Plustek OpticFilm 120

<p>We are in a bit of a delay and I apologize for this. I put an announcement on the Plustek Facebook page and in the Media section on Plustek.com http://plustek.com/usa/news/. I'll post updates in both of these locations as soon as I have more to post.</p>

Wolf, how could you be so sceptic?

<p>Alex, how could I ..."<em>be so sceptic</em>?"..? Unless your question is supposed to be funny, I suggest reading this Forum from the start... Idiot me, I sold my perfectly working Nikon 9000 ED scanner because -against better knowledge from experience- I got <em>snowed</em> with numbers from the <em><strong>Plustek hype</strong></em> that turned out not to be correct. How about D-max of 4.01 instead of the originally trumpeted 4.8..? And what is 4.01 anyhow..? <strong>.01</strong>, wow..! Said Nikon does better than that.<br>

Etc., etc.</p>

so what is your main problem ( i read all about this scanner and im in good contact with Mark) ? scanner parameters or delay?

<p><strong>Both</strong> of the <em>above</em>. Obviously. Some 10 months (..<strong>!</strong>) ago, on this here Forum, we guardedly welcomed a new and <em>better</em> <em>mousetrap</em>... Plustek back then: ..."<em>will introduce... a professional grade film and slide scanner</em>"... In my book and by my experience, 4.01 D-max is not much professional to write home about. Whereby it can be assumed that the <strong>.01</strong> is just a <em>tolerance stretch</em> to bring the scanner slightly above the critical <strong>-4- </strong>value. <br /> I for one will try to replace my former Nikon LS 9000ED with the same or similar. Dmax of <strong>4.8</strong> requested here.<br>

Quotes below were somehow added by the Forum's Editor or (more likely) soft ware.<br>

OpticFilm 120, a professional grade film and slide scanner<br /><br />Read More at http://www.geardiary.com/2012/01/04/plustek-to-unveil-new-line-of-scanners-at-ces/, Written by Douglas Moran, Copyright © Gear Diary OpticFilm 120, a professional grade film and slide scanner<br /><br />Read More at http://www.geardiary.com/2012/01/04/plustek-to-unveil-new-line-of-scanners-at-ces/, Written by Douglas Moran, Copyright © Gear Diary OpticFilm 120, a professional grade film and slide scanner<br /><br />Read More at http://www.geardiary.com/2012/01/04/plustek-to-unveil-new-line-of-scanners-at-ces/, Written by Douglas Moran, Copyright © Gear Diary Plustek will introduce at CES include OpticFilm 120, a professional grade film and slide scanner<br /><br />Read More at http://www.geardiary.com/2012/01/04/plustek-to-unveil-new-line-of-scanners-at-ces/, Written by Douglas Moran, Copyright © Gear Diary Plustek will introduce at CES include OpticFilm 120, a professional grade film and slide scanner<br /><br />Read More at http://www.geardiary.com/2012/01/04/plustek-to-unveil-new-line-of-scanners-at-ces/, Written by Douglas Moran, Copyright © Gear Diary</p>

<p>There's a lot of vitriol directed at Plustek here. Perhaps we should give them a bit of a break...If they had rushed it to market with flaws, they would have been thrashed for turning out an over-priced piece of junk.</p>

<p>Now, as for the dynamic range issue, I direct all readers to this graphic:<br>

http://images.silverfast.eu/img/newsletter200612/ExtendedDynamicRange_big_en.png<br>

From this page:<br>

http://www.silverfast.com/highlights/multi-exposure/en.html</p>

<p>According to their own documents, Silverfast claims a dynamic range of 4.00 for the LS-9000 <strong>with</strong> multi-exposure (same as the Plustek) and 3.18 for a single-pass. Plustek has not advertised a single-pass dynamic range figure. Now, there are a lot of variables, like flare, character of the noise, etc. But the 2 scanners seem comparable in regards to this parameter. Measurements for the Nikon are claimed to be in accordance with the same ISO standard (21550) as used to support the Plustek data.</p>

<p>The 4.8 Dmax claim in Nikon's literature is as fictitious as it is for Plustek. It just means: 16-bits = 16-stops * 0.3 = 4.8 DMax. It's a theoretical quantity. Nikon has never published a measured figure for Dmax or dynamic range.</p>

<p>I encourage Plustek to encourage Silverfast to release the test report, similar to what they have done with other Nikon and Epson scanners:<br>

http://www.silverfast.com/PDF/TestReport_ME_DWueller.pdf<br>

I believe I have figured out the method used to derive these numbers, based on the test report, and I hope to do some testing of my own, soon as I get the fog cleared from the underside of my V750.</p>

<p>The above comment just reinforces my original impression that one should not blindly stare into numerical metrics alone - what will really decide it for me is, will a scan of Velvia 50 look better than on my Coolscan 8000? There are many reasons why it could, one of them is that it will certainly be possible to perform better regarding flare than my CS-8000 does. I would even say, easily, but we'll see.</p>

 

<p>Greg, that is part of the plan to have the OpticFilm 120 added to the SilverFast test report. As far as the specs go, we are just trying to be honest with them. Yes the 4.8 number is a theoretical number and hopefully we updated all of the literature to clearly state that. The 4.01 number is one that was provided by LaserSoft as part of their testing. If this number changes either up or down, we will again update the literature and also add the non ME dynamic range. I also agree that there are a lot more than specs that contribute to image quality and workflow.</p>

<p>Vitriol, hm..? Somewhat rhymes with snake oil...<br /> But let's go to memory lane, reading the lips of Mark D.: ..."Feb 08, 2012; 08:41 a.m. Here is a little more info:</p>

<ul>

<li>Film up to 6x12</li>

<li>Final testing is still going on, but it looks like MEASURED resolution will be around 5000 dpi and <em>MEASURED DMax</em> of<strong> 4.8</strong>.</li>

</ul>

<p>Vitriol, hm..? Somewhat rhymes with snake oil...<br /> But let's go to memory lane, reading the lips of Mark D.: ..."Feb 08, 2012; 08:41 a.m. Here is a little more info:</p>

<ul>

<li>Film up to 6x12</li>

<li>Final testing is still going on, but it looks like MEASURED resolution will be around 5000 dpi and <em>MEASURED DMax</em> of<strong> 4.8</strong>."... Capital "<strong>MEASURED</strong>"..! Go back and read for yourselves. Throughout the pre-market <em>drum-up-interest</em> time, we were given bits and pieces leading to the impression that this new gizmo was going to be at least as good if not better than the previously mentioned Nikon LS 9000 ED... Trying to belittle (Greg Mikol, not Mark D., my apologies) that scanner's confirmed values is understandable. If you can't quite reach the top of a mountain, you might succeed by trying to bring it down. On the subject I suggest that those interested in a thourough (not sweetheart) review go to the test site of Patrick Werner, one of, if not, the BEST..! Patrick does indeed say that <em>"density range of 4.8 is a theoretical value which results from translating the color depth." </em>He did measure true resolution at 3900 dpi, a minute 2.5% below specs given by Nikon. In comparison he gives most tested Plustek scanners to be +/- <strong>50% under</strong> manufacturer's claims. Though at this point I've lost interest in the new OpticFilm 120, I am still looking forward to a test review by P.W. That oughta clear the air.</li>

<li>(I had to double up on the previous posting because of a phone call which kept me from finishing in time...)</li>

</ul>

<p>Wolf,</p>

<p>I think we all understand your frustrations if you made such a bold decision as to sell your 9000 in advance. It must be very aggravating. However, I think most of us would agree that this would be classed as "taking a chance". Lots of people are following all of this buildup and many think we would be interested if it really does match or outperform the big Nikon. However, I think most of us are likely to wait on a shipping product and real test results before pulling the trigger. That you didn't wait is certainly bold but I think you should be big enough to live with its consequences. Mark and Plustek's launch problems are their own and your self-created issue is your own.</p>

<p>Just wait and see like the rest of us. Maybe it will be great. Maybe not. I think it could be great. But I'm not letting go of my 9000 just yet.</p>

<p>Sam</p>

<p>And, like I've maybe said at least elsewhere before.. the Opticfilm will be the ONLY medium format scanner that you can buy new (perhaps, some opportunistic random eBay store selling the last CS9000 unit ever for triple price, and the Imacon X5 that costs as much as a good car, notwithstanding). As years roll by this alone will become more and more important. And even if it DOESN'T outperform the CS9000 it might still at least push down the prices of the used unes, which are outrageous at the moment. So for someone like me, who has the CS8000 and didn't sell it, I can only gain from Plustek's efforts..<br>

And anyway, outperforming is such a complicated beast. There are many factors where it can win or lose: speed, flare, true resolution, dmax, a-ccd-that-does-not-generate-streaks, software, ability to scan 6x12 or not, flexibility re: "weird" formats, ....<br>

For me personally the biggest doubt has always been the lack of a focusing mechanism but I've decided to wait and see on that one.</p>

<p> "And even if it DOESN'T outperform the CS9000 it might still at least push down the prices of the used unes, which are outrageous at the moment".<br>

really great news. Do not you think Plustek should not ask $2000 if its OpticFilm 120 will not reach Nikon 9000 scan quality which was selling for $2000 during production ? <br>

Lack of focusing mechanism, poorer lens comparing to that in Nikon, not possibility to use glass for ultimate film flatness on full surface, very long time scanning (the issue which Plustek is struggling now with OpticFilm 120 - what is probably the reason why it postponed the official selling day)... they do not give reasons to believe Plustek 120 scanner will reach 9000ED scan quality. </p>

<p>... and what seems more questionable is this "true" 4,01 Dmax with SilverFast double-exposure pass.<br>

Read this interesting thread "Multi Exposure scan with old dedicated film scanners - need EXAMPLES" on Flickr: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/groups/ishootfilm/discuss/72157629081616737/">http://www.flickr.com/groups/ishootfilm/discuss/72157629081616737/</a> </p>

<p>"multiple scans with different exposure is basically changing the histogram level in much the same respect as when you adjust dark areas in Photoshop. multiple passes concept is just a selling point made up by the outside scanner software producers trying to have something to sell so people will buy"</p>

<p>If OpticFilm 120 scanner is capable to reach 3.14 Dmax, how Plustek calculate it has 4.01 Dmax. with SilverFast double esposure pass mode? Second pass with exposure for shadows will generate more noice in the shadows, ok, it brings some details too but this is a soft "work" in histogram level, not the scanner ability wich still has 3,14 Dmax.</p>

<p>Microtek offers scanner with 4.7dmax for a flatbed, and plusted only 4.01 for dedicated film scanner?<br>

The Mikroted is targeted at medical and industrial users, not home users, so I doubt they are not telling the truth, as always reviews are nowhere to be found<br>

http://ww7.microtek.com.tw/products.php?KindID=7&ID=334</p>

<p>Just as an aside, I assume the difference with the medical scanner is that it is for X-Rays and therefore presumably monochromatic. How awesome would that be? You should get much better scans of black and white. If you wanted colours I guess you could just do three different scans with three primary colored gels over the backlight unit and combine in Photoshop. More tedious, I guess, but imagine the fine control you could achieve. You could probably get some really cool colour effects just by using slightly different gels for the different primaries.</p>

<p>Very intriguing... Very off-topic but very intriguing!</p>

<p>Sam</p>

<p>That is a monochrome scanner. I'm not trying to put down the competition (I work for Plustek) but the resolution of that scanner is listed as 3200 dpi and it is monochrome. If the listed resolution is 3200, the actual resolution is less than that. Dmax of 4.7? Maybe but they don't specify Dmin so we don' really know what the dynamic range is. Our spec on the OpticFilm 120 is a measured dynamic range number. I actually saw the Microtek scanner yesterday and it looks like a good alternative for a doctor's office looking for a lower cost xray scanner. </p>

<p>As far as the OpticFilm 120 goes, you can find more info at the following two links:<br>

http://plustek.com/usa/products/opticfilm-series/opticfilm-120/<br>

http://plustekusa.blogspot.com/2012/10/plustek-opticfilm-120-frequently-asked.html<br>

Or you can send me an email: markdruziak at plustek dot com or even call me! 562-650-3900 (EST)</p>

<p>How does the new filmholders hold 35mm film and slides on plustek? AFAIK the Nikon 9000 needed the glass modification to reliably scan 35mm slides you had to unmount them place on glass put custom mask and then scan.<br>

The holders for plustek come with glass? If not I don't understand how the 35mm slides can be scanned? Is there autofocus?</p>

<p>There are two different holders for 35mm. One is for film the other is for slides. However, you can scan unmounted slides in the 35mm film holder if you want. The design of the 35mm film holder is the same as the 120 holders. Each frame is supported on all four sides and the top frame is held in place magnetically.</p>

<p>No autofocus. The holders are very rigid and robust. I forget the actual thickness of the frame but I think it is like 1/4". The optics are designed with a depth of focus to accomodate any variations in the film surface that isn't removed by the holder. So far in testing by LaserSoft and Plustek, there haven't been any problems with image sharpness caused by the lack of autofocus.</p>

<p> Few days ago, Plustek published interesting table on their blog: <a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-pEO474i6hWQ/UKVD1XU4zWI/AAAAAAAAAWo/qAZiAiNiS3E/s640/scanner+measured+resolutionsJPG.JPG">http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-pEO474i6hWQ/UKVD1XU4zWI/AAAAAAAAAWo/qAZiAiNiS3E/s640/scanner+measured+resolutionsJPG.JPG</a><br>

Table contains measured resolution data, including new Plustek opticfilm 120 scanner numbers. According to Plustek, optical resolution at 10600dpi is impressive 5793dpi, at 5300dpi it is still very good 4598dpi.<br>

However, same source lists optical 4096dpi for plustek 7600 (at 7200dpi) - what substantially differs from 3250dpi measured by these guys: <a href="http://www.filmscanner.info/PlustekOpticFilm7600i.html">http://www.filmscanner.info/PlustekOpticFilm7600i.html</a> <br>

(filmscanner.info is reliable source)<br>

So if we divide Plustek numbers approximately by 1.25, we will probably have correct numbers, cca 4600dpi maximum resolution for 35mm film (very nice result for $2000 scanner).<br>

Real numbers for 60mm wide film (mf) will probably differ from above results, as 10660px ccd array (used in Plustek scanner) leads to 4500dpi (just theoretical limit, there are more limiting factors like optics, dof ...)<br>

Indeed, anything above real 4000dpi for MF would be phantastic!<br>

Filmscanner.info also mentioned 15.1.2013 as date, when scanner will be available ...<br>

<a href="http://www.filmscanner.info/PlustekOpticFilm120.html">http://www.filmscanner.info/PlustekOpticFilm120.html</a></p>

<p>Just a little background info on those test results. I was a little surprised that my results for the OpticFilm 7600i were as high as they were so I went back and retested the resolution a couple more times. My conclusion was that maybe the scanner I had was on the high end of the resolution bell curve distribution. Or maybe the one the Filmscanner.info was a little to the left of the distribution curve. Or both. So I reported it as I saw it.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I'll just add to this to say that my personal testing of a Plustek 7500i yielded a result similar to Plustek's results, Group 6, Element 3, approx 4096 DPI. As far as I know, the 7500 and 7600 share the same optics.</p>

<p>I think the filmscanner.info tests are quite pessimistic. I believe they are using a film target to test resolution, and at those spatial frequencies (80 lp/mm), the MTF of the film itself could start to get in the way, depending on the quality of the target.</p>

<p>We'll have to wait for some independent testing to be sure, but I don't really see any reason to doubt Plustek's numbers.</p>

<p>There are so many variables in testing a scanner, the difference in results hardly surprises. I'll give you an example.<br /> <br />I personally own a Silverfast resolution target. That is the one used in the resolution tests of filmscanner.info. If I insert this resolution target into my Plustek 7600i with the frontside upwards and scan it with 3600 dpi, I get this:<br /> <img src="http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/6279/scan12122100013600front.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="576" /><br /> I think, it is fair to say that symbol 5.6 is resolved into seperated lines, which would translate to 2896 dpi. Not bad! 3200/2896, thats 90% efficiency.<br /> If I raise the scanning resolution to 7200 dpi, I get this:<br /> <img src="http://img547.imageshack.us/img547/3702/scan12122100027200front.jpg" alt="" /><br /> I think it is valid to say, that 6.3 (thats the 2nd symbol in the 6 column because the 6 comumn starts with symbol 6.2) is besing resolved, albeit very low contrast. This is equivalent to 4096 dpi scanning resolution. Impressive for a consumer scanner at this price point.<br /> <br />If I now flip the resolution slide and insert it with the backside upwards, I get vastly inferior scans:<br /> <br />3600 dpi scan:<br /> <img src="http://imageshack.us/scaled/landing/600/scan12122100013600backu.jpg" alt="" /><br /> 7200 dpi scan:<br /> <img src="http://img585.imageshack.us/img585/7889/scan12122100027200backu.jpg" alt="" /><br /> <br />This would lead to much lower measured resolution figures. But why should anybody do this, you might ask. Well, maybe because he used the scanner for scanning slides before conducting this test. Let me explain:<br /> <img src="http://img821.imageshack.us/img821/3959/scan1212210003syltoverv.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="686" /></p>

<p>This is a shot of a ferry boat that shuttles between the german isle of Sylt and the danish isle of Rømø. I took it on Fuji Velvia RVP50 using an AF-S 50mm f/1.4 at what I remember to be f/5.6 and about 1/160-1/250s as it was bright sunlight. This roll of film was developed at a well known professional studio in germany, farbglanz.de. But the following experiences are valid for cheap mass laboratories as well, as my experience has shown.<br /> If I insert this slide into the Plustek 7600 with the frontside upwards, just like the resolution slide for optimal performance, and scan the small part in the near center of the frame, I get this:<br /> <img src="http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/9968/scan1212210003syltback.jpg" alt="" width="1416" height="720" /><br />Not bad, and while I was running my first scans with the Plustek, I thought this would be it.<br /> But then I tried flipping the slides, and in this case, the corresponding scan looks like this:<br /> <img src="http://img833.imageshack.us/img833/5696/scan1212210003syltfront.jpg" alt="" width="1320" height="720" /><br /> Now thats an improvement!<br /> <br />I suspect that depending on the construction of the slide frame, the actual film within the frame is position in different heights. The depth of field of the scanner cannot compensate due to the lack of an AF and in case of the Plustek 7600i, the native depth of field is not cast enough to allow greater variances in film height. For the slide frames I buy and use, it is better to flip the slide for scanning. In case of the resolution target and the slide frame it is using, it is better to scan the other way around. Other users might have experienced the same without knowing, which would explain the differences in apparent resolution of the same scanner. Also, it might not always be possbile to perfectly adjust to the actual plane of focus just by flipping the slide.<br>

Christian<br>

PS: larger images are displayed in reduzed size. judgement of shaprness and resolution should be performed with the images maximized. otherwise, false conclusions could be drawn.</p>

<p>Christian, thank you very much for your explanations. That's my experience with a KonicaMinolta 5400 II, too.<br>

If the focus plane isn't placed accurately in between the filmlayer, you will lose hundreds (if not thousands!) of spi. My excessive USAF 1951 testing ends up with an average resolution of ~ 4500 spi. BUT, roundabout two percent of the scans provided 5000+ spi -> focused exactly!<br>

So, how many spi will you lose scan by scan, if the Plustek 120 doesn't even feature the ability to focus filmlayers exactly?<br>

There are no stretching frames for 120 film, aren't there?</p>

<p>@Chris Strom<br>

This is exactly why I have asked about the plustek 120 about the frames/autofocus.<br>

mark druziak said:<br>

"One is for film the other is for slides. However, you can scan unmounted slides in the 35mm film holder if you want. The design of the 35mm film holder is the same as the 120 holders. Each frame is supported on all four sides and the top frame is held in place magnetically."<br>

"No autofocus. The holders are very rigid and robust. I forget the actual thickness of the frame but I think it is like 1/4". The optics are designed with a depth of focus to accomodate any variations in the film surface that isn't removed by the holder."<br>

No autofocus - means you can't put film on modified holder with glass because it will not be in focus. So if plustek could not make frames to make 7600 scanner reliable, could they improved so much that MF120 is somehow different. After all it's frames are also plastic.</p>