If only there was a medium format Pakon-style scanner for a Pakon-like price. 🙂
If you're looking for print sizes measured more in feet than inches then you might as well send the neg off for a drum scan anyways. And if you are lucky enough to afford something like the Imacon of any generation then this wouldn't be a discussion.
Also, if you're worried more about scanning a full roll at speed then you're probably not as worried about maximum resolution. Think of stuff like the Pakon as a way to get a good digital contact sheet with. Then use a big scanner as your "enlarger" for when you really want to maximize resolution.
Yes, exactly what the OP was looking for...although in the years I've had the Pakon, not once have I needed to send off for a higher res scan.
I used to own a Coolscan and a Pakon, but a mirrorless camera, macro lens, copy stand, and film carrier from an enlarger have given me the cheapest and best results. Pakon is marginally faster, but it required me to run an obsolete operating system in VirtualBox on my Mac...more trouble than it was worth, ultimately.
While everyone else discusses the best way to "scan a roll of 36 b&w negs" I ask WHY?
I have never scanned an entire roll of b&w negs in 12 years. I simply lay the negs on a light box and edit down to the ones I really want, typically 1, 2, or 3 at the most. Then I can devote time and effort necessary to making the best scan (use a Minolta Multi Pro) and processing those.
I find working with negs gives me the most data. It is simply not a problem that the image is reversed in black / white. It is just like looking at an inverted image in a view camera or a TLR. And I see more looking at the neg with a loupe than anyone can ever see with even a medium rez scan.
Do people find that using a DSLR to scan the neg produces an image that looks more digital than more traditional scanning techniques?
I would do this, but I'm always changing my mind. Returning to a roll after 1 year, I seem to like a different set of captures than what caught my eye immediately after processing the roll.
Do people find that using a DSLR to scan the neg produces an image that looks more digital than more traditional scanning techniques?
I've owned almost all the Coolscans including the 4000, 5000, and 8000. <snip> These scanners require Vuescan which is not optimized to specific hardware like the Pakon software is.
While everyone else discusses the best way to "scan a roll of 36 b&w negs" I ask WHY?
I have never scanned an entire roll of b&w negs in 12 years. I simply lay the negs on a light box and edit down to the ones I really want, typically 1, 2, or 3 at the most. Then I can devote time and effort necessary to making the best scan (use a Minolta Multi Pro) and processing those.
I find working with negs gives me the most data. It is simply not a problem that the image is reversed in black / white. It is just like looking at an inverted image in a view camera or a TLR. And I see more looking at the neg with a loupe than anyone can ever see with even a medium rez scan.
>What version and what OS?
I'm currently using Nikon Scan 4.0.3 on Windows 7 Professional. Except for ICE (for color negs and slides), Nikon Scan works just like it did on Windows 2000 and Windows XP (which I've also used it on).
For a roll of color neg film, batch previewing with ICE on takes about 30-35 minutes and subsequent batch scanning with ICE on takes about the same amount of time again.
I see. I use a Mac, and Nikon Scan hasn't worked on OSX for the last 5 releases or so; hence Vuescan.
So about an hour.
I think I like the (5 minute with ICE) Pakon even more now. 😉
It can be downloaded from multiple Nikon group company websites.I'd have had to find a copy of Nikon Scan, too