Plustek opticfilm 120 Scanner for Medium Format

T

Taimoor

Suspended / Banned
Messages
379
Name
Taimoor
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello Everyone!
Please forgive me if this has been asked before as i could not find it in search.

Has anyone used 120 Plustek scanner here on forum for their medium format scans?

If yes i would like to get some feedback and would love to hear user experience. How is it compared to flatbed 6x6 results?

Thanks

T
 
Have you bought it or thinking of buying it? I can't answer your question direct but can add that even an old cheap flatbed scanner is quite good for medium format scans......as I've played with a few.
 
I am looking for one. Having used 35mm Minilab scanners for long i am not sure flatbed will be of interested but i cant say anything as i have not used it for medium format.
 
Yes, I've got one. I did, a log time ago (or so it seems) put scans from the same negative with the PlusTek and the Epson v700 on my OneDrive to post a link for someone who was interested. I clearly removed the (much) larger PlusTek scan to reclaim space. If I can locate it, I'll add it again and post a link.

The quick summary is that the Epson V700 will scan a 6x7 black and white negative well enough for an A3 print that passes muster under my magnifying glass. Faced with a colour negative comparison, the PlusTek delivers more detail, but not a lot; so which you prefer (given the difference in price!) will come down to how large you want to print. My reasoning was that I also have old 35mm negatives that I scan on an ad hoc basis, and the extra resolution made the PlusTek worthwhile (and it never harms to have a better 6x7 scan if I need one and don't want to get a drum scan done).
 
Last edited:
Personally, I'd really struggle to justify the cost.

The Epson V500 I use is more than good enough for web and perfectly acceptable for A3 prints.

If by some miracle I ever take a photo worthy of professional quality scanning and printing, I'll send it away.

I could get an awful lot of those done for C£1500
 
simon ess said:
Personally, I'd really struggle to justify the cost.

The Epson V500 I use is more than good enough for web and perfectly acceptable for A3 prints.
Click to expand...

I thought long and hard about it; it was the small extra gain that would apply also to 35mm that tipped me. My A3 prints from 6x7 are better than acceptable (to me, anyway). On that basis, despite the extra resolution, I'd probably recommend an Epson flatbed for medium format unless you were going to print larger than A3 (or selectively enlarge to A3). That said, the degree of enlargement from 6x6 is slightly greater.

I still haven't found the scan from the PlusTek although it is rather a large thing to misplace...
 
StephenM said:
it was the small extra gain that would apply also to 35mm that tipped me.
Click to expand...

You're probably right but I can't help wondering how big the gain would need to be to justify the price. I'm not saying there isn't a gain and, if you can afford it, why not get the best available, but not for me.

Here's a recent 35 mm from my V500

img270 by Simon, on Flickr
 
Thanks simon, ill be glad to see some 120 film scans if you have any pref c41?
 
I think that I've sorted out the scans. The Epson one was done at full scanner resolution, which makes it a large file. The PlusTek one would have been even larger, so it's here a reduced size jpg. I know that this makes for a skewed comparison, but hopefully it will serve. I was only bothered about the resolution, and paid zero attention to getting the colour right - I just completely ignored it in fact. So don't judge the scanners by the colours. The original PlusTek scan I found was laterally reversed, so I flipped it, which may again alter the image in unwanted ways. Hence, you can see both.

The places to look carefully are the lettering hidden between the hedge and bush, about one quarter in from the right hand edge and the clump of grass between the boulders just below the building.

Hopefully this link will work.
 
StephenM said:
I think that I've sorted out the scans. The Epson one was done at full scanner resolution, which makes it a large file. The PlusTek one would have been even larger, so it's here a reduced size jpg. I know that this makes for a skewed comparison, but hopefully it will serve. I was only bothered about the resolution, and paid zero attention to getting the colour right - I just completely ignored it in fact. So don't judge the scanners by the colours. The original PlusTek scan I found was laterally reversed, so I flipped it, which may again alter the image in unwanted ways. Hence, you can see both.

The places to look carefully are the lettering hidden between the hedge and bush, about one quarter in from the right hand edge and the clump of grass between the boulders just below the building.

Hopefully this link will work.
Click to expand...

If the flipped one is plustek and Glen Nevis is V700...then pixel peeping in Photoshop the Plustek has better resolution.....Using a good quality printer you might might see a difference in an A3 print but IMO not for A4.
 
excalibur2 said:
If the flipped one is plustek and Glen Nevis is V700...then pixel peeping in Photoshop the Plustek has better resolution.....Using a good quality printer you might might see a difference in an A3 print but IMO not for A4.
Click to expand...

I'd agree with that. I don't have a side by side comparison using my more normal black and white, where the film resolution is higher and differences might be more apparent. As I said though, it was the slight improvement that would be more evident in 35mm that tipped me - if I was going to get a scanner to give better scans with 35mm, I might as well get one that would improve roll film as well. The degree of enlargement with 5x4 makes anything better a bit irrelevant to me.
 
StephenM said:
I'd agree with that. I don't have a side by side comparison using my more normal black and white, where the film resolution is higher and differences might be more apparent. As I said though, it was the slight improvement that would be more evident in 35mm that tipped me - if I was going to get a scanner to give better scans with 35mm, I might as well get one that would improve roll film as well. The degree of enlargement with 5x4 makes anything better a bit irrelevant to me.
Click to expand...

Well you can get a lot of Asda scans 36exp for £1 and they use a Fuji Frontier and would be surprised if a Plustek is better for resolution......treat the low Asda scans as proofs and any winners send off for a high scan and a print of A3 or larger. Anyway my system works for me but might be ending soon as the rumour is Asda (Photo-me) is getting rid of the film side, so I'll be back to scanning with my V750 :(
As for MF, even a £4 bootie scanner like 4180 photo can give good results and if all your only going to post here or do A4 prints why spend a lot of money (excluding if you have the money get what you like)...a guy here has produced some nice shots and his scanner came out of the ark, it's the Epson 1000 series.
Also someone here uses a VG flatbed scanner (maybe he is reading this thread) bought S\H a lot cheaper than the Plustek and again would be surprised if the Plustek has better resolution.
 
Last edited:
Step one of the files is about 1.4GB is that correct? as it wont let me oopen it with out downloading.
 
Afraid so - that's the full size one from the V700. I usually scan with the setting to average out 4 pixels to one (reduces noise) but deliberately left that off to give as level a playing field as I could in terms of performance. The PlusTek one must have been about 2-3GB which is why (once I'd examined it) I reduced it for posting some time ago.
 
Thats too good!!!! I just the full size on flickr! amazing
 
For MF:- if you want to see the difference between a cheap Epson 4180 (I got it for £4) and a V750 both high scans then https://www.flickr.com/photos/31831722@N08/31069529111/in/dateposted-public/ when first visiting the site sometimes one of the shots doesn't look sharp OR takes a while, but if you click on them you can pixel peep. Ignore the light leak on the RH (it was my fault) and spots etc as it was only test shots with a RB67 with 65mm lens (no tripod used).
So what's the difference? well the V750 has better resolution and in theory supposed to get into the shadows better (Dmax) BUT if you are never going to do a print over say 10X8 or do large cropping and you don't have much cash, then you can get by with a very cheap scanner.
BTW I'm not saying get the 4180 as it is near or at the bottom of the Epson 4000 series.
 
Last edited:
excalibur2 said:
For MF:- if you want to see the difference between a cheap Epson 4180 (I got it for £4) and a V750 both high scans then https://www.flickr.com/photos/31831722@N08/31069529111/in/dateposted-public/ when first visiting the site sometimes one of the shots doesn't look sharp OR takes a while, but if you click on them you can pixel peep. Ignore the light leak on the RH (it was my fault) and spots etc as it was only test shots with a RB67 with 65mm lens (no tripod used).
So what's the difference? well the V750 has better resolution and in theory supposed to get into the shadows better (Dmax) BUT if you are never going to do a print over say 10X8 or do large cropping and you don't have much cash, then you can get by with a very cheap scanner.
BTW I'm not saying get the 4180 as it is near or at the bottom of the Epson 4000 series.
Click to expand...


Both look quite close to me :) Which one is 750 then.. Fantastic .
 
Everything in this gallery was scanned using an epson V750 using vuescan raw DNG output and downsized to 8000 pixels wide. (or high if portrait)
 
Taimoor said:
Both look quite close to me :) Which one is 750 then.. Fantastic .
Click to expand...

The one that doesn't say 4180 i.e. img088.;) The V750 wins the more you enlarge on the screen. Ctrl +
So for MF.... it's sorta diminishing returns for your money as better results should be with the Plustek (as shown previously), then next a lab using a Fuji Frontier or similar and finally a drum scan.
There are some gadgets for the V750 that might give even better results that hold the neg flat or an Epson thingie where you add fluid to the neg https://www.amazon.co.uk/Epson-Fluid-Perfection-Scanning-Fluids/dp/B000JF5HNQ
 
Last edited:
Aha! Agreed. Only problem is amount of time it takes on flatbed! So lets see. I am in touch with someone who could source Plustek 120 at a price i would like to jump in. if that doesnt work for me then perhaps v750ish or 800 is the way to go!

will report back
 
Taimoor said:
Aha! Agreed. Only problem is amount of time it takes on flatbed! So lets see. I am in touch with someone who could source Plustek 120 at a price i would like to jump in. if that doesnt work for me then perhaps v750ish or 800 is the way to go!

will report back
Click to expand...

The V750 is not too bad as you can scan twelve slides or twenty four 35mm or eight 6 X4.5 in one go and you can select parts of the neg to be scanned after preview as well as selecting dust removal or sharpening or colour balance etc before you finally scan.
 
As i said before, I am purely looking for a 120 Film Scanner. 35mm is not issue as i have got minilab frontier and kodak pakon which are joy to use.
 
Just to add here,

I am adding my new Plustek 8200Ai to Classifieds, Purchased around 18-20 Months ago from Amazon but never used. Fully Boxed with everything.

However has been opened and tested. it was purchased for a paid Job but never got used as i ended up using my Fuji Frontier for Scanning.

Thanks

[ Admin" Please delete if i am breaking rules]
 
Taimoor said:
As i said before, I am purely looking for a 120 Film Scanner. 35mm is not issue as i have got minilab frontier and kodak pakon which are joy to use.
Click to expand...

Well I put up a very good 35mm 135mm f3.5 lens by Canon in case anyone is interested in how good is a V750, https://www.flickr.com/photos/31831722@N08/30403237883/in/dateposted-public/ you have to find the system where you click on the shot to get maximum enlargement or sharpness, but being new to Flickr find it so confusing as I'm trying to upload a Bronica etrs 75mm shot and also haven't found away of deleting a shot (uploaded a 2nd one as I thought the first one didn't work).....but Epson's software "fiddle" still gives annoying pixels for high scans (maybe Viewscan or silverfast would be better) and a VG dslr would knock spots off the V750 for testing lenses for resolution. BTW I don't have a DSLr but on a forum where they use em
 
Last edited:
Brian, if you want to delete a photo, click on it then go to the edit button on the right hand side below the image (looks like a box with a pencil sticking out of the top right corner) click on it and then click on delete.

Andy
 
excalibur2 said:
Well I put up a very good 35mm 135mm f3.5 lens by Canon in case anyone is interested in how good is a V750, https://www.flickr.com/photos/31831722@N08/30403237883/in/dateposted-public/ you have to find the system where you click on the shot to get maximum enlargement or sharpness, but being new to Flickr find it so confusing as I'm trying to upload a Bronica etrs 75mm shot and also haven't found away of deleting a shot (uploaded a 2nd one as I thought the first one didn't work).....but Epson's software "fiddle" still gives annoying pixels for high scans (maybe Viewscan or silverfast would be better) and a VG dslr would knock spots off the V750 for testing lenses for resolution. BTW I don't have a DSLr but on a forum where they use em
Click to expand...

wow thats too sharp for my taste!! These scanners are no wonder quite capable.
 
Andysnap said:
Brian, if you want to delete a photo, click on it then go to the edit button on the right hand side below the image (looks like a box with a pencil sticking out of the top right corner) click on it and then click on delete.

Andy
Click to expand...

Thanks Andy, for some reason the duplicate shot has disappeard (or haven't found the page where it is :rolleyes:)
 
Last edited:
Taimoor said:
wow thats too sharp for my taste!! These scanners are no wonder quite capable.
Click to expand...

My old Canon breechlock 135mm f3.5 is very good, as a few years ago (something to do) tested a range of lenses from 200mm to 50mm and my favourite zoom, used a tripod and changed the same film to different cameras (to eliminate that error)...well my favourite zoom lost out to a prime on pixel peeping (well expected) even my old 135mm Pentax Tak wasn't a winner (h'mm surprised)....all fun and playing with lenses is a hobby in itself as there is more to just resolution in a lens.... as we all know.
 
Provided the film wants to sit flat, the epson scanner does a fine job with medium format. Compressing the negative strips under a few very heavy books for a day or two helps with troublesome curly negs. The raw output from vuescan as a DNG gives full 6400dpi which produces files in excess of 500mb up to about 1.4GB depending on the neg size and greyscale/colour.

A 645 scan from fuji astia slide film using a V750. The scanner had a little trouble retaining the detail in the eyes on this slide. Full res versions can be found here, they are pretty big but not rediculous. (69mb is the biggest)
Jess by Kyle, on Flickr

6x7 kodak Ektar
CefnOnn-Ektar-01 by Kyle, on Flickr

6x7 Fuji Acros
Leander-ACROS100-02 by Kyle, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Kei said:
Provided the film wants to sit flat, the epson scanner does a fine job with medium format. Compressing the negative strips under a few very heavy books for a day or two helps with troublesome curly negs. The raw output from vuescan as a DNG gives full 6400dpi which

A 645 scan from fuji astia slide film using a V750. The scanner had a little trouble retaining the detail in the eyes on this slide. Full res versions can be found here, they are pretty big but not rediculous. (69mb is the biggest)
e, on Flickr

6x7 kodak EktaROS100-02 by Kyle, on Flickr
Click to expand...


Excellent Snaps!! Very Beautiful
 
I am surprised why people moan about flatbeds!!! if i can get these sort of results i will be over the moon
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top