Plustek 8200i -vs- Leica ME

[Sileem]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hey

 

Was wondering if any of you have made film scans in maximum possible resolution with long exposure pass and multipass enabled on Plustek 8200i?

 

How does that image compare to Leica ME.

 

Color full resolution tiff sample would be very nice if you can share?

[250swb]

I can't say I have compared the images from my M9 (same as M-E) with those from my Plustek, but the Plustek looks like a film image, and the M9 (M-E) looks like a digital image. To my way of thinking it is pointless comparing such different media, each has its advantages and disadvantages.

 

35mm film even processed and printed in a darkroom isn't a match in terms of resolution with the M-E, but then the M-E isn't by default a match for what can be the artistry (emotion) of good images made on film, because film has grain and treats tones in a different way. But the Plustek is an excellent scanner and would get a lot out of 35mm film.

 

Steve

[CalArts 99]

It would kind of be like comparing acrylics versus oil pigments, or something like that. Both are very different media.

 

A good scan of a 35mm film negative will give you a digital reproduction that will be similar in grain, resolution, and overall appearance as a non-scanned negative. Scanning is basically a reproduction method of turning film into a useable digital format (if that is what is needed/desired.) But digital capture (i.e, an image originating from a camera sensor) is something quite different than a scanned piece of negative (or positive) film.

 

But if what you are really asking is whether or not the Plustek is up to task for scanning 35mm film, the answer is yes. Although it kind of sounds more like you want a comparison of film versus digital. I think that's a question that can only be answered by your own personal preferences (do you prefer film; do you prefer digital.) Many people use both film and digital because of the fact that they are indeed very different, and both with pros and cons depending on application (and don't forget that resolution is only one element of many which makes up a photograph; and sometimes high resolution is not always desired.)

[leicaphilia]

With the maturation of digital capture, the question of film vs digital resolution really doesn't make sense anymore. As others note, film and digital are two completely different media. Each has it's strengths and limitations.

 

The Plustek has the capability of very high resolution...but it is resolving an image produced with the limitations of film i.e, the grain substrate. Resolution from the ME is 'clean'.

 

Film responds differently to light than does a digital sensor. Sensors have a flat linear response to light. Film has a curved response, typically in a S curve, whereby both ends of the curve, the shadows and highlights, tend to be richer in tonal value than digital. Its these differences that give the unique look to both.

 

as someone else said, its like comparing acrylic paint to oil paint.

[jip]

Multiple shots scanned with the Nikon Coolscan LS 4000 with multipass etc on:

 

Leica Analogue - a set on Flickr

[chris_livsey]

I use the plustek 8200 for film scans but only to a middle standard ie not full res multipass etc because I am scanning for the web principaly Flickr which is a great leveller. When i have required a better scan I have outsourced it as I believe just as in the darkroom skill is required for optimum results which I lack. I have a link to my Flickr in sig for a range of BW films and some heavy crops to show the detail the 8200 can pull. I shoot a Phase One back as well and would never compare directly as it is pointless they are different tools, you may as well say has anyone compared a smoothing plane to a fret saw ! Both those tools work wood both cameras take photographs.