Jump to content

Plustek OpticFilm 120


Recommended Posts

<p>I just came across a press release stating that Plustek plans to unveil a new 120 (MF, and 35mm) film (and slide) scanner next week at the CES show in Las Vegas. No specs other than "professional grade". Looking forward to learning more about this!<br>

http://www.geardiary.com/2012/01/04/plustek-to-unveil-new-line-of-scanners-at-ces/<br>

Peter</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 268
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>Nothing wrong with a new and (hopefully) better mousetrap... From the (albeit somewhat sleeker) looks of the box one might deduct a connection to the PrimeFilm 120. The 2 buttons top right being the <em>give-away</em>. Everything of course depends now on what's inside, on the specs. Most likely will come with the latest version of SilverFast. Not a bad thing at all.<br>

As to Dmax, Harry, I would like to throw my 2 cts. into the ring... Before my current Nikon 9000, I had a 4000, then a 5000... Before those I worked with a Polaroid 4000 which, on paper, was inferior to the Nikons and various others. Just these days I re-scanned a neg with the 9000, a 30 min' job with all the bells & whistles. Well, wouldn't you know..?<br>

With the Polaroid (Microtek) it used to take less than 10... The <em>rest</em> meant about an hour's tweaking in the Shop. End results are very hard to distinguish from each other. Certainly, while the 9000 goes through its motion, I can do something else. While post-processing of scans from older models meant (means) time and, not to forget, <em>know-how</em>. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Peter, unfortunately I can't. We haven't formally announced the product and until we do and specs are subject to change. So I don't want to set any expectations that may not be met with the final product.<br>

I will say that we received a lot of suggestions from potential customers and many of these suggestions were incorporated in the final product. So we are listening!</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>It's reasonable to assume that the Plustek will be marketed to compete with the PrimeFilm 120, which has gotten mixed reviews. I'd be surprised if the Plustek was priced much lower or higher than the PrimeFilm at around $1750.<br>

Here's the problem with these scanners: at this price point, they'd have to show a clear difference from the Epsons. I currently have an Epson V500 and a Nikon 8000. I scan both using betterscanning glass, so I think I'm getting the max out of both. The bottom line is, at sizes about 16x16, the differences can be difficult to see. There is a small difference at these sizes, but in prints it is not proportional to the price difference of $200 vs $1500. At least the Nikons have a professional build quality.<br>

So if neither of these units can equal the Nikons but is priced so much higher than an Epson, is it really worth it? The Epsons are fast, and easy to batch-scan.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I would love to have a good 120 scanner. Nikon stopped making the 9000 just before I could buy one, and after that, I didn't want to be an antiquated product (I have plenty of those scanners). With good DMax and software, it ought to be a hit. Now about 4x5?</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I recently dumped my Nikon 9000ED because this "professional build quality" kept breaking after few hundred scans and it cost me over $500 to fix it. The scanners don't make sense anymore. I have been take photos of the negatives and slides with macro lens using digital camera. Quality is very close to 9000ED. Grain is clearly visible. For 120 format I took 6 photos of the negative and stitched them into one image, giving me 475 mb tiff. When I print these images - I can't distinguish quality with the quality of scans. I do use glass carrier to do this. </p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Been there, seen that... Make an announcement to confuse potential buyers of a competitor's product. It took me a good 6 months waiting for the much touted Canon EF 200-400mm Zoom lens before I finally bought something else. Not to say that this scanner will never happen. <em>Drumit up, drumit up..!</em> True, they <em>"haven't formally announced the product"</em>, but an image of it has somehow (..?) found its way into the media.<br /> Now to Mark Druziak (who must feel pretty embarassed at this point); ...<em>"Anything with a Plustek brand on it is designed and manufactured by Plustek."</em>... That may be so. Doesn't change the fact that the 2 buttons are located at the same place top right of the proposed new model, just like on the box of the Pacific PrimeFilm 120 and/or the Reflecta MF5000, going by the images of all three... Photographers have <strong><em>the eye</em></strong>.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>@WolfWeber I understand your frustration. I should have more info after our weekly meeting with the factory next Tuesday. <br>

There is no reason to attempt to confuse competitors. The market for this type of scanner is pretty small and trust me, confusion is not part of our sales strategy.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I don't know if I would go for one if it became available. Here is why: After having gone down the hybrid route and not getting that little final "punch" from the scanned negs, I recently set up a wet darkroom again. It cost me US$75 for everything except the sink (no joke! sink was not included:) which I need for doing 6x6 and 35mm work. Without putting traditional printing before hybrid processing or extolling the virtues of either method, let me just mention one aspect - time - there is no big difference if you use one or the other. Like Wolf mentions above, one scan which you want to be spot-on will take roughly the same time as a traditional print, all accounted for (except perhaps washing and drying) with analysis, tests, dodges and burns etc.</p>

<p>Had there been an affordable, good, scanner available say in 2010, I would probably have bought it. But after I found my way back in to the darkroom, I really don't know. Besides, I'm having more fun that sitting in front of a computer monitor - which I do all day at work at any rate. But that is me. Mileage may vary.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><em>one scan which you want to be spot-on will take roughly the same time as a traditional print, all accounted for (except perhaps washing and drying) with analysis, tests, dodges and burns etc.</em></p>

<p>One perfect scan can be printed as many times as you'd want, that's the difference that bought me.<em><br /></em></p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Predrag, I do use my flatbed, but I scan (or copy - as many as I want in no time) the print instead of the negative. Print scanners (flatbeds) are 14 a dozen. And cheap. Negative scanners are not. And I prefer that workflow to scanning the negs because if I do need to make a million copies, I just feed the print I like in to the machine at hand and press one button.</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...