Plustek OpticFilm 120

[mark_druziak]

<p>Wolf,<br>

I may be a few yards behind or ahead of the curve depending on which side of the curve you are on. haha</p>

<p>So here is the scoop on the OpticFilm 8XXX scanners. The hardware as the 7XXX series. The only difference is they come with SilverFast 8.</p>

<p>Where did you hear that it was "much improved"? I'm trying to make sure that we portray it exactly what it is.</p>

[rishij]

<p>FWIW, Wolf, here's my NikonScan vs. Vuescan comparison... similar, except I get artifacts w/ NikonScan (but it does do an effective job using the IR scan to get rid of pepper grain):<br>

<img src="http://rishisanyalphotography.com/ForumPostFiles/photo.net/PepperGrain/NikonScan_vs_VueScan.jpg" alt="" width="800" /><br>

<a href="http://rishisanyalphotography.com/ForumPostFiles/photo.net/PepperGrain/NikonScan_vs_VueScan.jpg">Link to full-resolution image</a></p>

<p>I don't mind the lowered contrast with the LS-9000 so much b/c the softer light source has other advantages. Some contrast deficiencies can be fixed by proper profiling & sharpening anyway.</p>

<p>From what you say of the promises of the Plustek, I sure am eagerly awaiting its release!<br>

-Rishi</p>

[wolf_weber]

<p>Welcome back <em><strong>"our man</strong></em>", from whichever <em>curve</em>..! As to Ur question, I don't remember... Too many links & pages by now on Google. No desire to go back to them. Even on the Bay the 8200i AI is being offered, no stock as of yet.<br>

2 relevant questions for U - Do U know (or when will U know) the manufacturer of the touted lens for the 120mm scanner..? Can we expect for the +10K dpi to be halved in the real world, as is the case with most Plustek scanners..? Not that +5000 wouldn't be <em>sufficient</em> if all else <strong><em>falls into plac</em><em>e</em></strong>.</p>

[riconamix]

<p>Can't wait</p>

[wolf_weber]

<p><strong>Rishi</strong>, I much commend U for the comparative work with various scanners. I am too busy and distracted to go through anything similar. Also, The <em>pep grain</em> on Ur originals doesn't seem to be as bad as on some of mine. I am one of those who remember Q-labs... Now I am one who hates to look back. Dg is my way to go.<br>

..."The resolution on the Imacon 848 is so vastly superior to that exhibited by the Nikon LS-9000, that I don't see how I could ever go back to the Nikon line of scanners."... Wait til U get to work on an X5.</p>

[riconamix]

<p>as wolf says too many link on Google, even on Plustek website, even in French :<br>

http://plustek.com/fr/produit/opticfilm-series/opticfilm-8200i-ai/introduction.html<br /></p>

[jens_g.r._benthien]

<p>The specs are far from anything professional:<br>

Technology <br /> CCD - color image sensors <br /> Resolution (Optical) <br /> 7200 x 7200 dpi <br /> Scannmodi Color: 48-bit input, 24/48-bit output <br /> Grayscale: 16-bit input, 8/16-bit output <br /> Monochrome: 1 bit <br /> Multi-Exposure <br /> integrated <br /> Dynamic Density <br /> 3.6 Maximum scan area <br /> 36.8 mm x 25.4 mm <br /> Preview Scan speed: <br /> Negative: 8.01 seconds <br /> Positive: 7.57 seconds <br /> Scan speed <br /> at 3600 dpi: 36 seconds <br /> at 7200 dpi: 113 seconds <br /> Scanning Method: Single Pass Infrared channel integrated Function keys <br /> IntelliScan, QuickScan <br /> Connection: USB 2.0 Power supply: Input voltage: 100V - 240V Output voltage: 15V, 1.0A <br /> Net weight: 1.6 kg Dimensions (W x D x H): 272mm x 120mm x 119mm Interface: TWAIN - compliant Operating system: Windows 2000, XP, Vista, 7, MAC OS X 10.5, 10.6, 10.7<br>

As with other simple scanners you'll be lucky if you will reach 3.000 ppi resolution</p>

<p>Dmax: 3.6, that means in real world conditions it'll be around 3.2</p>

<p>Keep your Nikon LS 9000 or Minolta or Polaroid film scanners!</p>

<p>BTW, Rishi's tests showed an excellent performance of the Nikon. I use the LS 9000 and LS 5000 for my professional work, even for large prints or banners or posters. If quality is crucial, I send my slides to a subcontractor and have them drum scanned. Can you imagine how many drum scans I can get for the value of an Imacon X5?</p>

<p>All in all, the new Plustek is another 'hot air' balloon. You can get an Epson V750 for less and have the same results, but with the option to scan large format slides and negatives or 6x17 strips.</p>

[mark_druziak]

<p>@jens - Please don't confuse the OpticFilm 8XXX with the OpticFilm 120. They are <strong>completely </strong>different designs. </p>

<p>The OpticFilm 8XXX is the same hardware as the OpticFilm 7XXX scanners except the 8XXX ships with SilverFast 8. That is the only difference. It is only a 35mm scanner</p>

<p>Availability of the 8XXX will vary by region.</p>

<p>@Wolf - We typically do not release info about the components used in our scanners. </p>

<p>Regarding the resolution... We all at Plustek US are very sensitive to the Optical (actual) vs Mechanical specs for this product. We are lobbying for actual specs to be published when the product is released. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the sensor we were going to market with was discontinued. We found a new device and testing was taking place last week. It's best for me to wait until I get the <strong>final </strong>word for R&D on resolution before commenting on resolution, because I will probably be wrong! (On the wrong side of the curve again!)</p>

<p> </p>

[jens_g.r._benthien]

<p>Mark, that was the link provided by rico...</p>

<p>Anyway, the most important points will be:<br>

1. Casing: will it be sturdy metal or cheap plastic?<br>

2. Film holders: pecision milled from aluminium or cheap plastic?<br>

3. <em><strong>Real world</strong></em> resolution: 4.000 ppi or less?<br>

4. Dmax 4.2 or less?</p>

<p>You are talking about a sensor now - will the sensor (probably a DSLR sensor) be capable of capturing the same dynamic range or tonal range as a Nikon LS 9000?</p>

<p>Why will Plustek limit itself to Silverfast? Many users here and anywhere else are running VueScan, because VueScan doesn't have the limitations of SF in regards of using it for more than one single scanner. If Plustek would talk to Ed Hamrick, I think he will code some very nice features into VueScan for the new scanner, meaning that users won't have to get accustomed to new and weird workflows and even can use the same software and interface for different scanners.</p>

<p>Try to give this scanner a damn good name, so potential buyers won't have problems to separate it from other models! Give it a name that will turn it into a legend **if** all other specs will be met.</p>

[mark_druziak]

<p>@jens - I really don't think I should talk about specs at this point until the testing and product verification is final. Things are subject to change. The info I posted last week is still the latest that I have. </p>

<p>I will say that the design team had a goal to produce a scanner at least as good if not better than the LS9000. </p>

<p>I hear you loud and clear about VueScan.</p>

[charles_ma]

<p>Apparently Rico's link is for a 35mm scanner, as the pic on the webpage is quite different from what OpticFilm could look.</p>

<p>Let's be a little more patient here. Plustek is working hard to listen to us and take the time to develop a scanner with great potential, and we film shooters should all be supportive of what they are doing there.</p>

<p>Mark, look forward to more news on this scanner!</p>

[mjferron]

<p>jens at this point your being rude. (you are aware Nikon is out of the scanner business?) Mark is being very honest and polite and you just want to bash everything. I have a plustek 7600i for 35mm and i can assure you it does a fine job. I'm sure the 120 scanner will do a fine job when ready.</p>

<p>Questions like "Casing: will it be sturdy metal or cheap plastic?" are a non issue. I use a small Motorola computer at work. Fits into a pouch that clips to your belt. It was originally designed for the military and we laugh when they fall and hit the concrete floor. They bounce and don't break. Guess what? These units are made of plastic. </p>

[mark_druziak]

<p>Hey guys, no offense take here. I realize that photographers are very passionate about their craft and don't want a piece of equipment to compromise their art. That's why I shoot with a Holga ;-)</p>

<p>Regarding the construction of the holders... I'm guessing they will be manufactured out of a highly stable polymer. (Don't forget, I am the marketing guy!) But seriously, I doubt they will be a machined piece of metal. The manufacturing costs would be much too high.</p>

[greg_mikol]

<p>@mark druziak:</p>

<p>Coming in a little late to this thread, but I wanted to thank you for being so direct and straightforward. It was covered briefly a while back, but I wanted to emphasize an important (to me, possibly to others) aspect of negative carriers.<br>

35mm: Holds 6 frames.<br>

120: Holds 3x 6x7 frames</p>

<p>These are common sizes for film strip filing pages, and it would be helpful to not have to take a strip out of the holder to flip it around to be able to scan all the frames (a la the stock Epson 120 holder.) I'm OK with flipping the holder itself around (like one of the Minolta 5400 holders required you to do.)<br>

I realize it's late in the products' development, but I really hope Plustek takes the time to hit a home run.</p>

[rishij]

<blockquote>

<p>..."The resolution on the Imacon 848 is so vastly superior to that exhibited by the Nikon LS-9000, that I don't see how I could ever go back to the Nikon line of scanners."... Wait til U get to work on an X5.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No no no <em><strong>no!</strong></em></p>

<p>I later <strong>retracted</strong> that statement if you read further down in that thread! It was because of a sticky focus point error in that version of Vuescan I was using; I later showed that the LS-9000 resolved very near the level of detail that the Imacon 848 resolved! The Imacon does resolve more in tests involving resolution test charts aimed to determine the extinction resolution of Velvia (<em>data not shown</em>). But the LS-9000 was <em>extremely respectable, with room for improvement</em>. In fact, the Minolta DSE 5400 resolves more than the Nikon line of scanners... but of course only scans 35mm film.</p>

<p>That particular Imacon 848 I used is actually older & resolves less than a Flextight X1 I recently used. Maybe dirty optics on the 848 or better design on the X1-- I don't know. I'll redo some resolution tests, eventually.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>BTW, Rishi's tests showed an excellent performance of the Nikon</p>

</blockquote>

<p><em><strong>Yes! Exactly!</strong></em> Thanks Jens for reading through the rest of that thread :) I really wish I could delete that entire thread because people who only read the first post are completely mislead! And as a scientist, the thought of misleading people is pretty disturbing to me!</p>

<p>Yeah I appreciate Plustek sticking through in this business. We need (better) film scanners. Whether Plustek's offerings will be 'better' remains to be seen. It requires people with real passion & resolve on the development team to put out a better product... but it is possible... simply based on modifications I myself did. Also, it's not that terribly difficult to resolve as much as an Imacon. I've been able to do it with a couple hundred dollars worth of optics...</p>

<p>The dynamic range of the sensor is an interesting problem... if you just run the numbers you need a sensor with 13-14 stops of real dynamic range to get a true dmax of 4 or thereabouts. Even then, of course, you're susceptible to noise on the low end b/c of noise characteristics of sensors & just signal theory in general. This becomes an issue with slide film-- since there's a world of detail in the shadows, to actually extract the information in the shadows you need to apply a pretty bright light source, which then endangers the highlights. </p>

<p>I still don't believe that an Imacon extracts all the detail in the shadows of Velvia, thought it begins to come close with adaptive light + manual HDR. Which is, incidentally, rendered very difficult by the fact that repeated scans of the same frame of film are not always easily superimposable b/c of non-similar geometric distortions of the film as it is bent around the drum from one scan to the next.<br>

-Rishi</p>

 

[jens_g.r._benthien]

<p>I think there is only a marginal difference in resolution between the Nikon LS 9000 and the Imacon. Just check the tests from Les Sarile and Rishi Sanyal here at photo.net.</p>

<p>What the Imacon lacks is ICE, translating into more time to spend for cleaning dust spots and scratches after scanning.</p>

<p>However, IMHO a company that will be successful in the scanner market needs to come up with a nice machine that meets the above mentioned specs. For example it would be an advantage to offer USB 3.0, Firewire 800 and Thunderbolt interfaces - this is state of the art today and makes the machine future oriented.</p>

<p>Some people might prefer plastic or polymers - I don't. Metal is a far better haptic experience if you want to transport 'value'. Guess why the prices of the Nikon scanner skyrocketed the last year...</p>

<p>If someone has to invest 2.000 into a scanner, he expects a value, and he expects the same built quality as the one of his film cameras. Lift a Plaubel 69W Proshift Superwide with 1.8 kg and than imagine to have a light weight scanner - that won't match. Film shooters love the heavy, solid feel of their devices.</p>

<p>Just my two cents.</p>

[rishij]

<blockquote>

<p>What the Imacon lacks is ICE, translating into more time to spend for cleaning dust spots and scratches after scanning.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, I detest the Imacons for this very reason. Try cloning out pepper grain ;) Of course, I wasn't smiling when I had to do it for an exhibition.</p>

<p>But FYI, if you scan frames of film where you've shot ISO 12233 charts at magnification factors meant to expose the resolving limit of the film, you *will* see that a <strong>Flextight X1 will clearly outresolve the LS-9000</strong> and show you pretty much the level of detail visible under a light microscope.</p>

<p><em>The LS-9000 (or any Nikon scanner) just cannot resolve everything on the film (RVP 50)</em>, something Mauro Franic & I have clearly shown in the past.</p>

<p>-Rishi</p>

[jens_g.r._benthien]

<blockquote>

<p><em>The LS-9000 (or any Nikon scanner) just cannot resolve everything on the film (RVP 50)</em>, something Mauro Franic & I have clearly shown in the past.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>True. However, if I need slides for very large prints I have them drum scanned to get the maximum quality. For the daily routines like posters, small banners, books and magazines up to A3 landscape format the LS 9000 is perfect (if not to say 'overkill').</p>

[rishij]

<p>Fair enough. But I still one day dream of a user-friendly scanner that'll extract <strong>everything</strong> out of your film for you. Resolution, DR, with flat film, color-accurate, <strong>everything</strong>. </p>

<p>It's not an impossible task. It's just that no one's had the resolve <strong>AND</strong> resources ($$) to do it yet (albeit: it'll be easier when we have CCDs with 14-15 stops of dynamic range to deal with slide film which, IMHO, is the only film anyone should be shooting today b/c the S:N ratio of negative film is just unacceptable next to digital, despite its magnificent dynamic range).</p>

<p>-Rishi</p>

[samagnew]

<blockquote>

<p>It's not an impossible task. It's just that no one's had the resolve <strong>AND</strong> resources ($$) to do it yet (albeit: it'll be easier when we have CCDs with 14-15 stops of dynamic range to deal with slide film which, IMHO, is the only film anyone should be shooting today b/c the S:N ratio of negative film is just unacceptable next to digital, despite its magnificent dynamic range).<br>

-Rishi</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Actually, I feel that this is film's sweet spot. Hence the earlier discussion.</p>

<p>Negative film does trump digital in two of its very weak points. Dynamic range, and highlight handling. Of course the tradeoff is that this means that the dynamic range is very compressed on the film itself. A poor quality scanner will turn this into poor signal to noise ratio and a very visible lack of "smoothness" in ranges of even tone.</p>

<p>This is why a good sensor and good signal path and good A/D converters are critical to getting good results from it. However, on a scanner that can handle it (the 9000 is just about good enough, drum scanners are great at this) negative film shows the strengths of film and a hybrid workflow like no other medium. Hence the passionate discussion about the need for consistent tools for properly inverting the negative image whilst preserving the image's integrity.</p>

<p>Sam</p>

[riconamix]

<p>...I'm sorry to give that link omitting to mention it was for the 8200i<br>

after looking in detail the specs (of the 8200i), they are the same as the 7600i<br /><br>

I did not want create polemics or problem<br>

the thing that interests me is the 120 scanner<br>

So thanks again Mark to give us all this information about it !</p>

[martin_n1]

<p>I look forward to the Plustek Opticfilm 120 medium format scanner and hope that I can afford it when available. The suggestions on probable performance parameters sounds perfectly appropriate and inviting to me and my only criteria for buying a new scanner is that it should be able to handle 120 film strips and that the resolution and Dmax/Drange are 'one generation' better than my Opticfilm 7500 SE. I believe that Drange is much more important than absolute maximum resolution. My 7500 has Dmax of 3.5 and that is far too modest. If this new 120 scanner betters or equals Nikon on some parameters that will be a nice bonus. I will not buy a Pacific Image / Reflecta current scanner because of their limited resolution of 3200ppi and Dmax and I will also not buy a Nikon because of its high price. My prefered scanning software is Silverfast, however I am seriously concerned about the bad implementation of Negafix profiles and the high cost of the software that has not evolved much in the last years. Why is Silverfast so slow and cannot do multisampling 'on the fly' without rescanning the complete frame ? An expensive software like Silverfast should have tackled performance problems early and the whole software motor core should have been revritten for more speed and better functionality a long time ago. I want better GANE, fast multisampling & multiexposure on the fly and advanced sharperning and grane reduction on the same time, not just either one. IMO Silverfast 8 seems just to be a pretty skin for the old Silverfast. A rewrite is tedious but really important for performance gains. Now my only real concern is if Opticfilm 120 will fit my budget.</p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<p>Two points:</p>

<p>1. Congratulations to Plustek for bringing to market something photographers have been asking for for years. If the product is anything but poor it will fly off the shelves.</p>

<p>2. Are the rest of you insane? When Mark asked how much you would be prepared to pay you're supposed to say 100 bucks tops! Why invite a price increase by talking of $2000? For all we know this unit could have had a price tag of $999, now it might be $1999! </p>

[rishij]

<p>Fair enough, Sam, those are good points. Actually what I meant to say was more that slide film is suited better to landscapes, where you do want that higher signal in the medium itself such that enlargements will be highly detailed & clean.</p>

<p>But negative film does have its place. The smooth rolloff in highlights is great for cinematography. And the large formats still well out-resolve most digital video cameras.</p>

<p>I remember getting into a debate about the S:N of slides vs. negatives here on photo.net. I remember arguing the following: when compressing a large tonal range into a smaller one, your ability to retain the S:N is dependent upon the small steps in tonal range (in the medium itself, not the tonal range of the recorded scene, though the two are inherently entwined) being distinguishable from the noise floor. In a CCD, this means that tonal jumps must be represented by a signal greater than random electronic noise. In film, this means that the tonal jumps must be represented by an incremental increase in dye greater than random variation in dye clumps. That means that even with a perfect digital sampling system for the film, the signal recorded in the medium itself will affect the final S:N. Whether the negative or the scanner is limiting at this point in time/tech, I'm really not sure. I'm sure someone could figure it out though.</p>

<p>Though, if you believe multi-sampling helps negative scans, then I guess you might argue that the scanner tech is still limiting...</p>

<p>Does that argument above make sense Sam, or anyone?</p>

<p>Cheers,<br />Rishi </p>

[riconamix]

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2290293">Jamie Robertson</a> : "100 bucks"<br /> :) Nice joke<br /> "talking of $2000?"<br /> can be the feeling than paying for something expensive we will have a good device ?<br /> but not as expensive as something can cost... ;) :<br /> http://www.scandig.com/filmscanner/nikon/nikon-super-coolscan-9000-ed2.html</p>