vincent_van_walt

<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>Can someone possibly help<br>

I'm having problems aligning 6X6 film to the scanner film holders. 6X9 and 35mm no issues. Am I doing something wrong?<br>

Yhanks</p><div></div>

<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>

 

<p>With a good 5 inches of snow there was not much else to do except take some pictures;<br>

Kodak TRI-X 120 rated 400, developed XTOL, scanned Opticfilm 120. Sharpened for print.</p><div></div>

<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>

<p>Now the Opticfilm 120 </p><div></div>

<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></div>

<p>Thanks Chris!<br>

As a by the way, in the past I had lots of problems with Silverfast with regular crashes and licensing issues. They must have done something because since installing for Opticfilm 120 it has been pretty stable and actually I'm starting to like it.</p>

<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>

<p>This is indeed what I'm experiencing; more with Portra 400 than with Velvia. The latter has scanned very true to (Velvia 50) colours uncalibrated. The Portra I'm not so sure about but then I scan RAW and process with Colorperfect so there are added variables.<br>

On a different tack and possibly, Mark, a question for Silverfast/Plustek : If scanning in RAW (HDR) does the software still take account of the target anyway?</p>

<p>The target is in fact Fuji Provia Pro. Personally I still believe that for Velvia at least, a specific target should be used but I'm willing to stand corrected. Having scanned Portra 400 neg film as well, the results are superb and the colours are very nice and pastel but not what I expected. I'm not saying they're necessarily wrong; just different to previous scans.<br>

Toni: Sorry I haven't timed it but it was quick compared to the V750 but scanning time is not the only factor. Speed depends on resolution settings. For 120 I'm perfectly happy with 2650 ppi; for 35mm I'm still on the sidelines because I can see a substantial difference between 2650 and 5300. At the latter resolution the file is just over 200 MB and at 10600 about a 1 GB. These very large files are needing a lot of computing power. I use an iMac quadcore with 12 GB ram and it is struggling with files over 500MB</p>

<p>Some initial findings:<br>

Setup: Straightforward. There are two disks, one with a driver and the other Silverfast. Installation was easy and trouble free.<br>

Manuals: The Plustek manual is very short but to the point and adequate. <br>

Film Holders: Are substantial and very easy to use but basic. Nonetheless film is easy to load but a light box is an advantage to position transverse guides at the right place. Borders with Velvia are black and so is the holder so not always easy to see.<br>

I chose an "easy" Velvia 50 6X9cm to start<br>

File size: Scanning 48bbit HDR At 2650 ppi the file is already 400 MB, at half resolution 5300ppi with ME enabled just over 1 gig. At full resolution you will need a very powerful computer<br>

Scanning Speed: Good<br>

Resolution: Exceeds my expectations; in fact superb<br>

Colour: Accurate. I've not calibrated yet. The supplied target is I think Kodak (Mark, can you confirm?) so will need to order a Fuji.<br>

Compared to Epson V750: I've rated the Epson highly and have used it for the past couple of years. For me it gave three problems: poor film holders, mediocre quality for 35mm and dust on the glass. Try as I might I never managed to get rid of it. All these things are much better with the Opticfilm. Epson quality has always been acceptable for me on 120 format but this is in a different league.<br>

Is it worth the money? For me definitely.<br>

Attached picture scanned in HDR at 5300ppi then processed via Colorperfect and Finished in PS. Minimal sharpening, just with NIK PRE-sharpener. It is of course impossible to evaluate the scanner on the basis of this small image but I will leave the professional reviewers with that task.</p><div></div>

<p>Hi Toni<br>

Sure, I'll do my best only give me a bit of time. I've found out through bitter experience that knowing how to use scanning software is just as important as scanner quality. I've had my struggles in the past with Silverfast which is why I migrated to Vuescan but hope that the re-learning curve is not too steep.</p>

<p>Well, vapourware it is not as I have just received the unit but before anything I want to say that I completely agree with Bernard Miller's post and want to add my thanks to Mark Druziak. It is because of his posts and perseverance despite some negativity from forum members here and elsewhere that I decided to invest in an Opticfilm 120 unseen and unreviewed. To me his honest updates have proven that Plustek, or at least one of its employees, is prepared to make an effort to face its customer base.</p>

<p>Anyway, for those interested:<br>

I bought the unit "off the shelf" from Park Cameras. It arrived well packed. It looks as I expected it to look (although I was not aware that Taiwan was the country of manufacture; though not that it matters) and the box contains, aside from the scanner, power supply and cables an assortment of film holders, an IT8 calibration target and a copy of Silverfast Ai Studio. The film holders look reasonably substantial but of course I won't know how if they will hold the film flat until I've tried them.<br>

I'm not much into writing reviews but over the next week I will scan some Velvia 35mm and 6X9cm to put it through its paces and will try and post some results but having worked only with the Epson V750 for a number of years and Vuescan, it might take some time to (re) learn Silferfast about which I only have a rudimentary knowledge. I normally save scans in RAW and manipulate them through the excellent Photoshop plugin Colorperfect so I will first need to figure out how to do this via Silverfast.</p>

<p>Good evening Hernan and Robert and thanks for your suggestions. ASA 50 is a little slow for my purposes because I'm very set on using a deep layer developer such as Rollei RLS but that means losing at least a stop on actual film speed. RLS also has an operating temperature of 24 degrees; far too warm for the Adox 50 according to the literature link you supplied.<br>

Last night I rescanned some early trials (HP5, Pan F Plus, FP4) and came across a MF roll of Delta 100 developed in DDX and I must say it looked better than I remembered it. I'll now try Delta 135 in RLS and I could rate it at EI 40 which is just about acceptable for what I shoot.<br>

I will still use the Retro 80s which has worked really well in my 6X9 for landscapes but I'll just have to avoid photographing people with green or brown eyes :)</p>

 

<p>Hi Hernan. Unfortunately the response of this film not only darkens brown and green eyes to almost black but it lightens the lips as well. I've also noticed that if the subject has a slightly open mouth there is a rather ugly contrast between the light lips and the very dark inside. Presumably this is because it has extended red sensitivity but I had not expected as much when used without filters. I'm seeing this also with the Retro 80s. Nonetheless it is a film with much potential in my opinion. I've been less successful with landscapes with the 400s than with the 80s but I shall persevere for a bit. Do you have any experience with another film on the market with similar characteristics as the 400s but without the IR sensitivity?</p>

<p>Hi Robert. Interesting that it is the same Polyester base because the density seems a shade darker on the 400. Of course there is a development time difference (10.5 mins for the 80 and 14.5 for the 400) but I wouldn't have thought that would be the reason for a denser fog base?</p>

<p>I realise that this is quite an old thread now but as there is relatively little information on this film I thought I'd add my 2p worth as I've been gaining a little experience with it although only with RLS developer. After a number of trials and errors I find that with the RLS combo I need to rate the film at 100. With a more standard speed developer I'd guess that 200 was about right for this film.<br>

As far as the comments relating to pre-wash, I now wash for 2 mins with a constant agitation. The water which washes out is almost black. I've reported this to Maco who are adding this to their data sheets. Incidentally this is the same for Rollei 80s.<br>

I've found that the fog base of the 400s is rather denser than the 80s (but much lighter than HP5) but this seems to have no effect with scanning. The literature says that the base is chrystal clear but I have not found this and would welcome to hear from other users.<br>

Despite the little niggles I have persevered with this film because when right I love the tonality.</p><div></div>