plasticman Posted January 22, 2013 Share #81 Posted January 22, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) that was actually said by a Silverfast employee during Photokina if I remember correctly. I was referring to this post from Mark Druziak (Plustek) over on RFF: "Yesterday I saw some scans of USAF 1951 test targets that were done with a pre-production OpticFilm 120 and Lasersoft 8. The results were impressive. If you compare them to the USAF 1951 targets on filmscanner.info for the 9000 and the Flextight X1, the OpticFilm 120 is closer to the Flextight X1 than the 9000." I'm hoping that the scanner is capable of better than what we've seen so far - sometime down the line I may be relying on it myself, and I want as many people to buy it as possible, because (for everyday use) nothing much beats 120 film. I'm just worried that Plustek overplayed the marketing and under-specced the engineering. Let's keep our fingers crossed - I'm still confident users will make this work somehow. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 22, 2013 Posted January 22, 2013 Hi plasticman, Take a look here New Scanner OpticFilm 120. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
philipus Posted January 22, 2013 Share #82 Posted January 22, 2013 I don't understand the decision not to have autofocus in a neg scanner, esp a premium model. I just looked closer at the APHOG scans and (setting aside the imho too drastic sharpening carried out on the processed scans) it seems there's something wrong with the Coolscan V raw scan. Looks pixelated. Or are they not 100% crops perhaps? I don't have much doubt that the 120 will do OK with MF material - this seems quite clear from the large scans that Plustek posted, linked to above, but it will be interesting to see how it handles 35mm. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted January 22, 2013 Share #83 Posted January 22, 2013 I just looked closer at the APHOG scans and (setting aside the imho too drastic sharpening carried out on the processed scans) it seems there's something wrong with the Coolscan V raw scan. Looks pixelated. Or are they not 100% crops perhaps? The Coolscan V scans have been upsampled to match the resolution of the 120 I think - but it's the worst upsampling I've ever seen. This is the problem of these online tests - they''re only as good as the person doing the test. None of the Nikon scans I've ever seen have looked as bad as this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronazle Posted January 22, 2013 Share #84 Posted January 22, 2013 Yes there is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sept 2012 Pete Janki, I believe I must make a comment on Nikon. Several years ago I bought a defective Nikon 8000 rather cheaply. It was complete but not working (the mechanics, not electronics, were very messed up and had been repaired with non-Nikon parts and GLUE). I sent it to Nikon USA and they contacted me and told me they would repair it to like new condition for $250 including shipping (compare this with an M8 baseplate for over $300(USD)) - it is still working great but, of course, slow. I think you can be confident that Nikon will repair your 9000 for many years at a reasonable price. regards, ron Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipus Posted January 22, 2013 Share #85 Posted January 22, 2013 None of the Nikon scans I've ever seen have looked as bad as this. Agree. I have used a V since the early 00s but I have never seen anything like that. In the very long thread at RFF there's another link to APHOG where they scanned the same image with an X1. Quite a difference (of course) but interesting to put the Plustek in perspective. Mark Druziak also has this (laaarge) scan on his Flickr. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted January 23, 2013 Share #86 Posted January 23, 2013 One of the things to bear in mind is that, compared for instance to the pretty appalling images we've so far seen coming out of the M-240, scanning Portra is leaps and bounds ahead in terms of dimensionality and color-rendition. Viewed in those terms, the Plustek is a sheer bargain at $2000, regardless of whether it achieves grain-sharpness on all images. As an aside, every now and again when I feel my bank account is particularly flush, I think of upgrading my LS9000 for an X1 or an X5. Then I take a look at B&H and am consistently STUNNED at the price. Some sort of repetitive amnesia blanks out the grim reality. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalArts 99 Posted January 23, 2013 Share #87 Posted January 23, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) 1,500 USD will get you this: Howtek 4000 Drum Scanner with Accessories | eBay Find yourself an old G4 or PC with SCSI and get software from SilverFast or the Trident software from Aztek Howtek Professional Scanners, digital imaging and photography, and you'll all set Okay, I realize it might not seem that feasible and sounds risky but the prices on used drum scanners are so ridiculously low now and so it's not a huge investment (aside from time and effort getting it set up.) Despite inconvenience of getting it up and running, the risks can be relatively low. And depending on where you are, there are still people out there who can do repairs and have access to parts. There's also the Heidelberg Linotype-Hell Tango and there are many for sale for around 2,000-3,000 USD (here are some comparison scans from the Tango and a Flextight High-End Scanning: Comparing the Linotype-Hell Tango to other scanners btw, this is what Lippincott used to build the current Aztek Premier drum scanners from (he was the main Howtek vendor years ago) Howtek HR 8000 For Sale (451614) - Drum Scanner - Used Howtek HR 8000 on Kitmondo.com The outside shell of the current Aztek and this Howtek are the same.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted January 23, 2013 Share #88 Posted January 23, 2013 In reality the 9000 exceeds my requirements (and skills). The only thing that makes me nervous is the future reliability/service of a scanner that's discontinued. The X1 (or X5) is one of those gear dreams that recur periodically - but as I said, like childbirth for women, the only reason I keep coming back to it is recurrent amnesia about the painful parts... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalArts 99 Posted January 23, 2013 Share #89 Posted January 23, 2013 In the real world, good consumer CCD scanners (like the 9000) are quite fine for making decent prints. I think the reality is that if one needs large exhibition quality prints on occasion then it makes more sense just to pay for the services of a good commercial studio. Time should really be spent on making worthwhile images rather than becoming a technician. ...but when I see drum scanners for a small fraction of their original price, it is tempting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipus Posted January 23, 2013 Share #90 Posted January 23, 2013 Thanks for linking to the Tango comparison, CalArts. I had forgotten about that site. The Tango scans are pretty amazing, I find. So clear. The 646, which can be found for ok money (well comparably), does produce a lot of grain in comparison. There are also this site (includes digitizing using DSLRs), this site and largeformatphotography for side-by-side comparisons of many scanners (apologies if I have posted this info before). At the fairly active Yahoo Scan Hi-End group Karl Hudson often posts. He runs a company specialising in, inter alia, servicing Tangos and other scanners all over the world. He also sells used scanners (and other equipment too) plus spare parts. The servicing and spare parts will, as I understand it, be a main cost for using a drum scanner. Personally I couldn't motivate it (and I'd love to see my wife's face at the delivery of one of those babies. Not ). However, I did at one point consider a Nexscan flatbed. The full resolution across the whole bed bit is attractive. But the cheapest one I could find would still be around 4000€ which for me wouldn't be worth it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted January 23, 2013 Share #91 Posted January 23, 2013 So have we all decided the new optic 120 scanner is a dud? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipus Posted January 23, 2013 Share #92 Posted January 23, 2013 I certainly haven't. The proof will, like with the new M, be in the image quality (for me, that is). I don't exclude that Plustek has a few tricks up their sleeves. The 120 is, after all, (much) newer tech than scanners available in the used market. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guido Posted January 23, 2013 Share #93 Posted January 23, 2013 So have we all decided the new optic 120 scanner is a dud?No, not yet, I for one still do have hopes... but the surreal marketing delusion surrounding Sigma's "medium-format" SD1 camera introduction last year is not quite forgotten yet. New era, new business practices in some places... one has to be careful nowadays Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guido Posted January 23, 2013 Share #94 Posted January 23, 2013 Just found some new stuff with original TIF files: Holocaust Memorial | Flickr - Photo Sharing! Noto, Sicily - Some very first Plustek Opticfilm 120 scan test | Flickr - Photo Sharing! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thrid Posted January 23, 2013 Share #95 Posted January 23, 2013 I was poking around on the net and came across a vendor who sells machine vision cameras with up to 70MP resolution. They are based on the KAF kodak sensor. You can get these in color or black and white. If the price was right it wouldn't be too difficult to build a scanner that used the monochrome sensor version straight for black and white work and with R,G, B filters for color. That way you would get pixel for pixel resolution, because you would be circumventing the bayer pattern interpolation for color. I was involved in building a scanner like this for film production about 20 years ago and it worked quite well. These cameras put out 16bit files at over 8k resolution. One of the biggest challenges would be to find a lens that resolves high enough. Maybe something like a micro-nikkor, the Leica R 100 APO or process lens would work. Basically something like this, but with a different camera. http://museum.icp.org/mexican_suitcase/conservation.html But that camera probably costs a small fortune. Just an idea, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guido Posted January 23, 2013 Share #96 Posted January 23, 2013 I was poking around on the net and came across a vendor who sells machine vision cameras with up to 70MP resolution. They are based on the KAF kodak sensor. For 135 film, this would be awesome. For medium format however, it would be less impressive in relation to the price. For example, a 70MP scan of a 6x7 negative would result in approx. 3350dpi of resolution only. I learned this the hard way when I tried to photograph 6x7 film with a 39MP digital back and super macro lens on a repro stand, only to find that the result was more or less the same as a scan from my Epson V750. So all that money for a 70MP rig would hardly provide better results than a Nikon CS 9000, Minolta Multi Scan Pro, Flextight X1, or.... the Opticfilm 120. Again, the above math refers to medium format only. 135 film scanned with a 70MP sensor would yield about 7400dpi - drum scanner territory. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
el.nino Posted January 24, 2013 Share #97 Posted January 24, 2013 And this is exactly as the Flextight Scanners behave: You got 8000dpi for 35mm, about 3500dpi for 120mm and 2400dpi for largeformat film. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stealth3kpl Posted January 24, 2013 Share #98 Posted January 24, 2013 Scan showing (dust and) grain (10600dpi): http://dl.dropbox.com/u/19537236/grain2-10600dpi.jpg From here: Holocaust Memorial | Flickr - Photo Sharing! Pete Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stealth3kpl Posted January 26, 2013 Share #99 Posted January 26, 2013 Scans from another source. He sounds pretty happy with it. He says, and I quote, "I'm pretty happy with it". Pete Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveO Posted January 27, 2013 Share #100 Posted January 27, 2013 I have found light table when i was in process to find projector for drawing. LightPad A920 Light Boxes, Artograph Light Boxes -- Artograph Inc. I need to measure my V500 at first. I bought the 6x9" Artograph lightpad a few months ago to copy my slides from the 1970's. It did a fairly good job. Maybe not the quality of the Plustek, but a lot cheaper. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.