Plustek OpticFilm 120

<p>It was close to a year ago when this supposed great new scanner from Plustek was first discussed here. I admit to have been one of the fools who got duped by the<em> pied piper</em> from that co. Now even B&H seems to have given up on providing an availability date. And the fact that Plustek's <em>p.p</em>. isn't giving us any infos in that respect doesn't bode well at all. How'bout it, Mark..? Can't call it a <em>slight delay</em> anymore, can you...</p>

<p>Well, apparently the scanner has started shipping in some areas as some people have been posting photos scanned with the opticfilm 120 on Flickr.</p>

<p>From those I can already see that for scanning tough Velvia 50 slides with low flare, it beats my old Coolscan 8000 hands-down - even when comparing to the condition when my scanner was still new.</p>

<p>Sharpness-wise it's hard to say. all the pics I see are reduced size and oversharpened (or something else has happened to the pictures which overblows the grain).<br>

Also no comments about real-life speed so far.<br>

Ideally I could test this device somewhere with a couple of films of my own before making up my mind. My ideal set would be to test Velvia 50, Provia 400X, Ektar and Portra 400. If the quality combination of sharpness+flare beats my CS8K, I'm buying this.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hope to see Stefan here, soon<br>

http://www.flickr.com/groups/plustek_opticfilm_120/</p>

<p>Maybe I haven't been burnt by prematurely abandoning things that work already in favour of some promised improved technology that turned out to be vapourware. Or maybe I've just yet to grow old and bitter.</p>

<p>But I really am having trouble grasping all the rather vitriolic comments and bilious recriminations heaped upon Plustek during the development of this new scanner from some quarters. Mark Druziak has been, I think, quite forthcoming in providing information to us--when he has it. And it sounds like he's been, as much as possible, careful about releasing information until he has confirmed it with the authoritative source and/or tested it himself. It seems to me that he has reasonably conveyed news that Plustek is trying to produce a scanner to replace the defunct Coolscans, and has responsibly tempered the optimism such an announcement may engender by his regular updates when <em>reliable</em> information reaches him.</p>

<p>Will the new scanner equal or exceed the Nikon scanners? How will we--or Mark--know, until they are actually available in production models and have been tried out in real-world situations? We can certainly <em>hope</em> that they do, and have a reasonable expectation that they'll at least be a higher-quality option than the Epson flatbeds. Will the price/performance ratio make them an attractive option? No way to know that either, until we can see the ultimate selling price and have a look at sample scans from retail units.</p>

<p>If they do live up, at least largely, to our hopes--well then, I might just buy one. If they don't, I'll stick with the cheap but somewhat livable option of the Epson I now have. They'll certainly be an improvement over the other alternative: the out-of-production-for-all-eternity (it appears) and pretty much unobtainable Nikon product. The fact that *anyone* is <em>trying</em> to make a new scanner for us hard-core filmophiles is to me a pleasant development, and leads me to want to encourage them rather than heap vituperation upon them.</p>

<p>I personally am pleased that Plustek is taking their time. They already produce a pretty darned good 35 mm scanner, so they could have used their favourable reputation from that to rush out a product that, because of its rarity and their prior performance, people might have snapped up too quickly (as it sounds some posters here were wanting to do). The fact that they are waiting to release the product--which costs them time and money. after all--seems to me to indicate that they are trying to make sure they get this scanner (which is a rather complex device, and aimed at a discerning and highly critical and demanding constituency), right on the first go.</p>

<p>If that's the case, more power to them--and to us, as we'll eventually get an even better product when it actually hits the shelves, as it's starting to do, it appears. How about we pause from trashing Plustek for a few weeks--or at least until we see real-world reviews of the scanner, which will tell us if doing so is indeed justified. I for one am hoping we'll be pleasantly surprised--and well-rewarded for our (and Plustek's) patience.</p>

<p>Thanks Bernard. I appreciate your support!</p>

<p>I guess (almost) everyone likes a pad on the back... But Mark, instead of graciously accepting support from your support group, you might have helped your cause better by providing some updates..! None (as of this date/time) on Plustek's USA website either.<br>

Just because I got a good replacement for my excellent Nikon Coolscan 9000 ED doesn't mean I'm not interested or curious anymore... A <em>better mouse</em> trap is a better <em>mouse trap</em>. If indeed it turns out to be better. And that, for all interested, remains to be seen. Test results, if no further delays, now announced to be published by April 15th.<br>

Here's the latest: The <strong>120</strong> has been on sale in Germany since yesterday. First shipment <em>"sold out".</em> Now on back-order with only a 3 day wait. SilverFast is now showing the scanner on its website as being one of the many supported models. So much from this here educated former international photo journalist. Your turn, Mark...</p>

<p>Well, vapourware it is not as I have just received the unit but before anything I want to say that I completely agree with Bernard Miller's post and want to add my thanks to Mark Druziak. It is because of his posts and perseverance despite some negativity from forum members here and elsewhere that I decided to invest in an Opticfilm 120 unseen and unreviewed. To me his honest updates have proven that Plustek, or at least one of its employees, is prepared to make an effort to face its customer base.</p>

<p>Anyway, for those interested:<br>

I bought the unit "off the shelf" from Park Cameras. It arrived well packed. It looks as I expected it to look (although I was not aware that Taiwan was the country of manufacture; though not that it matters) and the box contains, aside from the scanner, power supply and cables an assortment of film holders, an IT8 calibration target and a copy of Silverfast Ai Studio. The film holders look reasonably substantial but of course I won't know how if they will hold the film flat until I've tried them.<br>

I'm not much into writing reviews but over the next week I will scan some Velvia 35mm and 6X9cm to put it through its paces and will try and post some results but having worked only with the Epson V750 for a number of years and Vuescan, it might take some time to (re) learn Silferfast about which I only have a rudimentary knowledge. I normally save scans in RAW and manipulate them through the excellent Photoshop plugin Colorperfect so I will first need to figure out how to do this via Silverfast.</p>

Vincent, this is great! 6x9 velvia 50 performance is what do care about the most. Eagerly waiting for your experiences. I hope you can post at

least one image without sharpening applied.

<p>Hi Toni<br>

Sure, I'll do my best only give me a bit of time. I've found out through bitter experience that knowing how to use scanning software is just as important as scanner quality. I've had my struggles in the past with Silverfast which is why I migrated to Vuescan but hope that the re-learning curve is not too steep.</p>

<p>Vincent, let me know how the scanner works out for you. If you have any questions/suggestions, please drop me an email: markdruziak )at( plustek dot com. This scanner is manufactured at our plant in Taiwan. It is closer to our development and product management team so they can see first hand what is happening on the assembly line. They can also react faster to questions and issues.</p>

 

<p>or please share your experience on a flickr group, there are few shots from Stefan and Mark in the pool already.</p>

<p>If someone is willing to scan a frame or two of Velvia 50 6x7 that I send them, put it on a USB stick as an as-much-unprocessed .TIF as they can and send them back, I would be happy to pay them a modest fee for their trouble.</p>

 

<p>Oh and, Mark, I guess you have provided a few scanner units to some good, well known reviewers who are just about to publish their reviews, right? I hope :)<br>

Back in the day when there was still competition in the film scanner space, the reviewers of www.photo-i.co.uk were very good. That is so long gone, most of their scanner reviews can't even be found on their website anymore.</p>

 

<p>Yes we have a detailed review plan, but we need to fill our pre-orders first. Some people have had orders in for a long time.</p>

<p>Some initial findings:<br>

Setup: Straightforward. There are two disks, one with a driver and the other Silverfast. Installation was easy and trouble free.<br>

Manuals: The Plustek manual is very short but to the point and adequate. <br>

Film Holders: Are substantial and very easy to use but basic. Nonetheless film is easy to load but a light box is an advantage to position transverse guides at the right place. Borders with Velvia are black and so is the holder so not always easy to see.<br>

I chose an "easy" Velvia 50 6X9cm to start<br>

File size: Scanning 48bbit HDR At 2650 ppi the file is already 400 MB, at half resolution 5300ppi with ME enabled just over 1 gig. At full resolution you will need a very powerful computer<br>

Scanning Speed: Good<br>

Resolution: Exceeds my expectations; in fact superb<br>

Colour: Accurate. I've not calibrated yet. The supplied target is I think Kodak (Mark, can you confirm?) so will need to order a Fuji.<br>

Compared to Epson V750: I've rated the Epson highly and have used it for the past couple of years. For me it gave three problems: poor film holders, mediocre quality for 35mm and dust on the glass. Try as I might I never managed to get rid of it. All these things are much better with the Opticfilm. Epson quality has always been acceptable for me on 120 format but this is in a different league.<br>

Is it worth the money? For me definitely.<br>

Attached picture scanned in HDR at 5300ppi then processed via Colorperfect and Finished in PS. Minimal sharpening, just with NIK PRE-sharpener. It is of course impossible to evaluate the scanner on the basis of this small image but I will leave the professional reviewers with that task.</p><div></div>

<p>Vincent, thanks for posting your experiences. Regarding the calibration... I may be mistaken about this from a recent conversation with a Lasersoft employee, the calibration adjusts the ICC profile of the scanner. The target is measured at Lasersoft in their lab. When doing the calibration on the scanner, the target is measured by the scanner and compared to the original calibration file. Notice the serial number on the bottom of the target. So the film base or emulsion doesn't really matter that much. It's the same idea as building a profile for your printer or calibrating your monitor. By the way, the scanner is shipped with a standard profile built in. Many times that is good enough. I will talk to the Lasersoft people over the next few days and confirm the calibration stuff and post what I find.</p>

<p>Mark, what you describe is indeed the usage of the IT8 calibration target. It offers the possibility to adjust the scanner output to standardized and calibrated readings of a laboratory, therefore allows for the truthfull reproduction of colors, at least as far as the scanner hardware allows for.<br /><br />But the target has to be made specifically for the film you are going to scan. In terms of Kodak slide film, this is simple as Kodak states that the target can be used for the complete range of Kodak Ektachrome Slide film, probably because the film base and materials are similar.<br /><br />But in terms of Fuji slide films, different targets are necessary. This is because the various films use different kind and numbers of layers and substances which can lead to different color appearance for the scanner's sensor. Often, one target can be used for different Fuji films (e.g. one target is for Provia 400X and Astia 100F), but e.g. Velvia RVP50 needs a special one. The physical nature of this effect is called metamerism, which leads to different color responses depending on which film is used in combination with which (scanner) light source.<br /><br />A good source for Fuji slide film IT8 targets is Wolf Faust at <a href="http://www.targets.coloraid.de"><cite>www.targets.coloraid.de</cite></a><br>

Christian</p>

<p>Chris, thanks for your explanation. As soon as I posted my response I thought: "Yeah but Kodak 'red' isn't the same as Fuji 'red'."</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Chris, thanks for your explanation. As soon as I posted my response I thought: "Yeah but Kodak 'red' isn't the same as Fuji 'red'."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, but I'm not sure that was Chris's point. Sure Kodak may not render a real-world red the same as Velvia, but that doesn't necessarily mean that a scanner profiled with a Kodak target won't scan the Velvia red properly. Velvia will have already rendered the red differently on the film; if the scanner is capable of accurately representing that particular red (on the Velvia film itself), then it'll scan just fine.</p>

<p>The point, I believe, is more that that red on the Fuji film itself may scan differently than a red of the exact same color on a Kodak film if the dyes on the different films happen to interact differently with the scanner light source/CCD. Now, in reality, I don't know how often this happens or what the magnitude of the effect is. In other words, you may end up with a perfectly fine Fuji Velvia scan whether or not you use a profile made from the Kodak target or the proper Fuji target. But, you may not-- therefore, it's safer to profile the scanner with the intended film target, even though it may not have a drastic effect on some/most scans.</p>

<p>Is that about right, Chris?</p>

<p>Would be nice if someone were to do a controlled comparison of what I described above... and write an article :)</p>

Actually I think we are all right here. I had a discussion

with my contact at Lasersoft that confirms Rishi'point.

<p>Vincent, can you give a rough estimate on how long it took to scan that image? Is it more like 1, 5 or 10 minutes?</p>

<p>The target is in fact Fuji Provia Pro. Personally I still believe that for Velvia at least, a specific target should be used but I'm willing to stand corrected. Having scanned Portra 400 neg film as well, the results are superb and the colours are very nice and pastel but not what I expected. I'm not saying they're necessarily wrong; just different to previous scans.<br>

Toni: Sorry I haven't timed it but it was quick compared to the V750 but scanning time is not the only factor. Speed depends on resolution settings. For 120 I'm perfectly happy with 2650 ppi; for 35mm I'm still on the sidelines because I can see a substantial difference between 2650 and 5300. At the latter resolution the file is just over 200 MB and at 10600 about a 1 GB. These very large files are needing a lot of computing power. I use an iMac quadcore with 12 GB ram and it is struggling with files over 500MB</p>

Indeed Mark, Rishi's explanation is correct. In fact, by personal experiences, I can confirm that using an inappropriate IT8 target leeds to false color casts. When I am back home, I can post an example of what happens in this case and what the differences look like. Its not that in every case it looks wrong, but different. Often, the color cast is visible in the shadows.

 

Christian

<p>This is indeed what I'm experiencing; more with Portra 400 than with Velvia. The latter has scanned very true to (Velvia 50) colours uncalibrated. The Portra I'm not so sure about but then I scan RAW and process with Colorperfect so there are added variables.<br>

On a different tack and possibly, Mark, a question for Silverfast/Plustek : If scanning in RAW (HDR) does the software still take account of the target anyway?</p>

Calibration targets only apply to slide film. Each colour negative film has a different orange

mask, which the scanning software tries to remove automagically. Results vary from film to

film, app to app.

(You can try to profile this using features offered by advanced scanning applications

like silverfast and vuescan, but calibration targets have nothing to do with this.

Personally i never got this part of vuescan to work.)