that the code needs to live in the scanner (firmware)? It would if Plustek intended to produce a scanner that has an easily accessible programming interface to drive the scanner, but we know what Plustek thinks of that (relying on LaserSoft to do the software part, why would LaserSoft make this more difficult for them?). Can't it be done in driver?
Just yesterday I was goofing around on my 5400 with individual RGB gains and to be honest the difference was minimal (I don't think I would pass the blind test). I can't see a scanner designer that thinks 5300dpi medium format scanner doesn't need autofocus to spend much time on providing adjustable RGB exposure times for the end user. Btw, do you have any samples to show what improvement do you get? Maybe I was just working on a negative that wasn't the best to really show the difference...
brbo
Well-known
Well... this is from LaserSoft webpage for Plustek 120:
"Multi-Sampling is not supported"
"Multi-Sampling was replaced by our much more powerful Multi-Exposure 1"
Id***s!!!
"Multi-Sampling is not supported"
"Multi-Sampling was replaced by our much more powerful Multi-Exposure 1"
Id***s!!!
XFer
-
Sadly I saw this coming.
Let's hope a firmware upgrade (and consequent software upgrade) will add this very important feature!
joeswe
Well-known
Sadly I saw this coming.
Let's hope a firmware upgrade (and consequent software upgrade) will add this very important feature!
Don't hold your breath - Silverfast 8 does not support multi-sampling on ANY scanner I am aware of. Hard to imagine they will re-introduce for just one model. They explicitly abandoned the support for multi-sampling some time ago, saying that multi-exposure gives superior results. I guess we will have to wait for VueScan support to see if there is any multi-sampling available firmware-wise. BTW, thank you for the great reviews, it is refreshing to see scanners reviewed by someone who actually knows what he's doing...
J. Borger
Well-known
And there is no chance this actual is true, multi-exposure giving superior results?
joeswe
Well-known
I admit I have limited personal experience with multi-sampling vs. multi-exposure.
SF says unlike multi-sampling it not only reduces noise but also enhances dynamic range. But there are people who say multi-exposure has disadvantages because the second pass that is necessary for the higher exposure scan will introduces problems of its own, along the lines of what is said in the debate about one pass/two pass IR dust removal above.
XFer
-
Multi exposure and multi sampling are different and independent techniques, and while multi exposure may be of interest in some cases, I can't see a reason why the user should not decide himself if he wants one and/or another.
Single pass multi sampling, when supported by firmware, has only one issue, which is longer scanning time.
But it always gives better dynamic range and shadow cleanliness without other side effects.
While multi exposure, while having some advantages (even better dynamic range), has specific issues besides longer scanning time.
For example, is more difficult to achieve high color accuracy, because of the way ICC profiling works. It puts more stress on the mechanics (2x the wear). It requires excellent precision to avoid registration issues, which may or may not be corrected in software.
In this specific case (Plustek 120), is even less desireable in my opinion, because the scanner already does 2 passes for IR cleaning: with multi exposure instead of multi sampling, you need 3 passes for a single scan.
My hope is that when Vuescan support will come, it will carry single-pass multisampling support; or at least we could ask Plustek to add the feature with a firmware upgrade knowing that the software will make good use for it.
Fernando
Single pass multi sampling, when supported by firmware, has only one issue, which is longer scanning time.
But it always gives better dynamic range and shadow cleanliness without other side effects.
While multi exposure, while having some advantages (even better dynamic range), has specific issues besides longer scanning time.
For example, is more difficult to achieve high color accuracy, because of the way ICC profiling works. It puts more stress on the mechanics (2x the wear). It requires excellent precision to avoid registration issues, which may or may not be corrected in software.
In this specific case (Plustek 120), is even less desireable in my opinion, because the scanner already does 2 passes for IR cleaning: with multi exposure instead of multi sampling, you need 3 passes for a single scan.
My hope is that when Vuescan support will come, it will carry single-pass multisampling support; or at least we could ask Plustek to add the feature with a firmware upgrade knowing that the software will make good use for it.
Fernando
sny
Member
Multi exposure and multi sampling are different and independent techniques, and while multi exposure may be of interest in some cases, I can't see a reason why the user should not decide himself if he wants one and/or another.
Single pass multi sampling, when supported by firmware, has only one issue, which is longer scanning time.
But it always gives better dynamic range and shadow cleanliness without other side effects.
While multi exposure, while having some advantages (even better dynamic range), has specific issues besides longer scanning time.
For example, is more difficult to achieve high color accuracy, because of the way ICC profiling works. It puts more stress on the mechanics (2x the wear). It requires excellent precision to avoid registration issues, which may or may not be corrected in software.
In this specific case (Plustek 120), is even less desireable in my opinion, because the scanner already does 2 passes for IR cleaning: with multi exposure instead of multi sampling, you need 3 passes for a single scan.
My hope is that when Vuescan support will come, it will carry single-pass multisampling support; or at least we could ask Plustek to add the feature with a firmware upgrade knowing that the software will make good use for it.
Fernando
I totally agree with this point of view. If Mark from Plustek reads this thread, he could maybe transmit this request.
Regards,
S.