Jump to content

Plustek OpticFilm 120


Recommended Posts

Vincent, I can answer this question, if Mark doesn't mind.

 

Scanning raw does not take IT8 calibration into account. In terms of slides, this is not a problem. You can use a commercial or free ICC creation tool (e.g. LPROF ICC profiler) to create an ICC file based on a scan of the IT8 target and the IT8 information file. To use it afterwards, copy the created ICC profile to your system directory and use an ICC profile capable image editor like Photoshop. While opening the RAW file, there should be no color space ASSIGNED to it and ideally, you are asked to do so. In the drop down list of color spaces available, further down below you should find the one you created (listed with the name you gave it during the creation process). After applying the profile, the colors of the image are corrected. Afterwards, CONVERT the image to your working space color space, e.g., AdobeRGB.

 

In terms of negatives, this is not possbile. You can only rely on ColorPerfect to identify unusual color drifts and to care for them. The two most important things to watch out for when using the ColorNeg part of ColorPerfect for negative conversion is (from my personal experiences)

 

a) make sure that the RAW scans you obtain are in linear gamma

 

b) whatever colorspace you assign to the RAW file while opening in photoshop, make sure it is also the working color space set within photoshop preferences and to not convert it afterwards until you have finished the work within the ColorNeg plugin.

 

Best wishes,

Christian

 

PS: for some reason, the editor does not recognize my carrier returns...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 268
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>Thank you Christian. This is really useful but just a further question if you don't mind:<br>

When I scan via Silverfast in 48bit HDR I do not see that I have an option to change the gamma. By default on the Mac it sets it as a 2.2. When I then open in Photoshop the first thing I do is to assign a working profile (Adobe 68 RGB) and only then use the Colorperfect plugin. At that point I can make all manner of changes including the Gamma but you seem to suggest that I should change that to 1.0 BEFORE scanning and therefore within the Silverscan environment. Question: How do I do this?<br>

Sorry if I sound clumsy with this but having mainly used Vuescan I'm not yet very competent with Silverfast.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are welcome, Vincent.

 

I am using Vuescan, too. It has its pitfalls, but once you know them it is pretty reliable.

 

I had a similar issue with Silverfast when I tried to evaluate whether to use Silverfast or Vuescan to obtain RAW scans. I wrote to technical support and got a good explanation how Silverfast works. But I have to admit, the answer is stored at home in my private mailbox.

 

As far as I remember, when using the HDR 48bit output, the gamma setting is of no importance. It will change the appearance of the preview window, but not the actual file output. It would alter the output if you choose an 48bit output WITHOUT the HDR mode. I may mix up thing now with Vuescan, but I think it has something to do with whether you want to have all the image manipulation functions of Silverfasts scanning software included (you would use normal 48bit mode, only usable in the professional version, not SE version) or if you want to have just the pure sensor signal (48-bit HDR mode). ColorNeg, in this case, relies on the HDR 48bit file which is by nature of the sensor data, in linear gamma. You have to assign the working color space of your image editor while opening just because ColorNeg has to make sure that there are no color space conversions in the background by the image editor to shift between working color space and image color space. The plugin is very sensitive to color space mistakes.

 

Christian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I just want to add my experience on viewing images scanned with this scanner. Either the file size or scanning at or above 5300 dpi confuses the default Windows and OSX photo viewers sometimes. I have had people tell me the same image that looks great on my computer looks out of focus or fuzzy on their computer. In all cases they were using the default viewer. I don't think this happens 100% of the time but it does happen some of the time. I asked the people that were reporting fuzzy images to open the same image in either Lightroom, PS or use the Picasa viewer. Using these programs made the image look as it should. All I'm saying here is that if you look at some of the full resolution images and they do not look good to you, don't panic. Try using one of the viewers I mentioned.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Toni: As far as scan times are concerned for a 6X9 Velvia 50 in 48bit HDR with ME enabled takes 6 minutes 10 seconds producing a 313MB file.<br /> I think this is more or less on par with the Epson V700 although I never timed the Epson. The results however are certainly worth the time. <br /> Here, using a Velvia 50 taken on a dark rainy day on a wide aperture (hence the oof foreground). Both scanned at 2600, the epson scan (top) which is sharpened for print whereas from the OF 120 only sharpened by Nik PRE sharpener. The main difference for me is the benefit of a well working ME which reveals much more details from the shadow areas. The colours from the OF 120 scan were not altered in any way.<br>

On reviewing the images posted: They are really too small to reveal the differences I was trying to illustrate. Sorry but they are certainly there and visible on print as well.</p><div>00bFkV-514667584.thumb.jpg.fd61260c7940e6308374f1a54db6fdc5.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Mark: the soft image in certain photo viewers may be due to their downsizing algorithms. Since 5300dpi scans are huge, they have to be downscaled considerably to fit on screen. Adobe apps usually use good on-the-fly resizing for viewing; some other photo viewers may not. </p>

<p>Same principle as sharpening after downsizing an image.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Thanks Vincent. Even though the scale is too small to make a decent judgement, the Optic 120 sees better into the shadow (DR)....so that's encouragable. Could you give an educated guess/estimate how large of a print would be possible (from 35mm or 120)....using your results...say 300MB ?<br>

If 6min is the "target" (I know it changes) then I'm looking at 428 days of scanning.....7hrs/day. Yah, total excitement here :>). What I'm really saying is OMG what have I got myself into ? I think I'll place myself into nearest state hosp....and save them the friggen trouble, eh ? <br>

Les</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I would appreciate a <strong>cropped, 100% detail view</strong> of a small area of a 135 negative scanned at <strong>full (5300dpi)</strong> resolution, preferably compared to the same area scanned with the V700/V750 at 3200dpi. Over at the German forum APHOG, <a href="http://www.aphog.de/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=23215&start=64">one such example has recently been uploaded.</a> It looks entirely disappointing, to say the least - in fact, <a href="http://www.aphog.de/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=23215&start=35">barely any improvement over the V750</a>.</p>

<p>I really look forward to buying this scanner, but at this price level I need more reassurance that this is not just another instance of the "X dpi in the specs, X/2 dpi in practice" game scanner producers have been playing for so long now. I'm sure a lot of prospective Opticfilm 120 buyers are feeling the same right now, so please... keep the examples coming. Thanks!</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Hi Leszek: Sorry I don't know but I would guess certainly to A2 size, which is as big as my printer will allow.<br /> As to time: Of course not every photograph has deep shadows and therefore it need not always be necessary to use multiple exposure. By disabling ME you are halving the scanning time. <br /> Making good scans takes time. That is fact. For you, with so many negatives, you would need to think of batch scanning. The OF120 film holders can only scan 2 6X9cm at the same time whereas a flatbed 4 or in smaller format many more so that might be an advantage. At any rate I do not envy you your task. Good luck!<br /> Guido: The maximum resolution of the V750 is about 2400. For me that has mostly been sufficient. At that resolution I do see substantial improvements in resolution, colour, dust and workflow As I mentioned in an earlier post, I'm not much of a reviewer so in your case would suggest that you wait for tests by people who are expert in these things.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Okay, so now that the units are getting out there...</p>

<p>What we all <em>really</em> need to know, from those who've used other scanners:</p>

<ol>

<li>Are they better than the Epsons?</li>

<li><strong>How</strong> much better are they, if so? Is it worth the cost to upgrade to the Plustek over an Epson, particularly the top-of-the line V750?</li>

<li>How do they compare to the Coolscan 9000? Better, worse, the equal of?</li>

</ol>

<p>As someone else mentioned above, full-size crops would be very helpful. And even better would be full-size crops side-by-side with those done on an Epson scanner with the same frame, particularly with the BetterScanning holders (with the ANR glass, if possible).</p>

<p>Looking forward to it!</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Hi Bernard, I can give you my personal opinion so far:<br>

1. Are they better than the Epsons? : For 120 film I doubt it unless you were printing really large and wanted the extra resolution. For 35mm the Epson just doesn't cut the mustard for me and so, for a dual format scanner this does pretty well. If you have a lot of negatives then the Epson is much quicker because the holders take twice the amount of film. Also I haven't got to grips with the Plustek batch scanning. On first trial I had frame misalignment problems but they may be due to my inexperience.<br>

2. How much better? My main gripes with the Epson are with the film holders and dust. The holders from Betterscanning work well but you are introducing yet another glass surface to keep clean. Dust/smudges means much more post processing and this, for me, is a huge benefit of the Plustek. The Epson can be used with Vuescan which I personally prefer to Silverfast which is the reason for the additional price on the Epson V750 which otherwise has the same spec as the V700.<br>

3. I have no experience with the Nikon.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>As a side note, the Epson V750 has more than Silverfast when compared to the V700: It has (supposedly) better coating on the glass surfaces, and the price includes a wet-scanning solution (Which you have to request separately, which, I suppose, most people who bought the scanner don't - and wet scanning is quite a bother anyway.)<br>

Maximum sharpness at some specific spot on the frame is one thing, and getting consistently sharp scans across the whole frame is something else. One thing I've liked about the few largish medium format scans on the Plustek that I've seen is, that the grain appears pretty consistent across the whole frame. Especially for "floppy" medium like Fuji slide films, this is quite the achievement (and something I would like to repeat myself before getting too enthusiastic ;)</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>How can anyone still be considering V750 or V700, these are built in some china basement, with dust under glass and bad plastic (that outgasses). They should not even be called photo for same reason. If EPSON made them like it should have been done it's over. I have waited for a year for EPSON to wake up and start making it in quality controlled manner.<br>

If you live in some country where a 800 Euros is lunch money, I do not.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Oh and before somebody suggests to clean V750 myself:<br>

The outgassing is also present on all optical surfaces like mirrors etc. inside the scanner on the optical path between image and CCD not just the glass surface that you can see it so easily. Because of this and the fact that mirror head assembly cannot be taken apart there is no point in cleaning, you have to replace the whole assembly with good one, built from right type of plastic that does not outgass.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • 2 weeks later...

<p>Just picked up mine today in Oslo, Norway.</p>

<p>A bit disappointed because it isn't true that you need a DVD drive on your computer OR an internet connection like their flyer said. You cannot activate Silverfast without the disc, so since new Macs don't have DVD drives I guess I will have to buy one just for this registration.</p>

<p>Annoying because it is $100 extra but mostly because I don't get to use this new toy today.</p>

<p>Also there is no Mac driver on the Plustek site nor through software update and I assume you need one since there is a DVD bundled for that as well.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p >Thanks, that worked fine! So far I haven't been able to scan a single negative tho. Is there a manual anywhere explaining how you choose which part of the film strip to scan?</p>

<p > </p>

<p >In the WorkflowPilot I choose Negative and it only prescans the left half of the 120 mm film strip. Scan mode is greyed out until this is done. When completed I have the incomplete film strip and the red selection frame cannot be moved or resized. Now I can choose scan mode Transparent 6x6, but I only get a preview image of the full first negative and there is no way to choose other frames of the film strip.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Tried a dozen times now. If I choose prescan outside of the Pilot the negative holder just goes all the way through and nothing is scanned. It prescans to 99% but nothing comes of it.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >There has to be a proper manual somewhere? Because simply clicking start like the small bundled manual says doesn't let me choose what to scan.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Feel like an idiot here. Have been working with Photoshop and other digital stuff for 19 years (even older versions of Silverfast) but I cannot even get a simple preview going here. :(</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...