Flatbed scanning and 35mm
Вставка
- Опубліковано 23 січ 2018
- It's often said that flatbeds don't have the required resolution for 35m negatives. In this video I compared an Epson flatbed scanner to a plustek 8200i to see how big the difference was and wether or not it was possible to approximate the plustek result with careful adjustment of the Epson file.
Blog post with full size pictures: jonathannotley.com/blog-conte... - Навчання та стиль
Thanks a lot for such a detailed comparison. It's exactly the information I've been looking for, and you are the only person I could find who discussed it.
I own both scanners--and one huge issue with the Plustek is that you have to feed each frame in by hand, one by one. The tray is not mechanized. The Plustek results are amazing, but it takes a couple hours to scan a roll of film if most of the key settings are utilized. The Epson V850 Pro can accommodate three strips of six frames, and so it will scan 18 frames in one go. It takes as long as the Plustek, but you don't have to stand there feeding the frames into the scanner one by one. The Epson 35mm scans are very good, but the Plustek scans are much stronger in comparison, especially in terms of detail and resolving the grain. So I end up batch scanning the 35mm film on the Epson, superb for social media, but if I want a very special scan especially to print I will rescan a negative with the Plustek. This is an expensive solution--having two scanners. Not that I am happy about it. But what is the point of spending so much on cameras, lenses, film, and developing if you can't get a quality scan of the negative? I used an Epson v600 for a couple years to gain experience, but it is ultimately inadequate. It was good for 120 film, but almost unusable for 35mm film in my opinion.
Thank you so much for an honest and fair review - no end of help to someone in my situation!
this was a really helpful review, thanks.
Thanks, hugely helpful, exactly the info I needed!
Stumbled on this excatly 1 year later. Thanks!
I bought the Plustek 8100. Brilliant bit of kit
Excellent video. Just wanted to share my workflow with you. I have a plustek and when I scan a frame(using silverfast), the only thing I apply to it is the film color profile(Negfix). I don't apply the AutoCCR, which is what gives it that contrast and color saturation. I take the output TIFF file and import that into Capture One, which is where I apply levels correction (equivalent to AutoCCR in Silverfast) and that's it. Capture One does a really good job applying that levels correction automatically, I just click auto and that's it. Sometimes I adjust the exposure, but not much since you can't really do too much with the film scan in terms of recovering shadows or highlights.
Do you have the plustek with IR for dust removal? In case of yes, does it works well or you have to retouch in capture one?
Thank you!
I've always had a sneaking suspicion that home flatbed scanners do not get optimal focus all the time. It seems highly susceptible to curling of the negative (even in the holder) and the slight variations in the holder itself (you mentioned finding the optimum slot).
Love the channel man!
I use Epson 850 for over 5 years now and I bought recently a Plustek 8200 as extra an one. . Unfortunately Plustek could not match Epson's Scanning quality , versatility, etc. So I remain with the Epson and I use plustek occasionaly.
From experience, Everytime I scan with my Epson V800, I always first make 3 test scans with different height of the film holder setting. Minimal bend in the film in relation to the scanner glass surface has a great influence, so it is worth trying to move the film surface closer and further away from the scanner.
You have a lot of free time
@@CyrilViXP You don't
Gotta wonder if the Epson is struggling to hit the focus just right. Maybe you're losing grain to focus being just a bit off.
I use an Epson V600, which does a good job with 120 film, but is very weak with 35mm film negative scanning. One down side with the Plustek is that you have to feed each frame of the negative into the scanner one at a time, and there is no batch scanning, as with the Epson. The Epson can scan 12 frames at a time, which is a huge advantage. It's a bit annoying, but I batch scan my 35mm negatives on the Epson with a quick low resolution, then rescan the best shots on the Plustek. (Not all shots being keepers, of course.) Also, it is 2021, so keep in mind the Epson V600 is 2010 technology! Both the Epson V850 and Plustek are 2014 technology! Hopefully, some more modern scanners will come out soon. Plustek released a 120 Pro in 2020, but apparently it had so many issues it was pulled from the market. * Thanks for the video.
Great video ! There is lack of comparison of scanners in a practical point of view. We can find a lot of film shooting videos but very little recents videos on the scanning processes
I think the glass of the v850 template makes the scans appear more unsharp, there is a test out there in the WWW were its said the V850 makes better scans without the glass template
The solution to the Epson scans is to not use the provided Epson software, and to use Vuescan software. I do this with both a Nikon Coolscan V and my Epson flatbed. The results are far superior, and there are also a wide range of film profiles available to improve your scans with a lot less photoshop / lightroom work.
I was actually wondering which scanner is the best among these two you have. Is it the Epson or the Nikon? Thanks a lot.
I have very old photographic films. I can not cut photographic films into short strips for scanning in the scanner. This will be real barbarism. I need a slide scanner for a roll photographic film with a frame size of 24 × 36 mm. I also have photographic films with a frame size of 60 × 60 mm and a photographic plate on glass with a size of 90 × 120 mm. What model of the scanner can I digitize these photos?
An interesting watch. I got the Plustek 8200i a few years back needing to do a specific scan quickly at home (knowing I would want to scan old film negatives later down the track). Time has passed and I now find a chance to do a bit of scanning of the old negatives, and realise how slow the whole process is with the Plustek doing image by image. One benefit of the Epson would be the ability to scan multiple 35mm negatives at once, sacrificing a bit of detail and contrast as you've shown in the video.
how long would you say it takes to scan a 36-exposure roll using a plustek in your experience?
@@MoeyMikeGaming This really depends on your settings and what quality an output you've set. At say 5 minutes a scan, you're looking at 3 hours with manual input throughout that time.
Super helpful! Thank you Sir!
Great video. In my opinion, the low contrast file that the epson gives is very beneficial since it allows you to control the look of the picture. The plustek also crushed the highlights and shadows
Thanks! I think that having latitude is important but it's also nice to have a more 'finished' image straight off the bat.
Most of the advantages of the plustek come from the increased 'sharpness' and detail though. Perhaps the DMAX is better on the epson.
Jonathan Notley Also another thing that is putting me off is that the grain doesn't isn't visible due to the high amount of digital noise from the scanner :( I get better results scanning with my DSLR
If the information is there, you should be able to extract it before the final scan with a good software
I have to disagree. Even if a less contrasty file is better to work with there is a definite large loss of sharpness (resolution at grain level which is in fact the element of film indeed) in the Epson file. Quite unacceptable. Also, It would be greatly interesting to see to see both these compared to a drum scanned file. That would truly put things in best perspective.
Not if it's not hitting focus and across the entire plane. Then you're losing all the detail that your lens allowed. Might as well shoot with a crappy digital camera.
Great video thanks
Does the wet mount system on the Epson make it work better? Have you tried it?
Hi Jonathan! Doesn't Epson have more DR preserved? @ 8:20 overexposure of Plustek looks quite nasty compared to even contrast-added Epson @ 8:35 by the way in film lower contrast is considered to be better because it gives you more to work with in post, that's why LOG video formats are the next best thing after RAW.
Which one scans faster?
Question is, have your scanning and developing skills improved since this video?
With that being said, and at the risk of repeating something that's already been said, it is very apparent that your V850 file was not properly adjusted, as the image curve is very apparently flat in comparison with the Plustek, which has a much higher contrast highlight and shadow curve - see; building highlight blowouts
And so with that being said, the obvious discrepancy in your comparison is that both files are not on equal footing in terms of image processing, thus calling for a remake - for example;
When you look at the foliage, and at first glance, it would appear that the Plustek contains more color information, however, and when you look at the building highlights on the upper left, it become apparent that the Plustek has lost information, whereas the Epson has preserved it - thus revealing that the Epson file is better suited for post-processing, whereas the Plustek has clipped the highlight information - and is likely unrecoverable as a result
And what's interesting with this, technically, is that the Epson file will prove to be a better overall file in terms of post-processing, as we can always pull contrast information from color information, though never from clipped color channels
On the matter of resolution, I think your observations were spot-on, as these scanners are beknown for focusing accuracy - of which I'd add, an adjustable tray should do the trick - thus putting both units on equal footing - with the advantage of the flatbed doing multiple film strips in one pass - which could in-turn, offset the added setup time in comparison to the Plustek
*TLDR:* you could have easily dial-in added contrast detail in the foliage(or entire scene) on the Epson file with a simple curve adjustment
Was that black line at the top of the image part of the scan? Was the Digital Ice used on the Epson? I usually try to avoid the Digital Ice because it sucks the detail out of foliage. I have considered a dedicated 35mm scanner but I work with old prints as well. As much as I like the idea of a 35mm scanner that does great work, the Epson 750 pro I use has wet scan capabilities. Though wet scanning can be time consuming, I'd like to see wet scans on the Epson compared to the dedicated 35mm scanner.
Dry and Nerdy it might be, but I'm eagerly digesting your video becuase I am wondering which to buy for my own benefit, as I want to digitise my memories!
Why did the white dots on the tree show up more on the plustek?
hi do you recommend plustek or epson v600 for 35 mm color?
Is the Plustek also capable of natively going low contrast with the raw scan?
Yes (I didn’t make that as clear as I should have)
it would be great to see a comparison of that. It's a little hard to compare them as is due to the fact that one was initially a flat scan that was color corrected while the other was not.
regardless, thank you for taking the time to make this. i haven't been able to find any other video showcasing these 2 scanners, head to head.
For colors & dynamic range I'd rather work with the Epson file. The Plustek file looks washed out in the highlights & shadows - but does give more detail. Now scan it at RAW setting (?) and get a flat profile TIF file to play with in Lightroom or Photoshop and good times ahead.
This is about the most sensible comment made here. Silverfast applies contrast curve and colour profile to its colour scans, just to produce a visually impressive image to the untrained eye. I used to use Silverfast Studio in the early 2000, but I stopped using it as it really didn't give anything extra to either Epsonscan or Vuescan that I used and still do with my Nikon Coolscan V ED. I have also found that the gap between the Epson and a DSLR ' scan ' or even the Nikon V can be reduced quite considerably by the type of sharpening applied to the file in the post. I use AI Sharpen with Epson TIFF files, ironically the Nikon files are so sharp out of the scanner that the AI Sharpen can not add anything useful to the process.
Hi Jonathan, I’m quite surprised you got that kind of colors from the V850. I’ve scanned lots of 35mm with my V800 and Silverfast and with Negafix I usually get very satisfying color saturation and contrast out from the box, with no clippings. What software have you used to make this comparison? Have used the same software? I think it is important to make a real comparison.
So basically, if I'm thinking of scanning only 35mm, I should go for the Plustek. Right?
High class video, I hope that your channel will grow up fast. By the way, 35mm film sharpness is stunning, can't believed it. I guess that lens you are using helps.
Lenses do a lot in sharpness
Just a few notes: You might want to blow the dust off of the film before you load it. Most professionals also use Silverfast with their Epson scanners which allows you to choose the film profile, which will adjust the colors to the correct setting. Comparing the two without assigning them to the correct color profile is like comparing camera RAW to JPEG. Of course the JPG is going to look sharper and have better colors. Finally, it definitely looks like your slide holder height is a bit off, thus affecting the sharpness. Otherwise good video, man! Keep it up.
I second this. In order for it to be a fair comparison he should have brought them both into SilverFast and applied the appropriate settings. Aka the same workflow with each scanner. A big part of why the PlusTek looks so much better is due to SilverFast. It does wonders for color-cast!
As all the dust in the tree is gone, did you do Digital ICE with the Epson one which also will take away some accutance/sharpness ?
Too bad the scans from the PlusTek burns out the highlight areas because of the higher contrast.
Thaaanks!!!
Enjoyed the video. Any comparison information about how long each takes per negative to scan? I have thousands of negatives to scan so the time per negative is a more important factor for me.
The same in my case. I suggest to make a max. of 10 scans each day for a few years.
It's a shame that we no longer have the likes of the Nikon. 9000ED but such is life.
Great vid ... trouble with plustek is that you can only scan one at a time and its manual feed
Hi Jonathan, thank you for your video.
One thing I don't thin you mentioned was the scanning time between the two methods.
Does the workflow with the Plustek take more time that scanning in batches with a flatbed scanner?
Thanks for the video, can't believe there aren't more comparisons of those two scanners.
Did you scan on the v800 with Epson scan or Also with silver fast? Did you use the same film presets in silverfast? Maybe this could explain the difference in contrast out of scanner?
prdips In all honesty installing the software for the 8200 has knocked my Epson out-of-sync with SilverFast. It used to work but for this video I used Epson scan. You might get better colours out of negafix but I doubt you’ll get any increased sharpness by switching to SilverFast though. I should have mentioned it in the video but I guess I thought I could edit past the differences
thank you for the fast response... I wonder how useful the Negafix is and if its worth buying Silverfast..
prdips - I switched to silverfast a year ago and have seen a big difference. I also sharpen in post. Negafix helps to baseline it and then I adjust from there prescan. I also do multipass on my scans. Adds time but worth it. Both scans should have been done using silverfast to call it equal. Silverfast gives you way more options than epsonscan.
I have an Epson V800 and I see definite resolution gains all the way to 6400 ppi. I examined the original 35mm negatives under a lab microscope and there does no appear to be much the Epson doesn't get. The report that nothing is to be gained at over 2400 ppi is just plain bunk. Contrast and color balance mean nothing as it's a software issue. If you want to compare two scanners you do it at the maximum capability of each scanner. Unless you are using the same capture software for both scanners your results are bunk too.
Hi!
Thank you for your videos about Plustek 8200i vs. Epson 850 Pro. Do you think (or know) if there will be new models of those scanners soon? Both are quite a while on the market, will there be some upgrade? I can not decide which one to get. Primarely I do 35mm, but have a middle Format which I can use sometimes, and I do black and white only! Maybe you finde time to answer! Cheers, Josef
If you can only get one get the Epson but if you want a bit more out of 35mm then the Plustek is definitely an upgrade. I’m not sure about their product release schedules
Jonathan Notley thanks for the quick response!!
Very detailed comparison. Thank you a lot for this video. Main deal breaker for me in regards to flatbeds that scans will always require post editing. Come on! I can buy a DSLR if I want to spend evenings in Lightroom making something of my raw photos.
From what I can see, the unedited Epson scan has more color depth in the shadow area, Just look at the front right wheel (near the sidewalk), in the Plustek you can't even see it. with the Epson you see it with a lot of detail.
Meaning That you get better RAW material to work with then with the nice looking photo of the Plustek.
Cán the Plustek be used with a mac or just for PC?
Can be used on mac
Hi mate!Where did you bought the Plustek for "about 200 pounds",cuz honestly i cant find it for less then 400-500.Thx!
Hi Bogdan, I bought mine from amazon UK for £232 - www.amazon.co.uk/Plustek-8200I-SE-OpticFilm8200iSE-Scanner/dp/B00B2I02MU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1517559347&sr=8-1&keywords=Plustek+8200
Thx for ur quick reply,it s the SE version i was only finding the AI version that is considerably expensive,but i cant find any diference betwen the two.
Bogdan Cretu supplied software only
On the Epson scan, the orange band is that from a reflection off of the negative holder? The Plustek scan doesn't have that so its not on the negative. I've been scanning with a camera/macro lens and I get that sometimes and it drives me crazy, Id like to move on to a "real" scanner in the future but Id rather not have to deal with that still.
I'm not quite sure which orange band you're mentioning? I've never had reflection problems with either scanner.
@ 5:14 at the top of the frame, there's a horizontal orange blob running across the top of the frame.
Looks like a development issue to me. Probably pushed my chemistry too far
Possibly, I don't see it on the Plustek scan though. I was just wondering because I see it sometimes in my scans if I'm not careful, if the room is too bright I can get reflections that look just like that on my AN glass that I can see once I invert it in Photoshop.
Can the silver fast software be used with a flatbed scanner or copying with a DSLR camera or is it only for use with the plustek scanner.
Silverfast is for all scanners , not just plusteks. I’d look into Negative Lab Pro for DSLR Scanning
@@JonathanNotley great thanks. I'm thinking about a V600 but get the negative carrier for the V7#/V8# so they can be focused unlike the V600. Combine with the plustek and DSLR coping and that should cover everything including any medium format negs that I want to wet scan with the right neg holder. Speaking of medium format there's a person near me selling a Bronica (S2a I think) with 3 lenses , standard view finder, prism view finder 2 film backs and hand grip all for £500, he was at £600 a few weeks ago but has had no taker's. Do you think that's a reasonable price or a bit high? I haven't actually seen it in person but the going by the photos it seems in good order.
Silverfast can only be used with one scanner. It's available for sale for _many_ scanners, but ONE copy of Silverfast can't be used for both. (And that's why it didn't work for Jonathan, either.)
Vuescan doesn't care. One copy will work with hundreds or thousands of scanners. Vuescan can also scan to a raw file ... which frankly would have made this comparison video relevant.
So the Epson scanner works good only with medium and large format?
Pretty much, the lack of autofocus and the way the film holders are designed punishes 35mm a bit
Do you recommend epson 850 pro or plustek 8200i ai ?
If you only shoot 35mm get the plustek,
ty
Plustek Optikfilm 8200i blows Epson flatbed scanner out of the water! Cool review, made it easy to make a purchase decision.
Hey! I'm thinking of buying one too. How do you like it so far? I'm so interested in hearing about your experience.
@@veronicastefaniadiazmendez5194 It's really great and I can recommend you to buy it, but the software sucks. If you buy it or Epson, buy also a software called VueScan from Hamrick Software. It is a great scanning software that works with almost all scanners.
I would love to know how long does the Plustek take to scan one color negative? Someone said it can take like 15 to 20 mins. Thank you!
I thought I heard that the height of the film holders on the Epson V850 are adjustable for focus.
thanks for the video! was wondering how much megapixels you achieve for a 35mm at 2400dpi/3200dpi with your epson flatbed?
Probably under 5mp with the Epson, 2500 pixels long side is usually where I cut it off in photoshop.
@@JonathanNotley thank you! damn thats really small :( the lab i am working with can scan 35mm up to 10mp but i was searching for a scanner that could at least achieve 15mp for scannig at home :(
Bear in mind instagram is 2048px long side. I guess it depends on use cases.
@@JonathanNotley yes, its more for clients as i am working as a fashion photographer. they need bigger files for printing from time to time.
I’d stick with the lab!
Anyone use Pacific Image brand and is this all the same
Pacific Image is Reflecta rebranded for the American market I believe
The software with Plustek scan is free?? i need to know. I'm very interested by the product :)
Most plusteks come with a Silverfast software CD, you can check when ordering but if the name ends in 'SE' or 'AI' it's likely an indicator of which silverfast it's packaged with
@@JonathanNotley ok thanks for the answer :)
Favourite line is “this is the driest, nerdiest video I ever make.” Really? All jokes aside, great video and it is the question I had before going for the Plustek. It was price reasons, and yes when I move to large format scanning, I will need to buy the Eason 850.
Would you recommend buying a Plustek 7200 off the used market or a new Epson 550 or 600 or even a cheaper Epson 370
Waiting for an answer on this also
Used Plustek for sure.
As someone who owns a 550, it's really pretty soft detail wise on 35mm scans. The epson software sharpening is really effective, but it will sharpen up intentionally out of focus areas when you shoot wide open and ruin the bokeh, etc. Epson sharpening also can also exaggerate grain quite badly. The unsharpened images are often too soft to selectively sharpen to satisfactory effect in lightroom. I've tried scanning on the glass, the epson film holders, and the lomography film holders (which are the best). No improvement in sharpness. His Epson 850 images above look like my 550 scans with medium sharpening applied. Results can be good, if you don't like maintaining shallow depth of field. Color is great with the 550 if you use the Negativelab Pro plugin in lightroom to invert the negative.
Adjustable focus is what you’re looking for. The flatbed shims don’t count.
There is the BetterScanning Variable Height Mounting Station, but can it be used with fluid mounting for 35mm?
The area is 5"x7", so 6 frame stripes are too long, but 4 stripes of 4 frames might be ok.
The mylar layer might not be able to keep the 4 stripes of 35mm flat.
I have it - I don’t find fluid mounting to be worth the time. If a frame is worth wetmounting it’s also worth paying a lab £10 to use a noritsu or hiring time with a flextight
Hi! I was wondering if you still recommend the Plustek scanner? I'm pretty interested in buying the 8100AI manly because of portability which also should be better at reducing scratches and dust but would like to hear your personal experience with the software and in general... Or if you recommend a different scanner. Thanks for your video, very helpful🤗
The plustek is probably the best per-frame quality you can get for a reasonable price today but it takes ages per roll. If you have a dslr you could look into a NLP camera-scanning workflow
I have the Epson V850 Pro and I use Silverfast AI Studio 9 as the scanning software along with the Epson Fluid Mount Tray instead of the 35mm mount tray that he uses. The Epson Fluid Mount Tray makes a big difference cause it lays the negatives perfectly flat on the scanner and the Silverfast AI Studio 9 is the best scanning software in the market when making fine adjustments before doing the final scan.
Hello. Thanks for making this video, I was searching for just such a comparison. From what I am seeing, it seems to me that the Epson is actually the better scanner. Flat and low contrast is actually a good thing straight out of the scanner. This can be dealt with in pp. But just look at the branches of the tree above the car. In the Plustek, there are almost completely burned out, same with the building in the background behind the leaves which you focus on. It may be down to your way of scanning but if I were to choose based on just what I am seeing here, there is no question... I'd go for the Epson, even if I were just scanning 35mm.
fyvewytches I totally agree, a flat TIFF to me is as close to a RAW file you can get. All I want is a scan that takes in all the information possible in the image for me to edit in Lightroom or photoshop.
If we want a flat profile, why shoot film
@@Lavi-Aemilia-Astori What's your point? You want a flat transfer so that you get all the info possible into your software and then you do whatever you want to do with your neg. Based on the fact that you get the most out of it. it's basically going non destructive and get the most out of your film.
Shooting film instead of going full digital from scratch has nothing to do with profiling.
@@bachirmessaouri4772 no, you are misunderstanding, the person above me is stating that he wants a flat tiff to edit in Lightroom, I just wonder, if he wants you edit everything from a flat scan, why don't just shoot digital
@@bachirmessaouri4772 but thanks you for explaining
Hey Jonathan, whenever I select 48 bit HDR raw in SilverFast and choose the right NegaFix profile for my color film, the prescan looks perfect. However, the file i get after the proper scan is this wierd brownish/reddish negative which looks very blue when i invert the colors in photoshop or lightroom. Can you help me with that? Tia
If you scan RAW you need to correct for the orange mask. Some people use photoshop actions and some people use a plugin called 'ColourPerfect'. The other option is not to scan in raw mode and just choose one of the correctly inverted outputs
Or you get SilverFast HDR Studio to process the SilverFast RAW files.
This is the general idea behind the RAW option in SilverFast--to have a split workflow. First, scan with the SilverFast scan software and don't fiddle with any settings, adjustments, etc. (if possible, I'd also suggest to use the 64 bit RAW file, as this adds the infrared channel data for hardware based scratch and dust removal).
And then process the scanned files with the SilverFast HDR Studio software, as it is able to really handle all the information stored in the RAW file (it even helps with sharpening of the scan, as they put in some logic to apply sharpening algorithms based on the scanner model).
BTW, SilverFast named their processing software "HDR" long before there was this thing now known as HDR processing, and it has absolutely nothing to do with this digital image processing technique.
Hope this helps. Cheers, Michael
Great video, A lot of scanning videos mention Photoshop, as this is quite an expensive product is there anything you would recommend as an alternative, or should I just splash out and purchase Photoshop? Many thanks..
love u bro
I have a Canon flatbed and the Plustek but lately I have been "scanning" with a macro lens on my DSLR on a light table and get much better detail than even the plustek can give. I think I am going to sell them both and buy more cameras or lenses
the downsides is that you can't fix scratches automatically with a DSLR, and you need a macro lens
That plustek kills the Epson. Look at those trees. The trees are muchhh sharper with the Plustek.
Do you recommend epson 850 pro or plustek 8200i Ai
I wish that Epson would refine their photographic scanners to operate at a consistent height that is matched to a better bracket. The fact that you have to adjust the height of your film and probably use a bracket from an outside vendor is disappointing.
im helpin out a friend and i wondered about each of htese scanners, you just helped m,me pick the plustek one thansk
I'm afraid this was a bit of a fan boy video. It was noticeable for example that the epson scan had much less grain and the extra dirt and speckles on the edges of the plustek one made it unusable IMHO. Another thing in favour of the Epson is that you can scan a whole 35mm film in one go. The truth is that scanning is a bit of a black art and spending time refining the workflow is a consequence of that. It's very satisfying when you get it right though.
its kinda easy to add contrast but hard to deduct contrast...in my case i would prefer the epson thanks for a well thought out comparison :)
trees definitely sharper off the plustek and resolution of the plustek is nice, but you have to consider the amount of ICE processing to clean up any scratches or dust found on the scan making it a bit more muddy but still retain a lot of detail IMO. That kind of clean up job in PS seems to be a lot of busy work. I would personally trade resolution and marginal sharpness at +150% magnification for a cleaner file that requires less work. Negative Lab Pro software should help get your colors out of your negative from the epson scan
You didn't show the scan settings.
When you were looking at the leaves, there was all sorts of dirt on the Plustek scan, which was not present in the Epson scan. Yet the film had one extra cleaning before the Plustek scan.
This is not logical. Are you sure that you didn't let the Epson software do "dust removal"? If you did, that would explain why your dirty Plustek scan looked sharper than the Epson scan which had been through a "cleaning" process.
Can you include the film borders in the scan with the plustek?
No, the holders only fit the shutter area
interesting. is that why part of the image that was scanned by plustek is cropped? it doesn't seem to be cropped at all with the Epson.
Plusteks crop slightly (but frankly so do both Noritsu and frontier minilab scanners)
I was under the impression that Noritsu does not (or rather to a very minute degree). Though, I am aware that the Pakon does crop a noticeable amount and that doesn't seem to affect the scanner's popularity.
What is shocking here is that the Plustek image is so little sharper than the Epson. In saying this, I am already raking into account the fact that the claimed 8200 resolution of the Plustek is a total fraud, being no more than 3250 at best settings. I think the smoother, flatter image of the Epson actually has more potential for a better final print after adjustments. What's silly is that a mid-range Minolta scanner from 15+ years ago will run these two units into the ground, in terms of image quality. I have a basic Acer scanner in storage 20 years which probably yields a better image at a 2700 scan. Sad.
I own a Espson V850 pro but i cant scan my negative at 48 Bit but only at 24--48 bit, can someone help me?
what you didn’t mention was the cruel pain inflicted on anyone having to spend hours on the plustek on just one roll of film....too slow and painful to warrant buying a dedicated 35mm scanner over the epson. Better off finding a refurbed Nikon Coolscan V.
I think that your Epson could possibly have some problems. I own the Epson V600 and the Plustek 8100 and yes the 8100 is a bit better but Jesus, not that much as yours !
how do you find the timing of things, im interested in Plustek and wondering if it scans a entire roll in an 1 hr ?
With careful setup, the 850 can close-in on a drum scanner - whereas the Plustek is what it is
Hi there, can you please send us to a good direction to the "added setup" i am really keen to learn them, thanks heaps!
@@mnickdell8104
Sure, here are a few search queries to get you started;
*On scanning methods*
UA-cam Search; _Fluid Mount Film Scanning Can Be EASY. Here's My Step by Step Guide_
UA-cam Search; _Film Scanning Tips for Epson Perfection Scanners_
UA-cam Search; _Fluid Mount Scanning Tutorial: A step-by-step guide_
*On processing methods*
UA-cam Search; _Colour Balance and Film Photography: How to Diagnose and Fix Wonky Colours_
UA-cam Search; _Scanning Black and White Film_
UA-cam Search; _How I Edit and Scan Color Negative Film - Epson V600_
With that said, I don't think the issues outlined with the Epson scanner are due to the scanner, but with post-processing - as the Epson appears to produces a linear file, and in contrast with the Plustek which is was clearly optimized for production - which may be appealing for those who are not into adjusting images
PS. using the lower res. images, I was able to adjust the Epson to match the Plustek in Photoshop
@@SmalltimR Your tips saved my life. Coming from the world of enlargers and chemical prints, i have both epsonv850 and plustek8100 but non of my scan satisfied me ever, it will take a bit of time until i set up the wet scan system put some of these into practice but seeing theses tutorial i now know that i can improve on quality , and v850 is very capable so cannot thank you enough!
@@mnickdell8104
Glad to hear it, I've been slowly working my way toward 8x10 film photography and have learned a great deal in terms of processing and development over the years, and though I don't own an Epson 850 personally(having gone the digital camera route), one of the main aspects of digitization was gaining familiarity with image characteristics and appropriate post-processing techniques.
@@SmalltimR thanks again for your great help, there is one thing that all ormost of these scanning tutorials are suggesting that is not working for me and that is to get great scans you need to grab the image itself and crop out the margin whereas i have this hobbit or style that those black margins are very important to me, ilke to keep them fully or partially around my photographs regardless of what format i am shooting. what are your thoughts on getting good quality scans without cropping those out?
plustek is better but buy a pacific image XAs or XEs if you want a wayyyyy better scanner for the money. It physically resolves 50-60% more than the epson does. it hits about 4500-5000 dpi whereas the epsons are like 1650-2000 dpi in actuality.
It's probably better to send the negs to a lab with a high quality scanner who can usually scan to various resolutions, costs a bit though. I find my Epson V600 does fine for me especially when I use Vuescan which give a better scan than the supplied Epson s/w. Also, set the scan for 3200 which is fine for B&W negs.
I was disappointed with my lab scans. I used them more as thumbnails.
Id prefer the Epson color output, because it allows better and easier color adjustments.
And now compare it to a film scanner in the price range of the V850. E.g. the Reflecta RPS 10M gives way better results than the V850!
RPS-10M has a few issues with consistency and banding. I’d actually recommend a Plustek 8200i over the Reflecta. The best 35MM dedicated scanner is probably the Dimage 5400 ii or a Ls-600 but we’re talking about stuff that can be bought new
most of the flatbeds have shitty digital ice, the performance of the dedicated film scanners is way better, but plustek is by far not the best scanner, the only good thing about it is that its not expensive and can be bought new, but its not a match for later nikons or minoltas
I don't know about digital ice performance, but the superiority of the prior era dedicated film scanners is clear. The problem presented to get that superior performance is (1) limited availability of the old scanners, and (2) getting the old XP era software to run on a Windows 10 platform. I think the best path is to get the best Minolta you can find and run it on current independent software. This is a situation of the best technology having been pulled from the market for lack of adequate customer base, and the gap or small demand left now being filled by second rate product, meaning Plustek.
Sooo quiet.
Sorry. I'll sort that next time aha
I put the negative directly on the glass of my epson 850 with ANR glass and the scans are sharper then from a lab. You must be doing something wrong with your epson to have poor scan quality.
uhm, the Epson file is linear ...
Thumbs down for music that is an unnecessary audio distraction and for taking longer than necessary to get to the point. This video did not need to be 14 minutes long.
Epson scan on the leaves shows how degraded the output is from it which defeats the purpose of whatever investment in lens and accutance of particular film stock you've used. C'mon Epson, please please please bring a bit better scanner to the market. 🙏🏻
Kudos for the video but these comparisons are ridiculous.
This is maybe the dirtiest negative I've ever seen. It should have been cleaned with a photo sponge and film cleaner before scanning. Canned air isn't enough.
Also--since both scanners have multiple adjustments to make prior to scanning, you'd have to normalize each to compare. You did not, so tone comparison is meaningless.
Epson straight off scan looks wayy better
I very much appreciate the video and your explanation but being migraine prone that auto-tuned, digital, thumping music by 2:19 makes your video almost unwatchable.
I was worried a 20 minute video about scanning might seem a bit dull
200 pounds for that? B&h shows $500 for me,
not quite a flatbed, more like an A-cup
👀