[MD Optofonik]

We have a new, affordable, scanner for our 35mm slides and negatives. It's no Hassy but, priced less than $500.00US, it's cheaper than the Nikon Coolscan 5000 which has been considered, for quit awhile, the gold standard of "affordable" 35mm scanners but was discontinued awhile back and now only available used without a warranty.

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=U...tml&edit-text=

"The Reflecta Proscan 10T offers excellent value for money and at the moment in this price segment without any real competition in the market."

---

Last edited by MD Optofonik; 11-27-2014 at 11:11 PM.

[tuco]

Your link is short the actual webpage to be translated.

[MD Optofonik]

Your link is short the actual webpage to be translated.

I just clicked the link and was taken to the translated page.

Here's a link to the original page:

Reflecta ProScan 10T Testbericht: Bildqualit

I'm surprised by the initial comment abut the 10M, aka Primefilm XA,

[tuco]

From the scanner review:

The Reflecta Proscan 10T has an effective resolution of 4100 ppi, reaching 82% of the nominal resolution of 5000 ppi. A scan with 10,000 ppi does not increase the effective resolution.

[Mikesul]

Has anyone tried this yet?

[wombat2go]

The Reflecta Proscan 10T has an effective resolution of 4100 ppi

I have the Medium Format version Reflecta MidformatScan MF5000 aka PrimeFilmPro120 which uses a 3200dpi 48 bit CCD with a dynamic range of 72dB.
Scanning 35mm film on that at 3200 dpi gives tiffs of 4468 by 3011 pixels. That is a 3 by 16 bit tiff of 77 MB

To reduce file size I usually reduce the resolution, and scan 6x7 at 1800 pixels/inch and 35mm at 2400 pixels/inch.
I think it is necessary to scan at the 3 by 16 bit depth because I do the gamma correction outside of the scanner using CinePaint.

The PrimeFilm XE aka Reflecta ProScan 10T specs say optical resolution is 10000 dpi 48 bit with a dynamic range of 78dB
I think tiff scans of 35mm film at full resolution would be in the 400MB range -- too big ?

[MD Optofonik]

The PrimeFilm XE aka Reflecta ProScan 10T specs say optical resolution is 10000 dpi 48 bit with a dynamic range of 78dB
I think tiff scans of 35mm film at full resolution would be in the 400MB range -- too big ?

This group has some examples of what the XA/XE scanners can do. Look at the description to determine which Reflecta or Primefilm model was used. Also here for the XA, and here for the XE

The native resolution is 5000 for both the XE/10T and XA/10M. Vuescan, the program I use, will not allow scans beyond native resolution and ScanDig has confirmed that there is nothing gained by scanning at higher than 5000.

---

Last edited by MD Optofonik; 11-29-2014 at 05:25 PM.

[wombat2go]

some examples of what the XA/XE scanners can do.

MD,
Thanks for links, I enjoyed some of the photos.
I have become interested in the hybrid film/digital. It is good to be able to discuss it on PF, as on my other favorite forum we can discuss from front of objective lens to a dried negative, but we are forbidden to discuss after the dried negative image, if it is not wet printed.

Vuescan does not have drivers for the PrimeFilmPro120 and I am all linux, so I resurrected an old Win XP and setup vnc and ftps servers on it to access the scanner and transfer the tiffs.

[hjoseph7]

Has anyone tried this yet?

No, but I have tried and own the US version which is called Prime Film XE. I paid less than $300 for mine, $275 actually. First of all the Scanner's sweet spot is at about 4500 dpi, scanning at anything more than that and all you are doing is replicating pixels and creating HUGE files on your computer. This is a pretty good scanner but I think it still falls short of the Nikon Coolscan 5000 in dynamic range. An even better option is the PrimeFilm XA or Reflecta XA model which is automatic, has better dynamic range and cost a bit more of course.

[Mikesul]

No, but I have tried and own the US version which is called Prime Film XE. I paid less than $300 for mine, $275 actually. First of all the Scanner's sweet spot is at about 4500 dpi, scanning at anything more than that and all you are doing is replicating pixels and creating HUGE files on your computer. This is a pretty good scanner but I think it still falls short of the Nikon Coolscan 5000 in dynamic range. An even better option is the PrimeFilm XA or Reflecta XA model which is automatic, has better dynamic range and cost a bit more of course.

Thanks. Not a bad price.

[MD Optofonik]

This is a pretty good scanner but I think it still falls short of the Nikon Coolscan 5000 in dynamic range.

I've never seen actual tests to determine if the Dmax of the Coolscan 9000 is as advertised (4.8). Usually one finds that a manufacturer overstates such things as in Nikon's assertion that the 9000 achieves 4000 dpi when tests indicated 3900 is the maximum. That's not to invalidate your preference in the least, so please take it in the spirit intended.

An even better option is the PrimeFilm XA or Reflecta XA model

ScanDig has stated that their preliminary tests of the XA indicated the XA might not be that much of an IQ improvement over the XE, only achieving 3900 dpi (matching the Coolscan 9000) vs the XE's actual 4000 (exceeding the Coolscan 9000). They go on to state that one must scan at 10,000 dpi to achieve 4000 dpi but don't indicate what the achieved dpi is when scanning at the 10M's native resolution. I guess we'll know in March. For anyone looking to buy an XA I would wait. I'm happy with mine because of the added feature set but if max dpi is paramount, wait.


I'm just happy to have a warrantied scannner that produces results I can be happy with. If I win the lottery I'll get a Hassy.

[tuco]

I've never seen actual tests to determine if the Dmax of the Coolscan 9000 is as advertised (4.8). Usually one finds that a manufacturer overstates such things as in Nikon's assertion that the 9000 achieves 4000 dpi when tests indicated 3900 is the maximum. That's not to invalidate your preference in the least, so please take it in the spirit intended.

4000dpi vs 3900 dpi is really the same number. Rounding off a couple percent for advertising is really no big deal and a FAR CRY from most flatbed scanners citing outrageous resolution when they only test to about 2000-2400dpi at best.

I have a 9000ED. It does okay but the blacks just fall off really fast like about all commodity scanners. When you flirt with the edge of black, it is highly monitor dependent how much you see.

This shot has a lot of low values in it and scanned on the 9000ED

[MD Optofonik]

4000dpi vs 3900 dpi is really the same number. Rounding off a couple percent for advertising is really no big deal and a FAR CRY from most flatbed scanners citing outrageous resolution when they only test to about 2000-2400dpi at best.

I have a 9000ED. It does okay but the blacks just fall off really fast like about all commodity scanners. When you flirt with the edge of black, it is highly monitor dependent how much you see.

This shot has a lot of low values in it and scanned on the 9000ED

Those b&a shots on your Flickr page are stunning. What do you find lacking in those scans?

[tuco]

Those b&a shots on your Flickr page are stunning. What do you find lacking in those scans?

Thanks. The blacks fall off real fast after a certain point. It would be nice to have a little more tonal scale in those dark transition areas.

[MD Optofonik]

Thanks. The blacks fall off real fast after a certain point. It would be nice to have a little more tonal scale in those dark transition areas.

Have you compared the scanned output to an optical print?