First sample images scanned with the Plustek OpticFilm 120 professional grade scanner

Plustek released few sample images scanned with their new OpticFilm 120 professional grade scanner ($1,999.99):

The images in this directory are unedited images that were scanned using the Auto CCR function of LaserSoft SilverFast Ai Studio 8. No other adjustments or dust and scratch removal were made. Consider these images to be similar to "straight out of camera" raw files produced by digital cameras. All of these images were shot with a Rolleiflex T, Type 2 on either Kodak Tmax 400 or Ilford HP5 400. These images were scanned using pre-production drivers and software. Image quality from production scanners may be different.

Here are two 100% crops from the original 121MB (11112 × 10777) TIFF files:

This entry was posted in Other. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • it is not 1999, they will not sell a piece for that price.

    • John Galt, Jr

      It’ll be popular as a rental item from one of the big houses.

    • Nick

      Interesting prediction, but I’ll probably buy one – so you’re wrong, yet again.

    • Already pre ordered one from B&H, so yes, they will sell at least one at 1999.99

  • Bonetti


  • Dumb Harold

    Another dumb comment by Harold. Don’t you ever have anything worthwhile to contribute?

    Look, there are a lot of people who will buy this. Anybody too late to the film game, either coming back to film, finding their way to it for the first time, or discovering a shoebox full of family photos will want to give this scanner a serious look.

    The film community mourned the loss of the Nikon scanners, and were put off by the high prices the remaining stock sold for on eBay. This is just the thing they are looking for, because they aren’t going to pony up the big bucks for a Hasselblad X1/X5 or Aztek/Howtek/ICG/Heielberg PMT drum scanner .

    This scanner fills a hole in scanner offerings and sits nicely in between the flatbeds and drum scanners.

    • and you know this how? i still shoot film and would definitely not spend 2k on “noname” mushy scanner when i can get wet holder for flatbed scanner costing half that and producing same or maybe even sharper files.

      nowadays also film is shot by people who value their art and definitely not use this to get maximum from their slides. most of those do it as i do: preview and nonserious photos on cheap wet flatbed and the real stuff on real scanner

      • NycPete

        Stop lying Harold Ellis…..

        You started calling yourself a Photographer when Digital came out.

        • not Harold Ellis

          “Harold Ellis” is probably this spammer guy, Henry Hagan…

          • Julien

            Are you can just use your DSLR and shoot the film with a macro lens or home made adapter.
            It exists for 24*36 positive film and works damn well with a 50mm lens and macro ring. You get a better quality picture than you could have get with common scanners 🙂
            And that was with the d300s… i’m changing a bit the setup to get the d800 to have a full frame “shootscan” to have even more detailed scan! 🙂

  • Camaman

    That is nice, but I would love to see one film shot that so sharp that it would need to be scaned at 100MP…
    These look more like 30MP worth.

  • george

    too much $ for a scanner, (unless you are doing volume).

    my epson 750 does a wonderful job. it can define the grain of my acros 100 negatives, (any better will not help). not to mention it will scan sheets of negatives at a time

  • Disiderio

    My plustek 7400 does a fine job of scanning with vuescan however does lack a little in dynamic range. I wonder how much more effective this scanner will be and how much sharper the results will be. I love digital, but there is a romance associated with shooting with Velvia 50.

  • hiplnsdrftr

    Not sure the merits of this particular scanner, but considering I have 25 years worth of 135 and 120 negatives I’m always curious about negative scanners.

    I’ve used an Epson 750 to scan a mere fraction of what I have.

    I suppose I would be Ok spending $2,000 if the quality was significantly better than the 750 flatbed.

    The only thing I miss about film is “working” in the darkroom with assistants. Otherwise, digital rules.

  • E

    I scanned this week several 4×5 FP4 negatives on my Epson 700 and then printed one of this enormous files at 22×17 on an Epson 11800. Results are breathtaking. I was really impressed. Never a digital image will look like that or maybe yes, but you must pay a real fortune. I bought my Epson 700 for 300 dollars in ebay. What’s the point to pay 1900 for a scanner that don’t even scanne large format? On the other hand I’m very happy to see a new scanner on the market. That’s good for film lovers like me that shot film and print digitally.

    • Tijmen

      300$ for a 700? Lucky you!

  • Terrible Lie

    Harold, if there’s one thing you’re not, it’s a good liar.

    I seriously doubt you shoot film at all.

    In fact, I doubt you have ever picked up a camera.

    So go on, Harold, prove me wrong. Let’s see a link to your work, so all of us at PR can be utterly amazed at just how superior your image making skills are (not).

  • Vytas Narusevicius

    Why are 4×5 shooters always commenting on how they will never buy the Plustek 120 and how the Espon has wet mount? Clearly this scanner is not aimed at their market, but at those of us who only shoot 135 and 120, and who are not happy with the crappy scan quality and negative holders from Epson. I for one can’t wait to get one.

    • E

      Ok go ahead. Holders from Epsor are so so, you are right, specially in 135 and 120, but you can buy very good holders from other makers for not too much. BTW, I use my Epson for 135 an 120 film too with all its holders and with some practice and care that works pretty well. About the scan quality, well, im not so sure that this Plutek is better.

      • I made my own holders for my V700… more precise and cheaper than anything out there.

  • Its always gret to see a new film scanner out, especially in this day and age. But, because this holds the film in a holder, it will never be ‘properly’ sharp.

    I would love Plustel to bring ut a cheap desktop drum scanner. That would be very cool.

    • Patrick

      Drum scanners are dead. Just ask anyone who runs a commercial lab operation. Beside the fact that the film was often degraded/destroyed by staining. Imacon Flextight scanners have become industry standards for practically all commercial labs, for good reason.

      • Banksie

        Sorry, but that is incorrect. And Imacons are not the “industry standard for practically all commercial labs,” far from it (think more like Heidelberg and Cruse; those are more the “commercial standards.”) Drum scanning is not at all dead. Yes, ask anyone who runs a high end commercial studio. They are everywhere. And I’m not sure what you mean by “degraded/destroyed by staining.” Are you implying that mounting fluid degrades and destroys film? That it stains film? You might want to warn all those people here who are wet mounting on their Epson flatbeds…… 😉

        Imacons are limited by dpi and film size. As an example, the top commercial studios here in Los Angeles (Weldon, Lumiere, and The Icon), all offer high end drum scans. The Icon does offer 16 bit Imacon scans as budget scans. There are other commercial studios that only offer flatbed scans but those are with very high end and very expensive large format flatbeds (e.g., Nash Editions and ArtScans Studio.) But most studios have different scanners in-house for different applications and different pricing schedules.

        There plenty of others elsewhere, and all are alive and well and offering drum scans. And they are numerous in NYC: Duggal, Sarazan, Laumont, Proof Digital, Empirical/Non, Brooklyn Print Works, Griffin Editions, etc., etc..

  • Eric

    I think this product looks extremelyinteresting for 35mm and 120 film. Anyone with a lot of relevant film and slides will buy one if they have the money, so hats off to Plustek (!!!!!) for their product development here.
    The Espon 700/750 scanner is great for 4×5 negatives, but Epson scanners can’t compared with Poloraid (or Nikon) scanners, for example, for 35mm. Unfortunately, Polaroid scanners no longer work with most computers after SCSI bit the dust–and good riddance to SCSI, a horrible interface! For most users, Nikon scanners are old junk by now.

    If this scanner is any good, I will buy one for everyday use and one for backup. In a few years, most digital manufacturers aren’t going to give a damn about film anyway. Scanners will be history along with all the aging photographers who still think film is a good capture device.

    Scanners are important because they allow us to preserve–in digital form–our analog past. If the Plustek scanner is good, Plustek will have provided us with an immensely important historical preservation tool. That their most important contribution. Let’s preserve the films we have taken–and to hell with film in the future. Thank you Plustek!

    • E

      For me analog is not past. It’s present and future also. I think film is good capture device because is different from digital, not better, only different. With analog and for my type of photography I’ve results that personally I like more than digital.

      • Ernest

        I agree 100%

      • Yes. We can still choose films.
        I’m looking forward OpticFilm 120 to scan 120 films taken by my 67II.

        Ah, I wish OpticFilm “4×5” 😉

  • Tim

    Oh i would love one. All i shot is film.

    But the price is just too high. Ill guess ill stick to my CanoScan 9000F, and if i need something in super detail, ill go for a drum scan at the local photostudio.

  • fjfjjj

    Terrible, mushy results. What’s the point of high resolution if it doesn’t resolve the grain? Also suspicious that they only show black and white results, as chromatic aberration is a problem with many film scanners. I’ll pass.

    • True… but chromatic aberration is a problem with refraction. So any scanner that has a lens is going to show some at some magnification, just like any good camera lens out there, regardless of how much you spend. It’s unrealistic to expect to not see any.

  • Does anyone know how long it takes to scan a frame?

    My experience has been that film scanners are unusably slow.

  • PVS

    these look a bit of disappointing, even my Plustek 7400 is capable of more capturing ‘detailed grain’.

  • I need a very serious recommendation: I need a scanner that will do both my 135 and 120…a scanner that gives great quality and one which a person does not have to pay an arm and leg for. I have 30 years of some of my best work to scan for marketing on book, magazine and gallery projects. I have embraced the digital shoot world completely…with many credits in worldwide publications. Is there anything out there for under $1000? Any help and direction would be greatly appreciated. You may email me, too, at Thanks for the potential guidance.

  • Back to top