James Markus wrote:
The Tone dslr scanning system is a hit with me. The design is brilliant! The silicone wheels are slightly offset to pull the film flat across it's width (flattens cupping), and the double "S" path uses the film's own plastic memory of curling towards the emulsion to provide the tension lengthwise to flatten the film longitudinally. I paired it with an old laptop that I installed MX Linux and Entangle to monitor the negatives as I turn the advancement dials. Finally, I can get perfectly centered shots showing the rebate, and while sitting down. Loading could not possibly be simpler - just push the film in until it hits the wheels, and advance by turning the knob counter clockwise. I purchased both the 120 kit, and the 35mm kit (that is why there are so many chimneys in the photos). I've done a bunch of scans with both - 6x7cm to half frame 35mm. No jams, easy operation, and it is fast. Excellent design and engineering.
misteracng wrote:
I think the easy 35mm v2 is much better at film flatness, the tolerances are much improved
I think the easy35 v2 is much better at film flatness too, the tolerances are meaningfully improved. Parallelism went from around 0.9mm on the original down to roughly 0.2mm on the v2, over a fourfold improvement. According to them, this is due to a redesigned holder attachment using spring-loaded ball bearings referenced directly against the sensor plane, rather than just tighter manufacturing alone.
Fred Miranda wrote:
This looks serious! Congrats on the set-up.
Thanks. The guy behind it (Jake) was/is an engineering university student - from what I read. The next thing he is working on is automated RGB dslr scanning. Motorized carriers, RGB light source, programed scanning. Having played with B&W Trichromes I would expect better - almost Kodachrome-like colors. I think I will stand pat with this version, but have been through so many methods in the last 2-3 years - who knows?
Fred Miranda wrote:
Something I've been pondering about the Easy35 film scanning system, which I own and really enjoy, is that we can't expect the highest level of sensor-to-film parallelism. In macro photography, especially at 1:1 magnification and beyond, the depth of field becomes so shallow that even a very slight tilt introduced by the Easy35 can be detected.
This is one of the main reasons I usually stop my lens down to f/11. It's not so much to maximize corner sharpness, but rather to provide a little extra depth of field to compensate for the tiny amount of tilt that's difficult to avoid with a system like this, particularly at its price point....Show more →
This is a scan done with the Valoi 2 of an FP4+ neg. The black edging is not added but the result of mild cropping of the original black border. To me, it would indicate that the alignment is spot-on. Yes? No LR perspective control has been added.
I tested the V2 with a focus checker target and it is quite even across the frame. DOF should be sufficient at F5.6 or F8 plus the lenses will be optimal as well. On a D850 and 60mm macro I saw the slight less improvement in the corners at F8 vs F5.6. F11 is worse due to diffraction. Also the illumination is much more even and much brighter then the V1. For 35mm scanning it is also much simpler because you do not have to align it like a traditional stand setup.
EltonPL wrote:
This is a scan done with the Valoi 2 of an FP4+ neg. The black edging is not added but the result of mild cropping of the original black border. To me, it would indicate that the alignment is spot-on. Yes? No LR perspective control has been added.
What you're describing wouldn't manifest this way. Even a microscopic tilt (as small as 0.02mm) will visibly degrade performance unless you stop down to f/8 or f/11 (which we already do anyways), where depth of field finally masks the misaligned focal plane. At macro distances, tolerances are unforgiving; this is the exact territory where perfect lens centering, adapter centering, and precise sensor alignment matter most.
Thanks. Got it. I was thinking that misalignment would result in the frame being "out of square". But maybe the effect could be so small as to not be noticeable, for the most part, and still effect focus across the frame.
Curious to anyone who has experience with both. How would the Valoi v2 or negative supply set ups with an SLS-2 compare to just getting something like the plustek 9000?
I only have m lenses for my SLS-2 so I’d need to purchase the setup and a macro lens to use it for scanning versus the plustek which would scan the film on its own.
Currently I have no medium or large format film cameras so only need to worry about scanning 35mm film from my MP
Uofoducks15 wrote:
Curious to anyone who has experience with both. How would the Valoi v2 or negative supply set ups with an SLS-2 compare to just getting something like the plustek 9000?
I only have m lenses for my SLS-2 so I’d need to purchase the setup and a macro lens to use it for scanning versus the plustek which would scan the film on its own.
Currently I have no medium or large format film cameras so only need to worry about scanning 35mm film from my MP
Wait, there's a Plustek 9000? Never heard of it. Is there a review somewhere that shows that the upgrades over the 8200 are?
I currently use a Nikon Coolscan IV and I hate using it but the results are fantastic compared the 8200i I was using before it. The 8200 had a look I didn't like to it. Like it was too bright or something even when done properly with the right levels.
damonnomonon wrote:
Wait, there's a Plustek 9000? Never heard of it. Is there a review somewhere that shows that the upgrades over the 8200 are?
I currently use a Nikon Coolscan IV and I hate using it but the results are fantastic compared the 8200i I was using before it. The 8200 had a look I didn't like to it. Like it was too bright or something even when done properly with the right levels.
I’ve reached a fork in the road. It took about one roll of film in my Nikon FE for me to be immediately hooked and dive head first into the film world. Got something cool coming in from Japan in a few days.
So I want to explore how I can deal with the film from home. Does anyone own either of these machines?
I’ve looked into both, I think the only real benefit for the 135ai is if you shoot other types of 35mm like pano or half frame and it can batch scan film strips so would speed up processing to some regard as it can scan a strip of film versus one frame at a time with the 9000ai.
I don’t think there is any scan quality difference between the two with the 9000i being a slightly newer model. So the price difference would come down to convenience and if you have alternative use cases.
I am more interested in the moment at the scan quality of the plustek compared to using something like the Valoi with a macro lens.
What are the specifications of the files those scanners output.
Tha Valoi gives you RAW files, at full 14bit depth, more DR than film has, whatever mpx the camera has. Wonderful to edit those files. Plus, you get a macro lens for many other uses. Hard to beat all those advantages.
1bwana1 wrote:
What are the specifications of the files those scanners output.
Tha Valoi gives you RAW files, at full 14bit depth, more DR than film has, whatever mpx the camera has. Wonderful to edit those files. Plus, you get a macro lens for many other uses. Hard to beat all those advantages.
I didn't find file formats saved info with the default software, and the bundled scanner specific Plustex version of Silverfast is probably been trimmed for the bundle. I have the same software version for another scanner, but saving in raw has been problematic since Lasersoft has their own proprietory raw format. There were three levels of the software for my scanner - I got the SE + of silverfast v9. It's really capable software, but a bit deep to learn. The reason I mention this is there are hardware specs, and hardware specs using Silverfast floating around the web on both scanners. Silverfast specs make the scanner appear more capable than the manufacturer claims,
Taken from the web site
135i ai
Approx. 360 seconds for maximum scanning area color at 3600 dpi (IR enabled) (6 MINUTES PER FRAME!))
Approx. 25 minutes for maximum scanning area at maximum resolution: 7200dpi (IR enabled) PER FRAME
Dynamic Range 3.4
9000i ai
3,600 dpi: Approx. 20 sec & 40 sec with IR scanning (This is almost the same as the LS-4000 & LS-5000 at 4000dpi)
7,200 dpi: Approx. 40 sec & 120 sec with IR scanning
Dynamic Range 3.6 (with Silverfast the DR = 4.01)
I'm not slamming these scanners. You just need to be aware that a 36 exposure roll will take between 3.6 hours at 3600dpi IR enabled and 15 hours on the 135i ai at 7200dpi to scan. That is a long slog imo. The 9000i would be considerably less.
I've been using Silverfast since the late 1990s on a Nikon LS-1000. It increased the image quality immensely, but the scanner is limited by hardware to 8bit color. Still makes great 5400dpi scans with great color, when the oem software could only do crappy color at 2700dpi. The 5400dpi scan only took 60 seconds back then, and it drove me crazy.
I have the v1, and just received my v2 "upgrade" kit today. I put "upgrade" in quotes because I got sent a used unit. Maybe somewhere another photographer is looking a brand new unit instead of their old repaired unit. I've let Valoi know what I received and hopefully they'll resolve their mistake. Anyway, other than the dust and a small scuff or two the v2 looks like a meaningful upgrade. I like the swappable film holders (I also shoot 110 and half-frame 35) and I think (but have not verified) this is going to be a much flatter scanning path. I have about five rolls of developed film heading back to me from the lab right now so hopefully I'll get to put the upgrade through its paces soon.
Something I got from Valoi before I got the v2 "upgrade" was their helical focus unit. It's a bit fiddly to use, but gives that extra measure of distance-to-scanning plane control so that I can actually get 1:1 with my macro lens (even with the set of tubes my v1 unit came with the 1:1 distance was not achievable, falling in between their adjustment lengths; now problem solved).
At some point I need to divert some hobby money into an Easy120 purchase: this is so much easier than using a flatbed and Silverfast (I can't even get myself to try that any more) or a copy stand (I lack the ability to set this up well enough to get quality results).
Note to v1 users who have the dust attachment: instead of screwing the duster in like v1 did, now v2 has a magnetic duster (something else I need to buy :-)) and the v1 duster can't be attached to the v2 unit.
James Markus wrote:
I didn't find file formats saved info with the default software, and the bundled scanner specific Plustex version of Silverfast is probably been trimmed for the bundle. I have the same software version for another scanner, but saving in raw has been problematic since Lasersoft has their own proprietory raw format. There were three levels of the software for my scanner - I got the SE + of silverfast v9. It's really capable software, but a bit deep to learn. The reason I mention this is there are hardware specs, and hardware specs using Silverfast floating around the web on both scanners. Silverfast specs make the scanner appear more capable than the manufacturer claims,
Taken from the web site
135i ai
Approx. 360 seconds for maximum scanning area color at 3600 dpi (IR enabled) (6 MINUTES PER FRAME!))
Approx. 25 minutes for maximum scanning area at maximum resolution: 7200dpi (IR enabled) PER FRAME
Dynamic Range 3.4
9000i ai
3,600 dpi: Approx. 20 sec & 40 sec with IR scanning (This is almost the same as the LS-4000 & LS-5000 at 4000dpi)
7,200 dpi: Approx. 40 sec & 120 sec with IR scanning
Dynamic Range 3.6 (with Silverfast the DR = 4.01)
I'm not slamming these scanners. You just need to be aware that a 36 exposure roll will take between 3.6 hours at 3600dpi IR enabled and 15 hours on the 135i ai at 7200dpi to scan. That is a long slog imo. The 9000i would be considerably less.
I've been using Silverfast since the late 1990s on a Nikon LS-1000. It increased the image quality immensely, but the scanner is limited by hardware to 8bit color. Still makes great 5400dpi scans with great color, when the oem software could only do crappy color at 2700dpi. The 5400dpi scan only took 60 seconds back then, and it drove me crazy. ...Show more →
Reading that I don't know why anyone would go that route. Valoi camera scanning takes about 1/60 seconds. I can scan a roll of 36 frame film in under 5 minutes. It gives you a RAW file almost any editor can work with. It provides 12 -15 stops of DR. You get the full resolution of the camera you use. All in an inexpensive, compact form factor. It can scan a variety of film formats.
henk.sijgers wrote:
At some point I need to divert some hobby money into an Easy120 purchase: this is so much easier than using a flatbed and Silverfast (I can't even get myself to try that any more) or a copy stand (I lack the ability to set this up well enough to get quality results).
I have been looking at the Easy120, but I am a little worried about the bad reviews some Valoi products get. Can you talk a bit about why this is a good system, and what limitations it might have?
1bwana1 wrote:
Reading that I don't know why anyone would go that route. Valoi camera scanning takes about 1/60 seconds. I can scan a roll of 36 frame film in under 5 minutes. It gives you a RAW file almost any editor can work with. It provides 12 -15 stops of DR. You get the full resolution of the camera you use. All in an inexpensive, compact form factor. It can scan a variety of film formats.
Valoi seems like an easy choice for most of us.
It’s just a slightly more expensive option given I don’t have a macro lens, but of course then you have a macro lens to use long term for your photography.
