Plustek 120 vs Imacon X1

[Scott Davis]

I realize this is a bit of apples vs. housecats but has anyone out there tried both of these devices (Plustek Opticscan 120 and Flextight X1), and is the qualitative difference worth the 6x price factor between the two? I would like to get something that will do a better job with especially medium format film than my V750, as I'm doing a lot of it. I would greatly appreciate comments and feedback that are substantiated, as I have seen and heard before contradictory remarks that alternatingly the Imacon is a quantum improvement over the Epson and that it is only marginally better compared to a drum scan. Specification-wise the Plustek falls between the two, so depending on which way the results go, it would also be a nominal improvement if any over the Epson and therefore a waste of money or it could be good enough to be worth the money relative to the Imacon.

[Oren Grad]

Have you read the reviews here?

http://www.filmscanner.info/en/FilmscannerTestberichte.html

[Scott Davis]

I did read that. It was not exactly a hearty endorsement. I had seen similar comments before, mostly at the time the scanner was released and folks were having teething pains with getting it to connect with their computers. I was hoping that someone had real world experience using one since they have been around for a while now.

[Leszek Vogt]

I had a much higher expectations than the 120 delivered. Unless you go with reasonably priced (used ?) drum rig....the Imacon will always float on top ~ so much depends on the operator too. Your other option is a good condition Nikon 8000 or 9000, which will still give you better results than the Plustek 120. Just make sure you know a good place for support (first). Yes, the choices are v. thin.

Les

[richardman]

Medium Format? Get the LS-8000 or LS-9000, there is very little win even switch to an X1... It will be many times better than the V7x0.

[Daniel Stone]

Or, you could get an Epson V750 (and possibly the Aztek wet mount kit in addition), and use send out your absolute best negs/chromes for a properly made drum scan. That way you won't get the depreciation with purchasing a new X1, and you'll able to spread that amount of money over a very large timeframe. Heck, probably much less.

Use the Epson for rough proofing, and small print work. For larger prints and or shots where you want that extra degree of "wow factor" thrown into the mix, send out the film for a drum scan. Of course done by a good operator.

Just my 2¢ of course ;)

-Dan

[angusparker]

If I have the. Plustek 120. It's not bad, better than the V750 for medium format but not better than my older Minolta Dimage. The difference is that it is supported by current hardware and software and is easier to use, plus it handles 6x12. But I second the other poster, if you can live with the Epson V750 output and occasionally send out for a drum scan you are probably ahead in the game. Haven't used the X1.

[Scott Davis]

I was thinking at this point of just living with my Epson V750 and saving my pennies until I find a really good deal on a used X1 or at least an 858.

[koh303]

You cannot expect a 2000$ product to preform any feat a 20K$ product does.
That said - the larger imacons will scan up to 5X7 (not the X1). So you are better comparing a 343 and the plustek. They are not that far apart in cost, but without a shadow of a doubt, and in all reality the imacon will always blow away any other scanner out there, not only because of the ability to scan raw files (3F), but also because of the way it works, there is just no comparing.

** EDIT: I just read the reviews on BH about the plustek and it seems to be using sliverfast (with all of its pitfalls) and has some issues of its own. Thats not to say the imacon is not without problems, and maintenance is not cheap - but flexcolor is one of the most powerful editing software in the world, and it is pretty much bullet proof.

[Scott Davis]

That said - the larger imacons will scan up to 5X7 (not the X1)

On the Filmscanner.info website (http://www.filmscanner.info/en/HasselbladFlextightX1.html) they state that the X1 will scan 5x7 whereas the X5 does not. That would definitely be a factor for me as I shoot 5x7 and it would be nice to have a single device for scanning most of my film (I do shoot 6.5x8.5 and some other larger sizes - 5x12 and 14x17 - that no scanner really accommodates).

[richardman]

You can spend your money however way you want, but if your scan is 6x9 or less, you really should check out a LS-9000/8000 scan before making a decision to spend $8000+ for an Imacon... heck, send me a neg and $5 and and I will do a scan for you. I have make 17x22 prints from 6x7 (Mamiya II) on the LS-9000 that rivals sharpness of scans from the 4x5 using a V700.

[Lachlan 717]

... 5x12 and 14x17 - that no scanner really accommodates).

The Epson 10000XL (http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/jsp/Product.do?sku=E10000XL-PH) will scan 5x12 and just misses the 14x17.

[Scott Davis]

You can spend your money however way you want, but if your scan is 6x9 or less, you really should check out a LS-9000/8000 scan before making a decision to spend $8000+ for an Imacon... heck, send me a neg and $5 and and I will do a scan for you. I have make 17x22 prints from 6x7 (Mamiya II) on the LS-9000 that rivals sharpness of scans from the 4x5 using a V700.

Richard -

The reason I've basically ruled out the Nikon scanners is that the newest of them are approaching what, 10 years old? They're not supported software or hardware-wise on my current computer, which means I'd have to go chasing down a complete hardware setup and then support an older version of my OS. And if it dies on me, there's no warranty, and I'm back to an Ebay hunt to replace it. AND it's going to cost 1/3 of the price of an Imacon, and three times the price of an Epson v750. Royal pain in the ass. I appreciate your offer to scan something for me, and I realize I'm being a glutton for punishment this way, but I don't trust my original negatives to the USPS to ship them back and forth from me to you, and FedEx isn't cheap.

[mob81]

The plustek is really good
Full Image

https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2816/10730234363_a5cebc9652.jpg (https://www.flickr.com/photos/m_o_b81/10730234363/)
Provia400x 6x6 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/m_o_b81/10730234363/) by Mohammed Basamh (https://www.flickr.com/people/m_o_b81/), on Flickr

Crops

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7294/10689464214_05d069256f.jpg (https://www.flickr.com/photos/m_o_b81/10689464214/)
Scanners Comparison 2 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/m_o_b81/10689464214/) by Mohammed Basamh (https://www.flickr.com/people/m_o_b81/), on Flickr

[Oren Grad]

The reason I've basically ruled out the Nikon scanners is that the newest of them are approaching what, 10 years old? They're not supported software or hardware-wise on my current computer, which means I'd have to go chasing down a complete hardware setup and then support an older version of my OS. And if it dies on me, there's no warranty, and I'm back to an Ebay hunt to replace it. AND it's going to cost 1/3 of the price of an Imacon, and three times the price of an Epson v750. Royal pain in the ass.

The LS9000 was discontinued in 2010 - mine was among the last sold new - and is still serviced by Nikon, albeit expensively. Although Nikon doesn't support it with software any more, third parties do - at the very least, SilverFast if you don't mind spending a bit of money, VueScan if you do mind. Mine is running fine on my Windows 8 machine, after some modest hassle up front getting the right driver - SilverFast technical support helped me sort that out.

That said, IMO while the 9000 does just fine with dye cloud negatives (color neg, C41), it's mediocre at best with silver negatives - it doesn't have enough resolution to avoid aliasing the grain, even with relatively coarse-grained films like TX. So whether it would be "worth it" would depend heavily on your taste in image character. I can't myself give it a whole-hearted recommendation.

But I wouldn't be comfortable mortgaging my life for an X1, either, because given the product-line and management turmoil at Hasselblad I'm not sure they can be counted on to be around to service it for all that long. And the resolution it delivers for larger-than-35 originals isn't that great to begin with. I think an X1 or X5 makes sense at this point only if it will be pressed into heavy commercial service sufficient to pay for itself within a fairly short period.

I suspect my own next "scanner" for 35 and 120 negatives will be a future very-high-MP DSLR or medium format digital camera with a high-grade repro lens in a carefully-tuned copy-stand setup, though I'm hoping not to have to go there for quite a while yet.

[koh303]

On the Filmscanner.info website (http://www.filmscanner.info/en/HasselbladFlextightX1.html) they state that the X1 will scan 5x7 whereas the X5 does not. That would definitely be a factor for me as I shoot 5x7 and it would be nice to have a single device for scanning most of my film (I do shoot 6.5x8.5 and some other larger sizes - 5x12 and 14x17 - that no scanner really accommodates).


Indeed that is correct, and was my mistake. Nevertheless, the cost factor is the crucial part here. You cannot compare a 16000$ machine with a 2000$ one.

Its hard to explain, but until you have seen a side by side comparison of the two types of scans, you will not be able to see the actual difference in sharpening, sharpness, contrast control, Dmax range and other little variances which make a scan look better or worse, and print better or worse.

In many years of working with scanners i have yet to have seen a scanner with better output then an imacon, on any scale, unless considering very good negatives on a high end drum scanner, and even then - the time and effort of those scans only gave a fraction of benefit over the Imacon, which is very simple and easy to use.

Imacons are very reliable. Hasselblad only recently (a few months ago) announced they will discontinue official service for the Preciscion scanners, the newest of which is 2003. Considering that, the support they offer is great, and they do still service the older machines in the US, even though it is out of service officially.

Imacon rutine maintenance can be handled at home by the user, as the parts are common and available (belts springs and bulbs) if one ever wanted to.

Flexcolor has been around for so long, that the knowledge base on how and what it can do is vast and beyond anything you might find for any other "consumer" scanner.

[Scott Davis]

Indeed that is correct, and was my mistake. Nevertheless, the cost factor is the crucial part here. You cannot compare a 16000$ machine with a 2000$ one.

Its hard to explain, but until you have seen a side by side comparison of the two types of scans, you will not be able to see the actual difference in sharpening, sharpness, contrast control, Dmax range and other little variances which make a scan look better or worse, and print better or worse.


This is the reason for posting my query. I'm not going to be able to get both machines in my home to test out and decide which works best for me, so I wanted to talk to folks who had more experience with the devices to see their take on it.

I realize they are in two different leagues.

The Plustek is twice as expensive as my Epson. That's manageable, although far from cheap. It's worth considering the expenditure IF the quality gain is parallel to the expense, because the only other real option to boost quality over what my Epson gives would then be the Imacon, which is several orders of magnitude more expensive, even when used.

[Peter De Smidt]

That said, IMO while the 9000 does just fine with dye cloud negatives (color neg, C41), it's mediocre at best with silver negatives - it doesn't have enough resolution to avoid aliasing the grain, even with relatively coarse-grained films like TX. So whether it would be "worth it" would depend heavily on your taste in image character. I can't myself give it a whole-hearted recommendation.


That matches my experience.

I haven't used the Plustek. How flat does it keep the film? Ime keeping the entire film on the plane of sharp focus for your scanner, whatever type of scanner you're using, is necessary for a high quality scan.

[Oren Grad]

I appreciate your offer to scan something for me, and I realize I'm being a glutton for punishment this way, but I don't trust my original negatives to the USPS to ship them back and forth from me to you, and FedEx isn't cheap.

So make a roll or two of new test negatives expressly for this purpose. It's a small price to pay in money and effort given the cost of the scanners you're considering. Even if you find somebody who happens to have used both machines and who has a firm opinion that the Plustek is "worth it", unless you already know that person well and know how their quality judgments calibrate against yours, you'll still be making a $2000 stab in the dark if you haven't seen and judged for yourself.

[Oren Grad]

That said, IMO while the 9000 does just fine with dye cloud negatives (color neg, C41)...

Ack, I meant to say "color neg, XP2". Sorry, galloping brain rot again. But you get the idea.

[koh303]

This is the reason for posting my query. I'm not going to be able to get both machines in my home to test out and decide which works best for me, so I wanted to talk to folks who had more experience with the devices to see their take on it.

I realize they are in two different leagues.

The Plustek is twice as expensive as my Epson. That's manageable, although far from cheap. It's worth considering the expenditure IF the quality gain is parallel to the expense, because the only other real option to boost quality over what my Epson gives would then be the Imacon, which is several orders of magnitude more expensive, even when used.

The short answer here is when you buy an imacon you get your monies worth, for each and every $ in it, when compared to any other scanner.
Weather or not you need this is another question. Does it offer that much more quality - yes.

[Kirk Gittings]

The short answer here is when you buy an imacon you get your monies worth, for each and every $ in it, when compared to any other scanner.
Weather or not you need this is another question. Does it offer that much more quality - yes.

For most purposes I find the Imacon fine for prints from 4x5 up to about 20x30. But this is from a good negative, proper settings on the Imacon and the Imacon in good repair and adjustment. Beyond that I also have access to a IQsmart and then I always have Lenny Eiger when my skills are insufficient or I simply just need the primo scan.

[SURF]

What I personally hate about Imacons is their distortion. Changing belts do not help a lot. Have a look here:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?79256-Geometrical-distortions-on-belt-drive-scanners/page2

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=59891&stc=1&d=1313243437

It's a fine scanner if you can live with that.

[koh303]

What I personally hate about Imacons is their distortion. Changing belts do not help a lot. Have a look here:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?79256-Geometrical-distortions-on-belt-drive-scanners/page2

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=59891&stc=1&d=1313243437

It's a fine scanner if you can live with that.

What are you showing here?

[Jim Andrada]

I think it's a GIF that overlays scans of the same thing from two different scanners to show that one (or the other, or both) introduce distortion based on inaccuracies/tolerances in the scanning motion. Everything mechanical has plus/minus tolerances but some are fundamentally better or worse than others either due to design or manufacturing control or both.

[ashfaque]

Hi Scott,

I don't know if you've looked at RFF or interested in other drum scanners, but here is an RFF thread (http://rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=134187), where they are discussing some interesting stuffs - for e.g., different drum scanners and potential hardware and software issues and solutions. Perhaps it will be helpful. Some of the outputs and discussion in that thread are really amazing. :)

Bests,

Ashfaque

[Lenny Eiger]

Hi Scott,

I don't know if you've looked at RFF or interested in other drum scanners, but here is an RFF thread (http://rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=134187), where they are discussing some interesting stuffs - for e.g., different drum scanners and potential hardware and software issues and solutions. Perhaps it will be helpful. Some of the outputs and discussion in that thread are really amazing. :)

Bests,

Ashfaque

I went to look... which thread are you referring to?

Lenny

[ashfaque]

Link is in the previous post. Here it is again anyway. :) http://rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=134187

A

[Leszek Vogt]

Lenny, the link takes you right into it....all 20 pages of it. Good discussion.

Les

PS OOOPS, we posted together.