Luminous Landscape Forum

Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: TMARK on September 25, 2012, 09:48:25 AM

Title: Plustek Opticfilm 120
Post by: TMARK on September 25, 2012, 09:48:25 AM
Did anyone see this MF scanner at Photokina?  If so, did they have any samples or any hints as to how well it works?

Thanks!
Title: Re: Plustek Opticfilm 120
Post by: amsp on September 25, 2012, 03:27:41 PM
As far as I know there are no samples yet, which is kind off odd since B&H lists it as "expected availability Sept. 30th". But if it lives up to the hype then Christmas is coming early for film photographers.
Title: Re: Plustek Opticfilm 120
Post by: Stefan.Steib on September 25, 2012, 05:48:54 PM
I have seen the scanner branded as Reflecta running Silverfast 8. it can do multiexposure and with this reaches a density of log 4.01
siggle scan will go to around log 3.2 , qualiy looks good to me, especially I liked the film holders , that´s something that will help a lot working,
most of the other holders I know are pretty much junk , but these look very well done.
Finish and overall look were good,Price in Germany (as Reflecta) will be 1999,-€

regards
Stefan
Title: Re: Plustek Opticfilm 120
Post by: amsp on September 25, 2012, 06:01:18 PM
I have seen the scanner branded as Reflecta running Silverfast 8. it can do multiexposure and with this reaches a density of log 4.01
siggle scan will go to around log 3.2 , qualiy looks good to me, especially I liked the film holders , that´s something that will help a lot working,
most of the other holders I know are pretty much junk , but these look very well done.
Finish and overall look were good,Price in Germany (as Reflecta) will be 1999,-€

regards
Stefan

I think you are confusing it with the Reflecta MF5000/Pacific Image PF120.
Title: Re: Plustek Opticfilm 120
Post by: Stefan.Steib on September 25, 2012, 07:50:12 PM
I was first also confused when after the show I visited their website , there is only the old one.
But the one they showed on the fair was definitely the 5300 dpi version and sports the same frames withe the Plustek, I recognized them on the images.
So I was told this scanner will also be branded as Quato in the future.

regards
Stefan
Title: Re: Plustek Opticfilm 120
Post by: TMARK on September 25, 2012, 11:12:32 PM
Thanks Stefan.  The holders do look nice.  If I get one next month I'll report back.  Everything looks promising.
Title: Re: Plustek Opticfilm 120
Post by: uaiomex on September 25, 2012, 11:48:37 PM
I hope so. This is starting to look like vaporware.
Eduardo

Thanks Stefan.  The holders do look nice.  If I get one next month I'll report back.  Everything looks promising.
Title: Re: Plustek Opticfilm 120
Post by: dizzyg44 on October 03, 2012, 10:42:23 AM
Sadly, plustek announced on FB that the scanner is delayed yet again   :'(
Title: Re: Plustek Opticfilm 120
Post by: RawheaD on October 03, 2012, 12:59:49 PM
Sadly, plustek announced on FB that the scanner is delayed yet again   :'(

Well it smelled like vapor when I heard about it, and it's still smelling like vapor nearly one year later.
Title: Re: Plustek Opticfilm 120
Post by: TMARK on October 03, 2012, 01:16:08 PM
Saw their scan sample on FB.  Even the compressed JPEG looked fine.  I don't think its vapor.  It seems they really don't want to blow the launch.  I'd rather wait than send it back.

Title: Re: Plustek Opticfilm 120
Post by: amsp on October 03, 2012, 04:02:23 PM
Saw their scan sample on FB.  Even the compressed JPEG looked fine.  I don't think its vapor.  It seems they really don't want to blow the launch.  I'd rather wait than send it back.


Exactly, calling it vaporware at this point is pretty ridiculous seeing how it's going through internal testing as we speak. Basically they're just finalizing the software to get the most out of the machine.
Title: Re: Plustek Opticfilm 120
Post by: TMARK on October 03, 2012, 04:33:57 PM
The first delay was with the sensor, as I believe it was discontinued.  Everything needed to be retooled for the new higher res sensor they sourced.

If its 2/3 of the quality the 9000 is capable of, I'm in.  It seems to be, but time will tell.
Title: Re: Plustek Opticfilm 120
Post by: RawheaD on October 03, 2012, 04:49:34 PM
Well my vapor comment was half in jest; however, I've lived long enough to see product protypes reaching this stage (showfloor appearances, samples on the 'net, even taking preorders) and never actually making it to market.


The first delay was with the sensor, as I believe it was discontinued.  Everything needed to be retooled for the new higher res sensor they sourced.

If its 2/3 of the quality the 9000 is capable of, I'm in.  It seems to be, but time will tell.


This, I cannot aggree with.  It's been 8 years since the 9000 was released.  Plustek, from what I understand, is going to charge more for their scanner than Nikon did for the 9000 at launch.  If this Plustek is not at least as good as the 9000, I'm not in, on principle alone.
Title: Re: Plustek Opticfilm 120
Post by: Cineski on October 12, 2012, 12:15:07 PM
Yeah, I'm really really glad I didn't sell off my Nikon 9000.  As for the comments above, it darn well better be vastly superior to the 9000 (which does a stellar job).  Considering how many film shooters there are right now, this would be a huge help.  The issue still remains about processing.  I live in a city with many really good film labs.  It's easy for me to drop film off and pick it up.  For those who will scan their own and still have to ship film off for processing, they're going to be seeing 2 trips through shipping before the film is even digitized.  That's frankly scary.  A reliable, viable way to process C41 film at home would be really nice.  One may exist, but I haven't researched this yet.
Title: Re: Plustek Opticfilm 120
Post by: DeckardTrinity on October 12, 2012, 02:18:08 PM
Jobo CPP3. Coming early 2013.

Tetenal C41, available now.

 ;D
Title: Re: Plustek Opticfilm 120
Post by: TMARK on October 14, 2012, 11:58:04 AM
Jobo CPP3. Coming early 2013.

Tetenal C41, available now.

 ;D

Yup.  Not that I'll be doing my own c41, but its not that hard at home.  I have a good lab here, although they are stupid expensive.  I'm in NYC enough that I take film with me and pick it up a few hours later.
Title: Re: Plustek Opticfilm 120
Post by: uaiomex on October 18, 2012, 12:26:30 AM
In the stores beginning this November. 5,300 dpi. $2K usd
 :) :) :)
Eduardo

http://www.petapixel.com/2012/10/17/a-look-at-the-image-quality-of-plusteks-2000-opticfilm-120-film-scanner/#more-80936
Title: Re: Plustek Opticfilm 120
Post by: amsp on October 18, 2012, 05:01:54 AM
Looks very promising, they sharpen up nicely in photoshop, other than that it's hard to say without doing the testing myself. Not exactly the best photos to show the capability of the scanner, neither is the fact that they seem to have let the software do the scanning without doing manual adjustments for optimal results. The scan of the brick house for example has severely blown-out highlights. I hope someone respected can get their hands on it and do some proper testing soon.
Title: Re: Plustek Opticfilm 120
Post by: TMARK on October 18, 2012, 09:57:31 AM
Looks very promising, they sharpen up nicely in photoshop, other than that it's hard to say without doing the testing myself. Not exactly the best photos to show the capability of the scanner, neither is the fact that they seem to have let the software do the scanning without doing manual adjustments for optimal results. The scan of the brick house for example has severely blown-out highlights. I hope someone respected can get their hands on it and do some proper testing soon.

Yes, I'd like to see scans that capture the full histogram.  They won't do it because they look like crap out of the scanner, and I understand that.  While the tones are nice, it doesn't look as good as the 9000.  I think we need to see a capable scanner guy/gal put it through its paces, iwth a sharp negative from a Mamiya 7.
Title: Re: Plustek Opticfilm 120
Post by: revaaron on October 18, 2012, 12:19:40 PM
WANT WANT WANT WANT WANT WANT WANT WANT!!!

Maybe I'll sell my 9000 on ebay and get one of these.
it says 120, but I would hope it does 35mm too.

I stopped shooting 120 mostly cause I can't get good scans out of my 9000.
Title: Re: Plustek Opticfilm 120
Post by: TMARK on October 18, 2012, 01:42:06 PM
WANT WANT WANT WANT WANT WANT WANT WANT!!!

Maybe I'll sell my 9000 on ebay and get one of these.
it says 120, but I would hope it does 35mm too.

I stopped shooting 120 mostly cause I can't get good scans out of my 9000.

The 9000 is awesome, but a pain in the ass, sometimes.  The holders blow, the glass holder works but Newton Rings if the film is not perfect, the regular holder half works.  I would often make four scans using different methods of mounting.  The Opticfilm's holders look awesome. 

And yes, it does 35mm.
Title: Re: Plustek Opticfilm 120
Post by: uaiomex on October 18, 2012, 06:27:59 PM
And 6X12's!
Eduardo

The 9000 is awesome, but a pain in the ass, sometimes.  The holders blow, the glass holder works but Newton Rings if the film is not perfect, the regular holder half works.  I would often make four scans using different methods of mounting.  The Opticfilm's holders look awesome. 

And yes, it does 35mm.
Title: Re: Plustek Opticfilm 120
Post by: TMARK on October 18, 2012, 09:20:28 PM
And 6X12's!
Eduardo


You know it!
Title: Re: Plustek Opticfilm 120
Post by: uaiomex on October 19, 2012, 12:32:00 AM
You know it!

Now you know it too!  :)
Title: Re: Plustek Opticfilm 120
Post by: Adrian Roy on October 20, 2012, 02:12:10 AM
I don't understand, you stopped shooting 120 because you cannot get good results? That's what this machine is designed for. Have you set your 9000 up correctly in the preferences section of Nikon scan?

Also I have modified my 120 film holder and have removed the original plastic hinges that hold the film flat and replaced it with two sheets of AN glass cut to size. I just sandwich the film between the glass and use a couple of small pieces of Blutack at either end of the glass to stop it moving in the holder.

If you are using a windows pc, then it is also possible to run Nikonscan with no issues on a windows 7 64bit OS like I do. I am using the firewire port on my PC with the following mod.

http://www.sevenforums.com/drivers/44994-getting-your-nikon-coolscan-work-w7-x64.html

Best Adrian

Title: Re: Plustek Opticfilm 120
Post by: revaaron on November 14, 2012, 12:55:46 PM
I don't understand, you stopped shooting 120 because you cannot get good results?

because I don't get the scans right and 35mm/35mm slides scan so well with this scanner. So I just go with the "easier" film.

That's what this machine is designed for. Have you set your 9000 up correctly in the preferences section of Nikon scan?
I think so... idk though. One problem I have is that it seems to "guess" where the edges of the film is an it's usually wrong. There seems to be no way in nikon scan to change where these lines are if it's incorrect. I usually just open it back up and move the film.

Also I have modified my 120 film holder and have removed the original plastic hinges that hold the film flat and replaced it with two sheets of AN glass cut to size. I just sandwich the film between the glass and use a couple of small pieces of Blutack at either end of the glass to stop it moving in the holder.

You shoot THROUGH AN glass? Doesn't that make the images look matte? I bought the glass holder which has AN glass on 1 side. The problem is that the film touches the bottom and gives newton rings. I know that there are some masks you can use, but I never really figure out how they work.
http://www.howtofixcomputers.com/forums/scanners/newton-rings-fh869g-anti-newton-ring-glass-27242.html

If you are using a windows pc, then it is also possible to run Nikonscan with no issues on a windows 7 64bit OS like I do. I am using the firewire port on my PC with the following mod.

http://www.sevenforums.com/drivers/44994-getting-your-nikon-coolscan-work-w7-x64.html

yep, I'm running this firewire with the vista directions that I think that link pulls from
http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/coolscan-vista-64.html
Title: Re: Plustek Opticfilm 120
Post by: Kirk Gittings on November 14, 2012, 02:18:36 PM
The samples they have available on their site suck-not in the same league as the Nikon 9000. You may as well get an Epson 750 if that is all they can do.
Title: Re: Plustek Opticfilm 120
Post by: torger on November 15, 2012, 06:09:09 AM
Has it started to be delivered yet? I'm very curious about what this scanner can do.

As with all scanners I'd expect that you need to be an expert user (or at least behave like one :) ) to get the most out of it. Factory sample images are rarely good.
Title: Re: Plustek Opticfilm 120
Post by: TMARK on November 15, 2012, 10:04:33 AM
The samples they have available on their site suck-not in the same league as the Nikon 9000. You may as well get an Epson 750 if that is all they can do.

It looks like it is wide open with a Kiev, so I'm not ready to pass judgment. It takes time and effort to get the best out of a scanner. The best I've seen from my 9000 was Mamiya 7, 65 at F 11, scanned with the glass holder.  I'd like to see a negative of that quality scanned on this machine by someone who knows what they are doing.

T
Title: Re: Plustek Opticfilm 120
Post by: Kirk Gittings on November 15, 2012, 11:05:00 AM


As with all scanners I'd expect that you need to be an expert user (or at least behave like one :) ) to get the most out of it. Factory sample images are rarely good.

Your kidding right? What business does not put their best examples forward? It frankly gives me very little confidence to think they could somehow design and produce a first class scanner and yet not know how to get a good scan out of it? The opposite conclusion is much more likely-that they don't have a clue what a good scan is and therefore designed a mediocre scanner.
Title: Re: Plustek Opticfilm 120
Post by: alan_b on November 15, 2012, 11:08:33 AM
Your kidding right? What business does not put their best examples forward?

Canon and Nikon to name a couple notorious examples.
Title: Re: Plustek Opticfilm 120
Post by: TMARK on November 15, 2012, 11:40:55 AM
Canon and Nikon to name a couple notorious examples.

Exactly.  The 1ds3, D3x and D800 samples were not great.  The Plustek scans, as far as I can tell, come from the marketing person shooting his Kiev, using Silverfast in auto mode.  I will not pass judgement yet.
Title: Re: Plustek Opticfilm 120
Post by: Adrian Roy on November 17, 2012, 04:32:21 PM
because I don't get the scans right and 35mm/35mm slides scan so well with this scanner. So I just go with the "easier" film.

Granted it's somewhat easier with 35mm as the scanner has the frame edges on the plastic holder as a guide to where it needs to scan.

With the MF scans one needs to use the extra black supplied with the scanner (or an old piece of film that's totally black) to mask off the film, so that the scanner can find the frame. This is also easier when using glass.


I think so... idk though. One problem I have is that it seems to "guess" where the edges of the film is an it's usually wrong. There seems to be no way in nikon scan to change where these lines are if it's incorrect. I usually just open it back up and move the film.

You can manually move the position in nikon scan, no need for that.

You shoot THROUGH AN glass? Doesn't that make the images look matte? I bought the glass holder which has AN glass on 1 side. The problem is that the film touches the bottom and gives newton rings. I know that there are some masks you can use, but I never really figure out how they work.
http://www.howtofixcomputers.com/forums/scanners/newton-rings-fh869g-anti-newton-ring-glass-27242.html

Here are the instructions on how to do it http://photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00BwYx I purchased no reflective glass, both pieces are matt and works great.

You can also save the scans as NEF files and open as a Raw file in Photoshop. It's not a real Raw file although one can use a lot of the tools to process the scan, much easier than nikon scan.

yep, I'm running this firewire with the vista directions that I think that link pulls from
http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/coolscan-vista-64.html
Title: Re: Plustek Opticfilm 120
Post by: Ian Rivlin on December 27, 2012, 09:02:18 PM
Was anyone away that this scanner doesn't have adjustable focus or autofocus? In addition, there are no glass carriers, so keeping the film flat will be impossible. In essence, it suffers from the same deficiencies as a inexpensive flatbed scanner. I was going to buy the OpticFilm 120 but without adjustable focus, I see little point. I'll check out the Microtek Artix F1. (which has adjustable focus and a greater Dmax than the Plustek). - It even costs slightly less than the OpticFilm 120.

Title: Re: Plustek Opticfilm 120
Post by: VisualLifeLine on December 28, 2012, 06:23:02 AM
What is your opinion on the Plustek Opticfilm 120 vs Nikon Coolscan 8000/9000? Which scanner would you choose and why?
Title: Re: Plustek Opticfilm 120
Post by: RomanN. on December 28, 2012, 07:16:22 AM
It is really hard to me to understand why there is so much interess in products of a cheap- low value products company that never made a scanner that could be called as a scanner.
low value chip together with low value lens will never make scans that can be usable, not to say good.
From where a company like plustek or other cheap producents could get a good lens? even Nikons lens is not really good- made by Nikon, so it was cheap for nikon to use they own lens and not to buy it at other company- in comparision to Rodenstock lenses used by Imacon the one in Nikon looks very poor. Every Imacon scanner, even the oldels or the little one like 343 will always outperfom any other scanner that will be done in the future becouse of the lens, that cost more than a Nikon 9000 or other similar scanner.
If I would do 120 Film I would go to Imacon 343 that is really cheap second hand. You can be sure that there will be never make a scanner that will achieve this quality.
ofcource drum scanners is other class of scanning quality, for people who want simply the best.
Title: Re: Plustek Opticfilm 120
Post by: KevinA on December 28, 2012, 08:30:08 AM
I'm actually thinking the best thing to do with film is wet print it. Time not spent at a computer I'm now classing as "quality time".
Inkjets drive me insane, they are like five year old children, always got a reason not to do what you asked it nicely to do.
I've had all kinds of scanners, even a Dainippon drum scanner, scanning truly is a pain in the A.....

I now stick with my old 8000 and Vuescan, plus a A3 Heidelberg flatbed which is sharper than any Epson I've ever seen. It cost me £60. with the mac thrown in.
That Plustec looks seriously over priced to me, there is so much quality secondhand scanners about for peanuts in comparison. Am Imacon or Creo would be on my list.
Come Jan/Feb the darkroom will be back up and running, certainly for B&W and I'm undecided about investing in colour printing. If I thought for sure it was going to be around  for the next ten years I would do it.
Title: Re: Plustek Opticfilm 120
Post by: TMARK on December 28, 2012, 10:02:33 AM
Before we shit all over the Plustek it would be nice if we actually saw how it works.  The Artix F1 is OK, better for prints.

Theoreticaly the Plustek's holders hold the film very flat and there is enough DOF in the lens itself.  I buy that this is possible.  I don't know if it works, and sure you don't know if it works.  Lets just see some reviews from peope who know what thy are doing, if it ever starts shipping, before passing judgment.

Was anyone away that this scanner doesn't have adjustable focus or autofocus? In addition, there are no glass carriers, so keeping the film flat will be impossible. In essence, it suffers from the same deficiencies as a inexpensive flatbed scanner. I was going to buy the OpticFilm 120 but without adjustable focus, I see little point. I'll check out the Microtek Artix F1. (which has adjustable focus and a greater Dmax than the Plustek). - It even costs slightly less than the OpticFilm 120.


Title: Re: Plustek Opticfilm 120
Post by: TMARK on December 28, 2012, 10:11:21 AM
Just wait until it comes out before pronouncing your subjective opinion.  If you need the VERY BEST get a drum scanner.

It is really hard to me to understand why there is so much interess in products of a cheap- low value products company that never made a scanner that could be called as a scanner.
low value chip together with low value lens will never make scans that can be usable, not to say good.
From where a company like plustek or other cheap producents could get a good lens? even Nikons lens is not really good- made by Nikon, so it was cheap for nikon to use they own lens and not to buy it at other company- in comparision to Rodenstock lenses used by Imacon the one in Nikon looks very poor. Every Imacon scanner, even the oldels or the little one like 343 will always outperfom any other scanner that will be done in the future becouse of the lens, that cost more than a Nikon 9000 or other similar scanner.
If I would do 120 Film I would go to Imacon 343 that is really cheap second hand. You can be sure that there will be never make a scanner that will achieve this quality.
ofcource drum scanners is other class of scanning quality, for people who want simply the best.
Title: Re: Plustek Opticfilm 120
Post by: Cineski on December 28, 2012, 11:31:02 AM
In terms of no auto focus on the Plustek, the lens has enough depth of field to get the entire scan in focus despite any film flatness issues.  This is rather big in my opinion.  Also should speed up scanning quite a bit.  FWIW, I can scan from my Nikon 9000 with stunning results.  Is it a quirky pain in the rump at times?  Yup.  But it's vastly better than anything I've received from any lab and developing a 16 bit RAW file from a scan in LR4 is pretty much does anything I want it to.
Title: Re: Plustek Opticfilm 120
Post by: RomanN. on December 28, 2012, 11:51:43 AM
"Just wait until it comes out before pronouncing your subjective opinion."- No, it is absolutly not subjective, it is logical.
It is always the same play of Illusions, that the industry use to sell new rubish, you can use your brain or believe in advertising- or did you work for this company?
 "If you need the VERY BEST get a drum scanner."- yes that true. I have some drumscanners, some Imacons, and had Nikon 9000 and maybe 10 other CCD scanners. I dont think you or somebody else can tell me something new about scanners. CCD is very simple: no good lens, no good scanns. Also there exist only good Kodak CCDs, there are used in Imacon or Creo Scanners, and they cost  a lot, so where should get this company good chips, and for what price?
It is easy: 20 000 euro scanner can be build for 2000 euro.
Title: Re: Plustek Opticfilm 120
Post by: Cineski on December 28, 2012, 02:14:05 PM
That's funny to hear you say I can't get good scans with my Nikon 9000.  I can.  And I'm no slouch with my expectations.
Title: Re: Plustek Opticfilm 120
Post by: RomanN. on December 28, 2012, 04:02:16 PM
If you are happy with your Nikon so stay with it. For me the Nikon scanns were too soft, nikon software must use much shapening to achieve a allround sharpness that a drumscanner achieve without any sharpening. After trying a drum scanner I scanned all my film for the second time and I was worry that I did not start with the right thing and loose so much time.
I will not loose time to explaine somebody that his scan could be better, but I think you should know it.
Title: Re: Plustek Opticfilm 120
Post by: rogerxnz on December 28, 2012, 05:04:50 PM
I am tracking this thread because I am interested in the Plustek scanner. I am disappointed to respond to a email advising that a new post has been made, only to find that it is two old-timers having an argument about their experiences with other scanners.

Would you please take your squabble elsewhere and let us focus on the merits of the Plustek scanner (should it ever become reality).
Roger
Title: Re: Plustek Opticfilm 120
Post by: Cineski on December 29, 2012, 08:07:07 PM
Roman, you got me ;-).  While my scans are what I would consider sharp (after applying sharpening in LR4), I don't favor an extremely high amount of sharpening in my photographs.  I look between the lines for what I like in an image.  To me, a too-sharp an image grates on me (but I also have an emotional hold-up that black and white images should have visible grain  :o).  But I have seen comparisons between the 9000 and some drum scanners and I'm not seeing that big of a difference that you may have seen?
Title: Re: Plustek Opticfilm 120
Post by: Kirk Gittings on December 29, 2012, 08:14:53 PM
The difference is not just about resolution (or how much sharpening you have to apply to make up for the loss). A good drum scanner can actually focus on and separate the grain which the 9000 cannot do (in the 9000 you see clumped grains as "grain' because it can't resolve down to that level). A good drum scan can also extract more detail out of thin shadows and dense highlights.

and FWIW I have been scanning film for a decade now with many film scanners from Epson flatbeds to the Nikon 9000 and professional flatbeds like the IQsmart and drum scanners. The samples I have seen from the Plustek put it closer in quality to the Epson flatbeds that even the Nikon 9000.
Title: Re: Plustek Opticfilm 120
Post by: TMARK on December 31, 2012, 12:12:12 PM
Roman, I don't work for Plustek. Neither do you, I assume, which means you haven't handled one. You don't know what lens, sensor it uses. I don't. It could be a complete piece of shit. It could be an alternative to a used Nikon. I don't know, neither do you.  So my point is: wait until we see a real scan. That's all I'm saying.

Kirk, you are correct, but in reality that level of resolution and peaking into shadows is only necessary for specific applications  if I needed that level of quality I'd send it out for a drum scan. In my professional life my images were usually printed in magazines, so a drum scan was unnecessary. If you need a drum scan you need a Drum scan. Period.  But most of the time I don't need a drum scan.  I would also think that a digital back would be a good option at that point as well.
Title: Re: Plustek Opticfilm 120
Post by: Kirk Gittings on December 31, 2012, 04:21:06 PM
Our experience has been very different. I've shot for magazines my entire career. When I shot film, the magazines were responsible for the scans and usually done by pre-press houses connected to the printers-they were always drum scans. That is my professional standard for magazine reproduction. For my b&w artwork I find I can get by with an IQSmart scan, but prefer a drum scan there too.
Title: Re: Plustek Opticfilm 120
Post by: Cineski on January 01, 2013, 09:55:21 AM
When I scan with my 9000, I can zoom in to 100% on the scan and see individual film grain even with 100 speed film, there's never any clumping but I may have misunderstood what you're talking about.  The 9000 does blow highlights which is why I have it set up to scan for highlights and then bring up mids and shadows in post.  Even then, the highlights can lack grain structure that I know is there and has to be replaced in post but that's a rare occasion.  But the shadow detail I can pull never leaves me wanting more.  I can see the film's grain structure and lots of detail with no digital artifacts introduced from the scanner itself.  That said, I've never used a drum scanner or have had drum scans done.  I personally don't have any interest in it due to the cost and time it takes.  The only scanner I'd like to get my hands on is a Hassy X5 which screams through scans from what I've read.  So, take what I write with that in mind but I do consider myself someone who will go to great lengths for image quality.  The 9000's resolution and detail has never left me wanting more.  There are other quirks in the system that get me at times.

The difference is not just about resolution (or how much sharpening you have to apply to make up for the loss). A good drum scanner can actually focus on and separate the grain which the 9000 cannot do (in the 9000 you see clumped grains as "grain' because it can't resolve down to that level). A good drum scan can also extract more detail out of thin shadows and dense highlights.

and FWIW I have been scanning film for a decade now with many film scanners from Epson flatbeds to the Nikon 9000 and professional flatbeds like the IQsmart and drum scanners. The samples I have seen from the Plustek put it closer in quality to the Epson flatbeds that even the Nikon 9000.
Title: Re: Plustek Opticfilm 120
Post by: TMARK on January 01, 2013, 02:24:23 PM
Our experience has been very different. I've shot for magazines my entire career. When I shot film, the magazines were responsible for the scans and usually done by pre-press houses connected to the printers-they were always drum scans. That is my professional standard for magazine reproduction. For my b&w artwork I find I can get by with an IQSmart scan, but prefer a drum scan there too.

This was my experience as well, until digital started taking over and the quality of the drum scans from many service bureaus started going to shit.  Larger editorial clients like Hachette and Conde Naste titles seem to still have some good scanner operators in their printer's pre press departments, but many smaller magazines, starting around 2006 or so, were taking my FPO scans and using them as final art, which is why I started making high res scans my self for publication or simply providing prints, ensuring they had them drum scanned. But I shot portraits so it was never as demanding as say landscape or products, or interiors.  When I shot beauty on film it was always drum scanned, but this was commercial work.  I always thought that a drum scan was a waste for most magazines.

With all that said, the Plustek COULD be in the Nikon 9000 range. I hope it is. 
Title: Re: Plustek Opticfilm 120
Post by: torger on February 12, 2013, 09:25:48 AM
Anything new on this? Has any expert user tested the Plustek Opticfilm 120 yet?
Title: Re: Plustek Opticfilm 120
Post by: amsp on February 12, 2013, 01:35:17 PM
Anything new on this? Has any expert user tested the Plustek Opticfilm 120 yet?

I haven't seen any professional tests yet, but there's plenty of user feedback over at: www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=128661
Title: Re: Plustek Opticfilm 120
Post by: drevil on February 12, 2013, 08:52:27 PM
a friend of mine received his plustek some weeks ago and did some testing, he comes from a well calibrated epson scanner and in the end he returned the the plustek, saying the little differences, and occasionally better results for the epson, arent worth the money.

http://retrolux.de/plustek-opticfilm-120-sample-scans
Title: Re: Plustek Opticfilm 120
Post by: torger on February 13, 2013, 03:27:39 AM
a friend of mine received his plustek some weeks ago and did some testing, he comes from a well calibrated epson scanner and in the end he returned the the plustek, saying the little differences, and occasionally better results for the epson, arent worth the money.

http://retrolux.de/plustek-opticfilm-120-sample-scans

Based on the sample scans there I actually think the plustek 120 looks quite promising. I wonder how close it is to Nikon 9000 ED. A scan of a resolution test slide would be cool too, it can be quite hard to see on photo scans as it depends on the quality of the slide but it seems to me that the resolution is quite good. And then the dmax would be nice to test.
Title: Re: Plustek Opticfilm 120
Post by: BernhardFuhry on February 13, 2013, 10:15:33 AM
for those not following the rangefinderforum discussion, I uploaded some almost full resolution FP4+ 6x6 scans:

Flickr Album - Plustek 120 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/kanzlr/sets/72157632673003968/)

Title: Re: Plustek Opticfilm 120
Post by: dmerger on February 13, 2013, 05:44:50 PM
It’s kind of interesting.  This thread is talking about the newest film scanner, while this thread is talking about using a camera instead of a scanner to digitize film.  http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=75024.0  Another recent thread also talked about using a camera instead of a scanner. So, maybe another question might be how close using a camera is to the Plustek (or any scanner)?
Title: Re: Plustek Opticfilm 120
Post by: DeckardTrinity on February 13, 2013, 10:52:01 PM
I have to say that things are not looking "good", based on the samples I've seen posted, that this thing is going to be any better than my V700... and the Epson has another thing going for it that the Plustek never will - dual channel scanning of medium format film. That alone cuts my scanning time in half, and combined with Betterscanning holders + glass, is a very hard combo for any "flat" scanner to beat.
Title: Re: Plustek Opticfilm 120
Post by: BernhardFuhry on February 14, 2013, 04:36:25 AM
well it extracts all the detail there is in the 120 negative. What more do you expect? I do not have a V700, only a 4490 and the Plustek is sharper, extracts more detail and especially with slides it seems to provide better Dmax.

that, and it is WAY faster. A minute for a full resolution 6x6 scan approximately.

On the other hand, it is a cheap scanner. It is only twice of what a v750 costs and if it is silghtly better, it is a bargain already. It basically matches or exceeds the resolution of a Coolscan (I rescanned 35mm strips that I already did on a Coolscan 4000 and the Plustek is at least as good, and thats way better than a flatbed).
Title: Re: Plustek Opticfilm 120
Post by: torger on February 14, 2013, 04:52:00 AM
It’s kind of interesting.  This thread is talking about the newest film scanner, while this thread is talking about using a camera instead of a scanner to digitize film.  http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=75024.0  Another recent thread also talked about using a camera instead of a scanner. So, maybe another question might be how close using a camera is to the Plustek (or any scanner)?

Since I don't have a medium format scanner (just a 35mm scanner) I've so far used a DSLR with macro lens and stitching to digitize medium format slides. Using a 5Dmk2 with a Sigma 150mm macro lens, a light table, custom color profiles, shooting at f/8 (to get some DoF margin) deconvolution sharpening and stitching one gets about 3600 effective ppi (tested with resolution test slide), and since one can use HDR the DMAX gets extremely good. I'd say the dynamic range is better than on most scanners thanks to HDR, resolution is of course much better than any flatbed, but not drum scan quality. Haloing around high contrast edges due to the light source is probably there too, which is better avoided in drum scanning. Shooting at f/5.6 or f/4 is possible to get a little bit better resolution, but then you have so short DoF that getting the corners in focus can be a challenge, so I found that f/8 was the best compromise.

One needs good film holders and dust-free environment. The largest drawback with this technique is however that it is very work intensive, and stitching can be a little bit of a mess. I would prefer to use a film scanner, but to be pleased it has to deliver quality at least as good as DSLR + macro lens + stitching.
Title: Re: Plustek Opticfilm 120
Post by: TMARK on February 15, 2013, 02:20:59 PM
From samples i've seen it doesn't look to be as good as the Nikon 9000, but better than the Epson 750, by a hair.  I'd like to see a scan from a mamiya 7 negative.
Title: Re: Plustek Opticfilm 120
Post by: EricWHiss on February 15, 2013, 09:22:53 PM
It’s kind of interesting.  This thread is talking about the newest film scanner, while this thread is talking about using a camera instead of a scanner to digitize film.  http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=75024.0  Another recent thread also talked about using a camera instead of a scanner. So, maybe another question might be how close using a camera is to the Plustek (or any scanner)?
 

Based on the samples Bernhard has supplied, my feeling is my my 'scans' with my digital back and macro lens over a light table are at least that good, and most likely better than the plustek.  But I don't have just any digital back, I have a multishot back.  

Here's a 'scan' from my old Rollei TLR handheld with expired film someone gave me - 6x6 negs.  First the whole frame reduced and then a 100% crop.   Scan was achieved using an enlarging lens fit to the Rollei shutter adapter with the camera a 6008AF over a light table. 

Title: Re: Plustek Opticfilm 120
Post by: BernhardFuhry on February 16, 2013, 08:41:31 AM
somebody else has posted a Mamiya 7II sample:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2074168&postcount=233
Title: Re: Plustek Opticfilm 120
Post by: TMARK on February 16, 2013, 09:54:06 AM
somebody else has posted a Mamiya 7II sample:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2074168&postcount=233

Much better.
Title: Re: Plustek Opticfilm 120
Post by: TMARK on February 17, 2013, 07:03:07 AM
 It's better than the Eposon v750, but not as good as the scanners with AF like the Nikon 8000/9000, Microtek 120tf, Minolta 5400 etc.