Finally shot through my backlog of Kodak Tri-X 35mm rolls from a recent trip to Chicago. Now I need a dedicated scanner before I head out on another shoot next month.
I am torn between the Plustek OpticFilm 8200i and the Epson V600. The Plustek seems sharper for 35mm, but the Epson would be faster since I can scan whole strips at once. My budget is around $400 max, and I don't have a ton of desk space.
Which one handles the grain and tones of Tri-X better?
@Reply #2 - good point! Quick reply while the kids are finally eating their mac and cheese — I looked at the Plustek OpticFilm 8200i versus paying a lab, and doing it myself saved me a ton. A local lab wanted $15 a roll to develop and scan my Tri-X, but doing it at home brings my cost per roll down to practically pennies. Dealer wanted a fortune for a pro setup, but I got my gear used for $220. TL;DR: Buy the Plustek, your wallet will thank you after fifty rolls.
@Reply #5 - good point! Look, I disagree on writing off the flatbeds entirely, but you need the right tool for the job. Listen, I have used both in my workspace. Here is the breakdown:
- Plustek OpticFilm 8200i Ai: Sharpest results for 35mm grain. Slow single-frame loading. Takes up minimal workbench space.
- Epson Perfection V600 Photo: Faster batch scanning. Softens Tri-X grain noticeably past 1800 DPI. Takes up more footprint. TL;DR: Buy the Plustek OpticFilm 8200i Ai if you want clean silver-halide grain. Buy the Epson Perfection V600 Photo only if batch speed matters more than sharpness.
So funny you ask this — last summer I tried the Plustek OpticFilm 8200i for Tri-X.
- Sharper grain
- Saves money if you scan slow. Get it!
My buddy told me the exact same thing last week. Guess he was right lol.
This ^
Oh man, I literally just went through this exact rabbit hole last week (my wife thought I was losing my mind reading forum posts until 2am). I'm no expert, but here is what I found out during my research:
- The Plustek OpticFilm 8200i usually runs around $350 and crushes it on resolution for 35mm.
- Meanwhile the Epson Perfection V600 sits closer to $300, but flatscreens struggle with real optical sharpness on small negatives. Basically, if you want actual grain definition on Tri-X — go with the dedicated film scanner.
Late to the party here. Look, before anyone drops four hundred bucks on gear, how many rolls are we talking about sitting in that backlog? Are you printing these out large or just posting online? Idk, if its just a couple rolls a month, frame speed dont mean squat. Let me know your volume first...
Like someone mentioned, workflow speed versus sharpness is the real tradeoff here. Last summer I tackled roughly 40 rolls of Tri-X on a Plustek OpticFilm 8200i Ai. It takes about two minutes per frame using SilverFast, but the silver grain structure looks punchy and distinct. If your backlog is under ten rolls, stick to the Plustek. If you have fifty rolls, borrow a macro lens for a DSLR setup instead.
I spent three months testing both last year on a massive batch of Tri-X 400. The dedicated film scanner resolved about 3200 true DPI with much tighter grain rendering, while the flatbed struggled past 1800 DPI and made the shadows look muddy. The strip scanning speed on the flatbed is nice, but you lose significant sharpness. Anyway, bottom line is that optical resolution matters most for classic silver-halide grain.
@Reply #8 - good point! Look, you guys are overthinking the gear costs when you can just buy a used flatbed off marketplace for fifty bucks. Why spend four hundred dollars retail when you can fix up an old scanner yourself? I did that last month and saved a ton. Dealer wanted four hundred for a service check, but I did it for eighty bucks with some basic parts. Go with Epson V600 if you can find a cheap used one (or any old brand name scanner really) — just make sure the price is right because DIY always wins on cost per frame.
Yep, this is the way