[Beepaitch]

Hi,

I'd like to hear your experiences with Plustek 'OpticFilm' scanners, or alternative dedicated 35mm transparency scanners in the same sort of £300 / $400 price range. Just to save responders some time, I definitely don't want (another) flatbed thanks.

I don't have a need for 120/220 but wouldn't complain if it was supported.

Cheers!
Ben

[Bassat]

I used a Plustek OpticFilm 8200 for a few months. The Silverfast software that comes with is tedious and cumbersome, and that is just the install process. Using it is worse. I much preferred VueScan for working with my 35mm negatives. What I didn't like was the time involved and cleaning/handling/scanning negative. This is probably where I should admit that I've always thought darkroom/processing printing is the tedium of photography. After several months of playing with the 8200, I opted to go back to paying TheDarkRoom.com to develop all my film, scan all my negatives, and mail the results back to me when finished. They do better work than I ever could, and it takes no time at all. Two trips to the mailbox, and "I've got photos!"


BTW, I've never read an article/review of any home-use scanner that claimed I could do better at home than paying a lab. If I'm going to get better results from $3/roll scans, I'm all in. They do all my 120 film work, too.

[stevebrot]

BTW, I've never read an article/review of any home-use scanner that claimed I could do better at home than paying a lab. If I'm going to get better results from $3/roll scans, I'm all in. They do all my 120 film work, too.

If you like, I will write one.

The reason why I bought my scanners was due poor quality lab scans.


Steve

[stevebrot]

I know it is a little outside your price range, but if I were in the market today to scan 35mm negatives or slides, my first pick would be the Reflecta RPS 10M (aka Pacific Image Prime Film XAs). Features that I find attractive are:

• Ability to batch scan negative strips without a carrier
• IR scratch/dust reduction (ICE, MagicTouch, iSRD, etc.)
• AutoFocus (this is big)
• 4300 dpi documented resolution when set at 5000 dpi (also big) (See: https://www.filmscanner.info/en/ReflectaRPS10M.html)
• Bundled Silverfast

The functionality is similar to my Nikon Coolscan 5000 ED, but at a price point well below what I paid ten years ago.


Steve

[GUB]

I archived 4000 or so colour negatives with a plustek opticfilm 7200. Many of the negs were home developed and had various colour shifts. While the software wasn't bulletproof I feel I was able to account for the cast variations alrite. I chose not to use the descratch process so preparing one of these scans takes a lot of scratch and spot healing. During the process I archived the negs in a way that I could revisit individual ones should I find a better setup.
I am also curious to know what people think of the technical ability of these scanners . Can I do better in way that is worth the new effort?

[jumbleview]

I have compared Plustek OpticFilm 8200i SE against DSLR scanning Pentax K5II + 100 DFA macro (negative scanning).The device I borrowed from my coworker, camera and lens are mine. I have to tell that resolution of Plustek was a little bit better. I tried Silverfast and VueScan and colors out of Silverfast I liked more. Eventually I returned scanner and decided against buying it. I hope when eventually I'll buy more modern camera it will provide resolution at least as good as plustek. But to tell the truth I scanned only new negatives so benefits of scanning regarding film defects removing was not that important.

[Bassat]

If you like, I will write one.

The reason why I bought my scanners was due poor quality lab scans.


Steve

Perhaps the lab used for scanning matters. I use TheDarkRoom.com, and am extremely pleased with their work.

Shot on Fuji 400 rated @ 200, Pentax 645N, 35mm 645A, Tiffen CPL.

Attached Images

 

[Bassat]

I thought perhaps I should show some 35mm stuff.
Canon EOS K2, EF 100-300mm, Fujicolor 200 @ 100.

[LesDMess]

Perhaps the lab used for scanning matters. I use TheDarkRoom.com, and am extremely pleased with their work.

Shot on Fuji 400 rated @ 200, Pentax 645N, 35mm 645A, Tiffen CPL.

Do you know if they use a Noritsu machine and details of the scans they give you - horizontal/vertical pixel size, file format and filesize?

[Bassat]

Noritsu Koki, 2796 x 2048. Higher resolution scans are available for a few dollars more. They only do JPG, this file is 7.35MB

EDIT: Details are for the 120 scan. Similar for the 35mm, I would suppose.

[LesDMess]

Noritsu Koki, 2796 x 2048. Higher resolution scans are available for a few dollars more. They only do JPG, this file is 7.35MB

EDIT: Details are for the 120 scan. Similar for the 35mm, I would suppose.

The colors seem to be well balanced. It doesn't appear that they apply much color/contrast adjustments or over sharpening which are not uncommon with minilabs.

That JPG filesize for that pixel size is not unreasonable. That would seem to indicate a relatively low compression factor.
However for medium format that seems relatively small pixel dimensions.

The main thing is that you're happy with the results for the price you pay.

[Bassat]

The colors seem to be well balanced. It doesn't appear that they apply much color/contrast adjustments or over sharpening which are not uncommon with minilabs.

That JPG filesize for that pixel size is not unreasonable. That would seem to indicate a relatively low compression factor.
However for medium format that seems relatively small pixel dimensions.

The main thing is that you're happy with the results for the price you pay.

I paid more for higher resolution scan on a couple of rolls. Not worth it when I'm shooting 3 rolls a month. For mostly 4x6, 5x7, and the occasional 8x10, 2700x2000 works quite well. I very rarely do anything larger. I suppose if I knew I were printing large (8x10 and larger), I'd pay the extra few $$ for higher resolution.

Super Scan is $5 more than what I am paying. From their web-site:

QUOTE:

Super Scan

Our new, super scan is perfect for those who want professional resolution or to never worry if you have enough resolution for current and future projects.nnIt works very well for advertising, giant prints and large posters.nnScan Sizes 35mm Film – 4492×6774 pixels – 87.1 mb Medium Format 645 – 3533×4824 pixels – 48.8 mb Medium Format 6×6 – 4760×4760 pixels – 64.8 mb Medium Format 6×7 – 4815×5902 pixels – 81.3 mb
Super Scans are 4492×6774 pixels or 87.1 MB when opened in an image editing program like Photoshop. Remember that the file size will appear much smaller until you open it up in an image editing program like Photoshop.


:END QUOTE


That a lot of pixels for $5. I'll never scan my own film again.

[Beepaitch]

Thanks a lot for the replies and details. I've had some lab scanned work and it's been good, but expensive in these parts (UK) for higher-res stuff.

I do like to do my own post-pro so definitely aim to get setup with my own scanner.

I'd not even heard of Reflecta @Stevebot, so thanks for adding another to my list of potentials.

[Bassat]

Thanks a lot for the replies and details. I've had some lab scanned work and it's been good, but expensive in these parts (UK) for higher-res stuff.

I do like to do my own post-pro so definitely aim to get setup with my own scanner.

I'd not even heard of Reflecta @Stevebot, so thanks for adding another to my list of potentials.

Emphasis above is mine.

I like to do my own post-processing, also. That is why I pay someone else to do my scanning. One of the great savings of paying someone else to scan my negatives is that I have way less post-processing to do. Doing your own scanning, like every other endeavor, is a series of compromises. I have no desire to spend my time scanning 12 (6x6) to 36 (35mm) frames for each roll of film I shoot. What I do want is the best results I can get from the gear I am using. Plain and simple: paying a professional to use professional-grade equipment will always yield better results than I (me, not necessarily you) can get at home. If I allow 5 minutes per frame, I have devoted from 1 to 3 hours to EACH ROLL OF FILM, and I've done nothing with regard to post-processing yet. Paying $5 per roll saves me 3 hours of work? SOLD! On top of that, I get better scans than I could ever get at home. WIN-WIN!


More benefits of paying TheDarkRoom.com (TDR) to do my scanning. I overexpose every roll of film I shoot. Color negative film has at a truck-load of overexposure tolerance. My baseline is +1EC, and adjust from there. TDR knows how I shoot; they process my film accordingly. My overexposed film is developed at box speed (not pulled), which results in denser-than-usual-negatives, which requires density adjustments for my scans. Finally, TDR does my basic post-processing for me: exposure adjustments, color balancing. I spend way less time processing my film results from TDP than I ever did in 10+ years of shooting digital. Don't even get me started on the fallacy that is RAW digital shooting. Get it right in-camera and you have no use for RAW.

Bottom line, I am getting better results, requiring less time (and slightly more money) by paying someone else to scan my negatives. If time is money (it is!), I am ahead of the game at $5 per roll to pay TDP to develop and scan my film.


As usual, YMMV.

[Beepaitch]

Ok thanks for the further explanation on your reasons to use TDR. I was listening to the owner on a podcast last week and he definitely sounded like they work closely with each customer and scan/supply to suit.

Sorry if it sounded like I was criticising your choice not to scan your own film. I probably should have said earlier on that I’m starting to do home dev more, so happy to keep this all in-house. Having read several more Plustek reviews and seem a bunch of results and comparisons, I’m probably going to go with Plustek 8200i SE.