Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Plustek Scanners  (Read 9036 times)

petercook80

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 60
Plustek Scanners
« on: October 10, 2008, 10:59:52 am »

Hello All,
Not sure if this is the right place for this..

I might be thinking of getting a Plustek Film Scanner, possibly the OpticFilm 7200 or 7300.
I was wondering if anyone out there used these scanners and if the could send me a scan or two so I can check the quality  (especially on shadow details).
I have contacted Plustek in the UK and they were unable to furnish me with any samples!

I will be away for the next week so will check for any responses when I get back, and arrange details (if anyone can help that is)

Thanks

Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Plustek Scanners
« Reply #1 on: June 05, 2009, 08:50:50 am »

Quote from: petercook80
Hello All,
Not sure if this is the right place for this..

I might be thinking of getting a Plustek Film Scanner, possibly the OpticFilm 7200 or 7300.
I was wondering if anyone out there used these scanners and if the could send me a scan or two so I can check the quality  (especially on shadow details).
I have contacted Plustek in the UK and they were unable to furnish me with any samples!

I will be away for the next week so will check for any responses when I get back, and arrange details (if anyone can help that is)

Thanks

I'm quite surprised how difficult it is to find any serious reviews of the latest Plustek dedicated 35mm scanners. The optical scanning resolution of 7200 ppi would appear to be outstanding, but of course that depends in part on the quality of the scanner's lens. The quoted DR of the 3.5 is not particularly impressive. On the other hand, DR is a figure which is often exaggerated. Perhaps Plustek exaggerates it's DR spec to a lesser extent than do its competitors. In any case, the Plustek 7500i is bundled with SilverFast's 6.5 Ai Studio with IT8 calibration target and mult-exposure feature, so presumably one can merge 2 or more scans to increase DR if required.

With such high resolution, the facility of merging different exposures to increase DR and the color accuracy provided by SilverFast's calibration, this might be one of the best 35mm scanners available, for all I know.
Logged

Czornyj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1948
    • zarzadzaniebarwa.pl
Plustek Scanners
« Reply #2 on: June 05, 2009, 09:32:46 am »

Quote from: Ray
this might be one of the best 35mm scanners available, for all I know.

I hate to say it, but it's unlikely:

Plustek 7500:


Nikon LS-5000ED:


http://www.filmscanner.info/en/PlustekOpticFilm7500i.html
« Last Edit: June 05, 2009, 09:34:27 am by Czornyj »
Logged
Marcin Kałuża | [URL=http://zarzadzaniebarwa

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Plustek Scanners
« Reply #3 on: June 05, 2009, 11:35:28 am »

Quote from: Czornyj
I hate to say it, but it's unlikely:
http://www.filmscanner.info/en/PlustekOpticFilm7500i.html

There's something wrong with the test target images you've shown. A test target scanned at 7200 ppi should be much larger than one scanned at 4000 ppi. The scanner review site you refer to above, describes the resolution of the Plustek as testing at 3500 dpi (which is far below spec) and the Nikon 5000ED as testing at 3900 dpi (which is very close to spec). However, the difference between 3500 dpi and 3900 dpi is marginal.

Their review of the Konica-Minolta 5400 II, which is the scanner I use, but which was beginning to give me a bit of trouble last time I used it, has a tested resolution of 4200 dpi (The review is only available in German, however).

Perhaps we could say that the Plustek 7500 is certainly the best value scanner.

Edit: I should add that flatbed scanners such as Epson's V700 Photo with very impressive resolution specs are significantly worse than the Plustek 7500. According to the test results at filmscanner.info, the V700 with a claimed resolution of 6400 dpi actually delivers only 2300 dpi, or about 46 lp/mm.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2009, 11:50:35 am by Ray »
Logged

Czornyj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1948
    • zarzadzaniebarwa.pl
Plustek Scanners
« Reply #4 on: June 05, 2009, 12:40:51 pm »

There's nothing wrong - they only show the inner part of the chart scanned with the Plustek:

It just shows, that Plustek's infernal resolution is only impressive on paper - the quality of the scanner lens must be low. The contrast is poor, and DR is very small. I also wouldn't expect that merging different exposures would make things better. You get what you pay for.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2009, 12:49:38 pm by Czornyj »
Logged
Marcin Kałuża | [URL=http://zarzadzaniebarwa

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Plustek Scanners
« Reply #5 on: June 05, 2009, 08:10:44 pm »

Quote from: Czornyj
There's nothing wrong - they only show the inner part of the chart scanned with the Plustek:

It just shows, that Plustek's infernal resolution is only impressive on paper - the quality of the scanner lens must be low. The contrast is poor, and DR is very small. I also wouldn't expect that merging different exposures would make things better. You get what you pay for.

I see what you mean. I didn't think the difference between 3500 dpi and 3900 dpi would be that noticeable. Contrast is something that's adjustable in the scanner's software, or in Photoshop. The histograms of these test targets look so different, I wonder if ScanDig simply used the scanner companies' own software in default mode when they scanned this target. SilverFast's Ai Studio with calibration target is expensive software. Nikon Scan that ships with the 5000ED would be better than Plustek's own software but probably not as good as SilverFast 6.5 Ai Studio with multiple exposure.

I've downloaded the rez charts for the Nikon 5000, Minolta 5400 II, Plustek 7500 and Epson V700 flatbed, enlarged them to get a clearer idea of what's going on, and adjusted the contrast. As you can see, the resolution of the KM 5400 II is the highest, as described by ScanDig at 4200 dpi. Both the Plustek and the Epson V700 show visible CA, whereas the Nikon and Minolta are free of CA, but you'll notice that both the Minolta and Plustek scans seem to have blown highlights. The whites are whiter and the marks and scratches on the test target have almost completely disappeared in the case of the Plustek scan.

The Dmax of the 5400 II is supposed to be impressive 4.2 (from memory) so there's no reason why a scan with proper adjustments would not pick up the details of the scratches and marks in the highlights of the test target, if appropriate software adjustments were made before scanning.

The other problem I believe, is that Nikon no longer make film scanners. Is this true? If it's a choice between the Plustek 7500i and the Epson V700, I'd definitely go for the Plustek.

[attachment=14333:Scanner_comparison.jpg]
Logged

whawn

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 78
    • The Daily Photographâ„¢
Plustek Scanners
« Reply #6 on: June 06, 2009, 01:52:34 am »

Quote from: Ray
The other problem I believe, is that Nikon no longer make film scanners. Is this true? If it's a choice between the Plustek 7500i and the Epson V700, I'd definitely go for the Plustek.
Nikon shows the 9000 and the 5000 on their website

I've used both and they are very good.  Not as good as Imacon, but close, especially when using a fluid mount.  You don't really need Silverfast.  Vuescan does as well, although its interface is a bit -- unique -- and it's quite a lot cheaper, plus it'll work with nearly any other scanner you have.  I use it for scanning ordinary docs, etc, because it works well.
Logged
Walter Hawn -- Casper, Wyoming

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Plustek Scanners
« Reply #7 on: June 06, 2009, 07:46:31 am »

Quote from: whawn
Nikon shows the 9000 and the 5000 on their website

I've used both and they are very good.  Not as good as Imacon, but close, especially when using a fluid mount.  You don't really need Silverfast.  Vuescan does as well, although its interface is a bit -- unique -- and it's quite a lot cheaper, plus it'll work with nearly any other scanner you have.  I use it for scanning ordinary docs, etc, because it works well.

The scanners are also shown on the Australian Nikon site, but I can't find any retailer who has the 5000 ED in stock. Not that I need a new scanner right now. I have the Nikon 8000 ED and the Minolta 5400 II, but dedicated film scanners seem to be going out of fashion. I have lots of negatives and slides going back many years. I wondered if the new Plustek models bundled with SilverFast would have out-resolved the 5400 II. But apparently not.
Logged

Krusty

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2
Plustek Scanners
« Reply #8 on: June 06, 2009, 11:34:32 pm »

I tried to buy a Nikon 5000 last week and was told by Nikon New Zealand that it had been discontinued (and that they'd sold their last one the previous week), even though it was still shown on their web site. I seem to recall seeing a comment to the same effect on a Leica forum a while ago. The 9000 is still available.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up