Members: 7,087   Posts: 29,697   Online: 103
Page 12 of 21 FirstFirst ... 2 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 210
  1. #111
    Keep it because you'll certainly be amping up your film addiction with large format.

  2. #112

    New Plustek OpticFilm 120 Scanner Surfaces(sort of)

    Quote Originally Posted by chuck94022 View Post
    Keep it because you'll certainly be amping up your film addiction with large format.
    If I can ever get a body... Lol


    The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    " you may spit on a rose, but it is still a rose"

  3. #113

    There's the color sample referenced earlier so you don't have to hunt for it.

  4. #114

  5. #115

    Plustek OpticFilm 120 file sizes?

    What file sizes does the Plustek OpticFilm 120 deliver for 135 and 120?

    I notice that the 35mm strip holder consists of two rows of film with the 24mm edge leading, where as the transparency holder handles one row of slides with the 36mm edge leading.

    How does the scanner deliver the same resolution for both strip negatives and mounted slides?

    Is there a PDF available for the user guide?


  6. #116
    The lens and sensor in the scanner are fixed. They are capable of imaging up to a 2.25" image width (width of a 120 frame) at some fixed resolution. Regardless of orientation of the frame, the resolution is the same. You're using different parts of the imaging area depending on frame size and orientation, but the pixels per inch of film is the same for all formats. This is different from using a digital SLR, where you choose a different focal length lens depending on the "size" (angle of view) of the scene you want to capture.

    Hope that helps.

    I don't think Plustek has the manuals up on their website, yet.


  7. #117
    So the pixel width of a 35mm frame is a fraction of the total number of pixels the CCD is capable of?
    The sample file shown on Photorumors site suggests a full scan pixel count for the 120 frame as about 11,000.
    That would be about 5000 pixels (4888). If the 35mm frame is scanned along the 24mm edge, that would around 3300 pixels. Is this what we're looking at for 35mm scans? 5000 x 3300 pixels for a film strip?
    The transparency mount shows the 36mm edge leading which would give about 7500 x 5000 pixels.
    Do I interpret this correctly?

    Link to Photorumors sample scan:
    Last edited by jd callow; 12-18-2012 at 02:06 PM. Reason: Made link active

  8. #118
    Not quite...

    I wrote this elsewhere in regards to the LS-9000 (4000 PPI), but the concepts still apply.

    Think about it this way. The scanner has a resolution of 4000 PPI, So in order to image a 2.25" wide piece of film, the sensor has 2.25*4000 = 9000 pixels across the width of the film. This is the dimension parallel to the line sensor. If you're scanning a 645 frame, then the sensor only moves 45mm (1.75") along the length of the roll. So your final resolution is 9000 (across the width of the film) x 7000 (1.75" *4000 along the length of the film). A 6x6 frame gets you a 9000 x 9000 image, and a 6x9 (3.25" long) gets you 9000 x 13000. This is because the width dimension is fixed by the optical properties of the sensor, and the other dimension is dictated by how far the scanner head moves while scanning.

    Similarly for 35mm. The width of a frame on a 35mm film strip is 24mm (we'll call this 1 inch). So only about 4000 of the 9000 pixels in the width direction contain useful image data. Now our resolution is still 4000 PPI, because nothing in the optical system has changed just by putting in a different film carrier. The sensor travels the 36mm along the length of the roll (~1.5 inches), so you end up with a image that is 4000x6000.

    The slide carrier orients the film differently than the 35mm strip holder, but it doesn't matter. Here the 36mm dimension (~1.5 inches) is parallel to the sensor, so we're using 6000 of the 9000 pixels in that dimension. But the sensor only travels 24mm (~1 inch), capturing 4000 pixels in that dimension. You end up with the same 6000x4000 pixel image.
    If we change the math to the 5300PPI number from the Plustek, then we get:
    35mm approx. 8000 x 5300 (strip or mounted slide)
    645 approx. 11900 x 9300
    6x6 approx. 11900 x 11900
    6x9 approx. 11900 x 17200

    Keep in mind that a color image may have up to 6 bytes per pixel, so a full-color, full-resolution 6x6 scan at 16-bits per channel will be approx 800 MB.


  9. #119
    Don't be too excited. Plustek ist not a high quality manufacturer. Usually you can divide the real world resolution of their scanners by factor 2.

    Unfortunately it will only run with Silverfast, not with VueScan. Only with Silverfast the scanner will deliver the highest Dmax. Isn't that weird? Why don't they offer VueScan or leave the choice to the users? It appears to me that Silverfast will perform most of the work and has been customized to this particular scanner. On their German web site they published the tech specs. Dmax only with multiple scans and with Silverfast.

    I really want to see

    One single unit in 2012 (as promised by Plustek)
    The real world resolution of a Provia 100F slide scan

    Then I'll compare it to my Nikon LS 9000.

    Everything else is hot air.
    Don't dream your life - live your dream.
    I'm using FILM because nature isn't made of squares.

  10. #120
    @jens, Plustek is one of the few manufacturers prepared to support film users with new products at reasonable prices.

    I suggest you look up "churlish" in a dictionary.

Page 12 of 21 FirstFirst ... 2 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ... LastLast

DPUG.ORG is a division of Photocentric Ltd.  |   All Content Copyright 2011 Photocentric Ltd.
Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  |   Search  |  Mobile     Facebook     Twitter     Linkedin     RSS