Plustek OpticFilm 120

[wolf_weber]

<p>Mark, please: "I should have more info after our weekly <a id="itxthook0" rel="nofollow" href="../digital-darkroom-forum/00ZpLQ?start=20">meeting</a> with the factory next Tuesday."..? <strong>Any updates..?</strong><br /> Bob, what U saw at B&H most likely was the Reflecta not the mystery Plustek 120.</p>

[peter_gilbert4]

<p>Mark, Yes, any updates? Zero coverage of Plustek at PMA/CES that I could find on the Web. Hope your folks didn't get lost in a Casino ;~)</p>

[mark_druziak]

<p>Ok here is what I can say. The scanner was not shown at CES because it wasn't going to be ready for sale within a 3 month period following the show. Originally we thought it was so that's why we included it in the CES press release and press kit. <br>

I found it very interesting that this press release caused A LOT of interest from potential customers worldwide. More so than any other press release during my tenure at Plustek.<br>

So how can you find out when the scanner will be available? Here comes the sales pitch...<br>

Follow Plustek:<br>

On Twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/PlustekScanners<br>

On Google+ https://plus.google.com/118125961533170260225/posts<br>

On Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Plustek-Technology/169691449783876<br>

Or set up a Google News alert for Plustek<br>

I'm sure that I will start posting some hints when we are getting close to product availability.<br>

I know there is a lot of disappointment around this news (hey I shoot MF and was disappointed!). But here is the deal... we want to make sure that this scanner is a killer, high quality product that does not disappoint our customers.</p>

[wolf_weber]

<p>Oh well... Hate to repeat myself: "Been there, heard that. But didn't get to see or put my hands on it."<br>

Sounds much like the Canon EF 200-400mm f/4 lens. <strong><em>Trumpets</em></strong><em>,</em><strong><em> trumpets</em></strong>. That was a year ago.</p>

[gregory_logiodice1]

<p>Thanks for the updates, Mark, and I appreciate any further you can provide as more information becomes available. I am very interested in seeing what Plustek comes forward with to support current and legacy medium format film users. </p>

[mark_druziak]

<p>I'll make sure that I "sound the trumpets" when the end is near!</p>

[DWScott]

<p>Thanks Mark, I also appreciate you providing this information.</p>

<p>I've written to two companies in the past year, asking for a desktop medium format scanner.<br>

Kodak (as part of the Figital Revolution campaign) -- they wrote back saying no way<br>

Plustek -- now they are close to releasing a scanner!</p>

<p>50% success rate. If only everything in life was this easy. :-)</p>

[riconamix]

<p>Hi everybody<br>

I'm Ricco from French Rivièra<br>

I register an account here to contribute to this post<br>

I shoot MF with a Pentax 67 and I have a ton of slide from my Family<br>

I'm really interested to buy a good scanner since I missed the opportunity to purchase a Nikon Coolscan 9000<br>

and now the price is... ASTRONOMICAL</p>

<p>After send many eMail to plustek I receive answer one week ago<br>

It's <strong>Martin Lin</strong> from Plustek who answered me<br>

He told that the scanner go out for <strong>april month !</strong><br>

I really hope they have a good Dmax close to 4 (or more...) and resolution close to 4000dpi...</p>

[mark_druziak]

<p>So here is a loaded question: Just what would you pay for a new scanner with similar specifications to the Nikon 9000? </p>

<p>FYI the Nikon 9000 ED was selling for about $1900 or more in 2009-2010. </p>

[michael_schomer]

$2000 would probably be my upper limit. I would hope it would come with SilverFast Ai as well.

[charles_ma]

<p>i would be quite happy if i could get something similar to Coolscan 9000 for $2000. i hope that the glass holder could be more reasonably priced, though. by the way, a glass holder is really a requirement, not an option for a medium format scanner.</p>

[riconamix]

<p>My budget is between 1500€/2000€<br>

I would be so happy if he has similar specifications !</p>

[paul_bohman]

<p>Will the new scanner support 6x12 and 6x17 negatives? From what I understand, the Nikon 9000 does not, which is one reason I have the Epson V750, with which I have been getting very good results, surpassing my own expectations and the predictions of all of the "experts" I consulted. See http://www.paulbohman.com/blog/2011/12/the-resolution-of-6x7mm-film-revisited/</p>

<p>If the new Plustek scanner handles 35mm film and 120/220 film at least as well as the Nikon 9000, in terms of Dmax and resolution, and if it can scan large 6x12 and 6x17 negatives, I'll almost certainly buy it.</p>

<p>How much would I pay for it? My hope would be that it could come in between $1500 and $2000. Any more than that, and it doesn't look so tempting anymore. I can buy a used Howtek 4500 drum scanner for about that price or maybe a little more.</p>

[mark_druziak]

<p>Paul, you make some very good points in your blog posting. Specs on the scanner will be available shortly.</p>

<p>Everyone: Thanks for playing along with my "How much would you pay" game. Your suggestions and will be taken into consideration.</p>

[riconamix]

<p>Thanks Mark, Can't wait :)<br>

This will be a moment that we wait for long time !<br>

http://www.cebit.de/product/opticfilm-120/288575/S157465#productDescription</p>

[mark_druziak]

<p>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 MEASURED DMax of 4.8.</li>

</ul>

[paul_bohman]

<p>That sounds very promising, Mark. A few questions:</p>

<ul>

<li>What kind of mechanism does the system have in place to keep the negatives flat?</li>

<li>Would it be possible to scan 6x17 negatives in two parts and then stitch them later?</li>

<li>What scanning software is being used?</li>

<li>If it's your own software, does it have accurate color profiles for current films like Portra 160, Portra 400 and Portra 800? Silverfast only has profiles for older films, and creating a new profile is a very time-consuming and technical process. </li>

<li>Do you want a beta tester or reviewer? Sign me up! Seriously. I'm your target market. I can do my own direct comparisons to my Epson V750, and I can outsource drum scanning and Imacon scanning for further comparisons.</li>

</ul>

<p> </p>

[michael_schomer]

<p>+1 on being a beta tester. Chances are probably slim, but it can't hurt to ask, right?</p>

<p>How many 6x6 negatives will fit in the negative holder? I'm guessing 3, but I've got a few unscanned and uncut rolls of 120 building up and I want to make sure I'm cutting them to fit this new scanner.</p>

<p>I personally like Silverfast, but I agree their negative profiles are getting out of date. They don't seem like a very nimble software organization. Given what their software costs, I expect more from them.</p>

<p>It would be nice to have VueScan support right away as well.</p>

[mark_druziak]

<p>Just to be clear on this, I haven't had my hands on this scanner yet but from my conversations with the project manager and our CTO here is what I know:</p>

<ul>

<li>The negative holders are a completely new design. I was specifically told that there was a lot of effort designing them so the film was held flat.</li>

<li>I have some conflicting info on the number of frames that can fit into a film holder. Give me a couple days to work this out.</li>

<li>SilverFast 8 is the software we will launch with. I'm not sure what their plans are for Porta films, but I will ask.</li>

<li>VueScan - understood</li>

<li>Beta testers - maybe. I have a local lab and a writer signed up now, but in case anything falls thru, send me an email with your contact info and a short bio: markdruziak at plustek.com </li>

</ul>

[mark_druziak]

<p>Paul, regarding SilverFast profiles, check out their website for the latest list which includes Porta: <a href="http://www.silverfast.com/highlights/negafix/en.html">http://www.silverfast.com/highlights/negafix/en.html</a> Click on List of Available NegaFix Profiles.</p>

[paul_bohman]

<p>Unfortunately, those negafix profiles are old, for previous versions of Portra, and I've found them very inaccurate even for the versions of Portra that they're supposed to support. They're worse than using no color profile at all, at least in my experience.</p>

[paul_bohman]

<p>Or maybe it's that those profiles were optimized for a different scanner. I have an Epson V750 Pro, which I've calibrated with Silverfast's IT8 calibration tool. Even with the calibration, the Silverfast color profiles are useless with all the negatives I've scanned. I spent a very long time creating a custom negafix profile that gets it close, but I still have to add additional global color adjustments in Silverfast. Using those two tools, my scans turn out well, but it would be a lot nicer if I could just select an official, calibrated negafix profile for the kind of negatives I use on a regular basis.</p>

<p>Actually, one more thing I'll mention is that either the scanner or the software produces slightly inconsistent results, even with very consistent lighting. When I'm shooting in the studio, I might have 20 frames of exactly the same lighting setup, but the color balance between frames when I scan them is usually variable from one frame to another. I don't experience this kind of variability when I shoot with a digital camera, so I know it's not the fault of my studio lighting. Something's happening at the scanning stage that makes me have to make color adjustments that I shouldn't have to make. I don't know why it happens, but it's a real pain.</p>

[jens_g.r._benthien]

<blockquote>

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

</blockquote>

<p>Great joke! Even the Imacon has some problems to reach a Dmax of 4.8.</p>

<p>5.000 dpi - is it a printer? (because scans are measured in ppi or even spi).</p>

[mark_druziak]

<p>We will have to see what the Dmax is when the production scanners are available. I'm just reporting on what they were finding in the lab last week. The point is, this isn't a design spec.</p>

<p>No worries, no ink required!</p>

[samagnew]

<p>Paul,</p>

<p>I have spent quite a large amount of time on this question of inverting negatives. The short answer is that you can't get consistency because all the software vendors are trying to give you an automatic solution.</p>

<p>To get a consistent conversion you need to know the inherent balance between the three colour levels in the film (traditionally you could get this by calibrating the scanner to an unexposed portion of the film). This then also gives you a true "black" (negative film is inverted). For a true white you can come close by sampling a fully exposed "end" piece of the film. Whilst it is possible that this represents a true white there is a possibility that one or more channels may suffer "solarization" and that this may be slightly off. In my experience with modern films this isn't something you really need to worry about, you can pretty much take this as "white". Lastly, you need a grey scale image (you can photograph a target with daylight balanced light source) to figure out the curves. You can then have the "black point", "white point" and "response curves" as layers and apply them to all your frames. You should have consistency from this workflow under one condition. The condition is that the scanner settings do not change from frame to frame. Since the scanner will always do its own adjustments if "negative" mode is used you must manually scan in "positive" mode. Not only that but you must fix the exposure since most scanning software will do an "autoexposure" for each frame. Lastly, your chosen manual exposure must be sufficient to correctly scan all the frames without any clipping of highlights or shadows on any of the frames. This is a little harder on a device with a narrower DMax range.</p>

<p>What negafix is doing, just like Epson Scan, like Nikon Scan, like Vuescan, like ColorPerfect, like everyone is that they are taking an image that generally has no unexposed or fully exposed section of film showing. This means there is no hard reference since no film border or fully exposed film is in the frame. Even if some film border is included in the image the software is generally set to ignore the edges of the image so as not to be confused by the image of the film holder itself. Clever software is then guessing at the endpoints of each primary colour based on the idea that the brightest highlights and darkest shadows are generally neutral. It is then applying canned curves for whatever film brand you told it. Since the endpoints are based on guesses based on what is actually in the image area of each frame the results change from frame to frame.</p>

<p>I understand the motivation of the various vendors in trying to simplify things for us but I would dearly love someone to automate all of this at the scanning stage so that we all could get truly consistent colour from our negatives.</p>

<p>By the way, I love your results. I would also love this scanner to be as good as or better than my 9000. And I would REALLY love a solution that would automate what I described above but, sadly, it would probably be a hard sell since the results of the "automatic" products seem to satisfy most people.</p>