Plustek OpticFilm 120

<p>Thanks but unfortunately that only somewhat helps. I was able to select the second frame once but Silverfast crashed instead of performing the scan (it crashes a LOT) and I was never able to select that frame again. THat is to say, I select it, but the first frame is prescanned instead.</p>

<p>I finally scanned that frame just to see the result and it was nothing like the prescan. It comes out a negative and upon inverting it you find that the originally dark image is extremely overexposed and washed out white. It is also as soft as a flatbed scan.</p>

<p>I need to know if there is any hope of getting this to work or if I need to take it back. Here in Norway it is doubtful that I will even get my money back but they had one left in stock today and I may be able to get that one instead.</p>

<p>That is to say if this isn't all some incompability with OSX 10.8.3</p>

<p>I suggest you go to Silverfast.com and log a call. They can log into your computer via Teamviewer and see what is going on. The problem you mention about prescanning the first frame was supposedly corrected in SilverFast 8 R22. If you get into this situation, the only way out of it that I know of is to Select the Service Dialog from the opening splash screen and then select Software Reset. But as I mentioned, I is important to report your problem to SilverFast.</p>

OK, I will report it. Thanks!

 

 

After resetting Silverfast crashed the first time I tried performing a scan, but I have now been able to scan a few negs

without any troubles. Also the Pilot stays off now when I restart Silverfast. No need to ever have it on as it doesn't seem to

work very well with 120 film. There is hope.

 

 

Still going to report the stability issues but I guess I'll be keeping the scanner of it continues to work over the next few

days. Sorry guys for turning this into a Silverfast support thread. I was on the verge of a breakdown. :)

<p>Storm, the next release of SilverFast will have a fix for the Workflow Pilot and from what I understand an alternative method to using the Overview dialog.</p>

<p>Regarding support.... it's best to contact Plustek and SilverFast directly thru our websites. I don't always monitor these threads. Also please feel free to contact me directly via my Plustek email address, but please also log a call via the websites.</p>

<p>I am very happy with my Plustek OpticFilm 120 bought from the Finnish distributor. The scanner is extremely fast, scanning a 6x7 frame at 5300dpi without iSRD takes about 3 minutes. However I am disappointed with the software Silverfast 8 because when the scanning is finished Silverfast goes into processing stage and uses up all the computers processor and memory resorces and still this crunching 'Processing' takes 35 minutes. This is ten times the amount of time for the scanner to do its job and clearly unacceptable. One german review stated this scanner is slow but in my opinion the scanner is very fast but Silverfast 8 is very slow and inefficient. And all this without using the Silverfast functions iSRD, SRD, ME, GANE and USM. If Silverfast can not sort out how to get the software to process the images faster my only hope is that there will be VueScan support for OF120. The results from Silverfast 8 are quite good, but I do not have time to wait for software that processes the image forever.</p>

<p>The scanner has been more or less available for a while now...<br>

However the price of used Coolscan 9000 units has not so far plummeted. What gives? Nikon die-hards still are not convinced that Opticfilm 120 delivers? <br>

I'm not looking to buy an used Coolscan 9000 for cheap, I'm just using it as a kind of indicator of the general consensus about Opticfilm 120 - after all, why pay 3000+ Euro for an used 9 year old model when you can get a new this year's model for ~1900 euro?</p>

 

<p>Hi Martin N<br>

For the quality of the scans I'm not finding the Opticfilm 120 particularly slow although I must admit that generally I would scan my 6X6 and 6X9 at 2650. But even at 5300 I have almost no processing delays (maybe 10 seconds max) so am wondering whether your computer is doing something else or has insufficient resources.<br>

My work process involves the scanning and while it is doing this I process with PS and import the finished image in Aperture. Despite the three programs being open and crunching away at the same time as the scanner I'm not hitting any hardware speed restrictions (imac i7, 12 GB ram). The only process which takes time is using the "smart sharpen" filter in PS which can take substantially longer (perhaps 30 seconds). Interestingly I do not have this slowness when using unsharp mask.<br>

The only real issue I still have is the alignment of the holders with 6X6 film. Mark Druziak suggests that this is due to camera misalignment but I have the same issue with the Hasselblad and Rolleiflex both aligning perfectly. I'm wondering where I can get a replacement as my dealer does not stock individual holders.<br>

As far as Silverfast is concerned, again I have no problems. I think they have improved the software from previous iterations and for me at least works consistently well.<br>

Al;l the best,</p>

<p>Vincent</p>

<p>>> Vincent van Walt<br>

Hello<br>

I can believe this is a Windows PC problem. I compared my present machine with AMD AthlonII, 4GB RAM and Windows 7 to a laptop with i3, 4GB RAM and Windows 8 and there was no significant improvement in processing speed. The german review probably used a Windows PC with i7 and 8GB RAM and they measured the processing speed almost exactly as my results on a much older PC. It could be Silverfast is somehow not optimized for Windows. Maybe I have to buy a MacMini.</p>

No, I have a Mac Mini and it doesn't fully meet the actual system requirements of Silverfast. For instance, the required memory is listed

as 3GB, I think it was, and SilverFast simply won't run with that. Constant crashes. I have expanded the memory to 8GB, which is the

Mini's maximum amount. That is to say, on two of Apple's pages I visited, the maximum amount of RAM for my model is listed differently,

as either 8GB or 16GB. But in any case they don't sell bigger memory modules than a pair of 4GB.

 

So 8GB I have which is juuuust enough. I scan medium format at the default resolution of 2650dpi and leave all of the tools off except for

double exposure. That is as good as it gets.

 

Will be interesting to see what a future VueScan version will be like when it arrives. SilverFast is simply too primitive and outdated.

<p>Almost any image processing you do in SilverFast will add some time. One of the things that I think takes a lot of time is rotation of the image. I believe Lasersoft Imaging is working on some efficiency improvements for the next release.</p>

<p>Vincent, refresh my memory about the alignment issues again? If I remember, you can't align the movable frames on the holder with the frames on the film? Can you send some photos of your issue to markdruziak >at< plustek dot com? I apologize if you have done this already. I don't have access to my work email right now. Also, what country are you in? I can try to get you some film holders. We will eventually sell them separately.</p>

 

<p>Regarding Silverfast slow post-processing times....</p>

<p>Back in 2007, when I was using an Epson V700, I noticed that Silverfast's dust-removal processing ("iSRD") took several times longer than the ICE post-processing of the Epson Scan software. I was scanning 6x7 films at 3200 DPI so of course they were huge files but it always bothered me how Silverfast had speed issues which Epson Scan didn't. If it wasn't for the NegaFix functionality in Silverfast, I wouldn't have used it at all for this reason alone.<br>

I wonder if Silverfast still has the same problem today....</p>

 

<p>And about memory... I wouldn't expect Silverfast to crash because you have too little RAM - your operating system would use swap to substitute for RAM in this case, which would be very very slow, but it shouldn't cause a crash. Unless there's something really odd with the software.. in the software business, anything IS possible.</p>

<p>>> Nikkanen<br>

My machine has 4GB of memory and Silverfast crashes EVERY time i try to do ME(multiple exposure) at 5300dpi. It can't substitute virtual memory and I have had discussions with Silverfast about this and they say they won't or can't fix it.</p>

<p>>> Halvorsen<br>

What is your processing time with mac mini at 5300dpi ? Have you timed it ?</p>

<p>Martin</p>

Yes, expanding my memory solved my constant crashes. This was following that advice from SilverFast support. But too

bad that they list a system requirement that just isn't true. I had enough memory for all other uses so it was an extra

expense. But oh well. I'm sure if I scanned at full res and applied dust removal and other things then I would need more

memory still. But there are no more memory slots and I'm not buying a new Mac just yet. Also the screens on the iMacs,

which are the next step up in power, are not as good as the one I have now with my Mini.

 

 

No, I haven't timed it. I only scanned a few photos at 5300dpi because the Mac Mini is struggeling with files that big. For

instance, when you zoom and then drag the image sideways in Lightroom to look at details, there is a delay of meny

seconds each time before anything happens. Those files are huge and I think the grain looks sharper at the lower

resolution anyway. I would be surprised if the actual optical resolution isn't in fact a bit lower than 5300dpi. But I don't

know, it just doesn't look quite right to me.

<p>Using a Mac Mini for demanding graphics processing is simply pushing it... back in the day this kind of work had to be done on special expensive workstation-class systems, and while technology has progressed and prices have come down, we're still not at the point where you could really do this kind of work on what's basically a laptop-level computer (that's what the Mac Mini basically is, a Macbook without display and battery.)</p>

 

Yes I know. I used to have the biggest Power Mac but that one is of course outdated and gone years ago. The Mac Mini

is perfect for my simple use now that I don't render 3D or edit video anymore. Also it is nice and quiet since it is next to

my bed and I rarely turn it off. :)

<p>Thanks a lot for the info. I scan at 5300dpi becuse its the optical resolution and I don't want to scan again soon. In my opinion the scanner outresolves the film, so that 5300dpi would be very nice if only the films could resolve more and have smaller grain. The sharpness is quite gorgeous. However, I can't even dream about using ME or iSRD currently. I do like the Silverfast UI and file quality and would never consider Vuescan if it was not for the devastating in-memory operation lags in Silverfast.</p>

<p>I have now bought a Mac Mini (i5) with 8GB of RAM. After testing this setup it seems that Silverfast 8 performs much better on this setup. When testing frames 6x7 at 5300dpi without iSRD or ME, I can now time them as 3 minutes scanning and about 3 minutes processing in Silverfast. Thats very nice and fully acceptable to me. I have also had to leave my Lightroom workflow. I save files on a NAS drive and Lightroom struggles with the previews at 5300dpi on every image inspected. By the way I save JPEGs for getting acceptable read speeds. I discovered that CaptureOne 7 handles these networked files MUCH better than Lightroom and I can now use 5300dpi 6x7 without struggle in CaptureOne 7. So now I can recommend CaptureOne and Mac Mini with 8GB.</p>

<p>I just got the SF USAF1951 test slide and I can report a measured optical resolution of 4400-4600dpi when scanning at 5300dpi. This limit drops with scanned resolution of 4000-4800dpi but these resolutions are still usable in a pinch. I am very happy that my sample of OF120 performs up to specification and is not a misaligned machine. I was lucky.</p>