Coolscan IV to Pakon 135: IQ loss

froyd

froyd

Veteran
Local time
9:17 PM
Joined
Aug 14, 2006
Messages
2,319
Thinking of letting go of the Coolscan IV ED in favor of the convenience of the Pakon, but wondering what I'll be giving up in IQ.

The Coolscan offers greater resolution and wider coverage area on the neagtive (no cropped frames), but what's I'm really concerned with is shadow detail. The Coolscan on paper sports a measly 3.6 DMAX, but its scans of dense material are quite good and better than the specs would have you believe.
 
giving up iq for speed.
the pakon 135Plus model is roughly 6megapixel (2000x3000 resolution)
versus the roughly 13megapixel resolution of the IV. (2900x4350 est)).
So the pakon is great for under 5min scans of the whole roll and prints
are usually 4R size. I have tried to print larger abit larger at 8R (8" by 10"),
and it works, just barely.

So i think if you can afford, get both. One to do quick scans, while the other is to
scan much higher resolution.

raytoei
(ps. i have a 135+ and a minolta 3200 for this purpose).
 
Hi Froyd

I just added the Pakon to my Coolscan V ed,
I would not let the Coolscan go. The Pakon is a sweet way to save time and have quick high quality previews.
It is not a "grain level" scanner though.
I use it to preview images and select the keepers to scan with the Nikon or wet print (well... evetually I will wet print again :p )

Cheers!
 
Can either of you comment on the Pakon's ability to penetrate shadow detail? Andy's Coolscan V is a d-max champ and a notch above the IV I have, so that comparison might not be too relevant. I never see any info on the Pakon's handling of shadows or even a dmax rating, for that matter.
 
The Pakon is no slouch at shadow detail, but of course it doesn't do reversal film except through a convoluted workaround. Negative film isn't really so much of a challenge, so it isn't surprising that the Pakon does well.
 
froyd said:
..... The Coolscan on paper sports a measly 3.6 DMAX, but its scans of dense material are quite good and better than the specs would have you believe.
Click to expand...

DMax is an arithmetically computed value based on the number of precision bits the scanner handles. It is basically used only for marketing purposes and almost useless in real life.

IQ of a scanner, including ability to handle dense portions of film, is determined by optical quality, mechanical precision, and quality of the electronic components used. In overall terms, you get what you pay for.
 
Bob Michaels said:
DMax is an arithmetically computed value based on the number of precision bits the scanner handles. It is basically used only for marketing purposes and almost useless in real life.

IQ of a scanner, including ability to handle dense portions of film, is determined by optical quality, mechanical precision, and quality of the electronic components used. In overall terms, you get what you pay for.
Click to expand...

That is my feeling as well, but I wonder if the Pakon (also quality scanner, but one that favors speed over other aspects) can perform equally well as the old Coolscan IV when it comes to difficult negs. If the difference in IQ is negligible, the conenince aspect might push me to make the switch since I seldom need more than 3000px wide images.
 
Made the switch and never looked back.

I use the Pakon for whole rolls and to determine the keepers, which will be scanned on a Flextight either when I rent one or I will have it done for a couple of $ a piece once I have accumulated enough.

The fact that the Pakon made it so easy to scan makes me shoot more B&W film, which increases my skill, which increases the number of keepers etc.

In terms of IQ, I have printed up to A3 format on my home printer and the results are satisfactory. https://www.flickr.com/photos/charlessalomons/14911292090/ Happy to dropbox anyone the original so that you can pixelpeep or try to print. It is a 20 year-old negative BTW.

The crop issue can be resolved through a registry hack, supposedly no big deal.

So all-in-all. It is a scanner that requires some effort to set-up but once you have it working, it rocks.
 
froyd said:
That is my feeling as well, but I wonder if the Pakon (also quality scanner, but one that favors speed over other aspects) can perform equally well as the old Coolscan IV when it comes to difficult negs. If the difference in IQ is negligible, the conenince aspect might push me to make the switch since I seldom need more than 3000px wide images.
Click to expand...

Scanning speed is an insignificant factor for me because I edit first using a light table and then scan. Scanning only 1-3% of the frames I shoot allows me the time to do the absolute best scan possible. I figure since I am going to have to edit sometime, why not do it first so that I do not waste time on images that will not be used.
 
I set my index scan size to roughly 2mp or so on my KM5400 then step through each image to determine the ones or none to work on from each film strip. I struggle to understand what is so hard about that as pretty much every scanner surely comes with an index scanning facility that is both fast and can be set to a good enough resolution to judge an image.
 
I'm getting a little more familiar with the Coolscan IV to post some before and afters.

The first image is a scan from my local Cosco. The interpretation of the scene as a high contrast is pleasing to me, but I missed some of the highlight detail that was so clearly visible on the negative. I liked the finished result enough...but I wanted to get there myself by removing image information that being faced with missing data that a scanner either did not see or threw away.

This is what I imagine Pakon scan would look like and why I'm a little reluctant to take the dive.

03690023- RFF by kafe-pic, on Flickr


This is how much more tonal detail the Coolscan found on the negative:

Tmax 16bit grey scan - RFF by kafe-pic, on Flickr

and for fun, this is how the image ended up being processed

Tmax 16bit grey edited - RFF by kafe-pic, on Flickr
 
Never evaluate a scanner based on the output from the scanner software. Instead base your evaluation on the final product you get after adjustment in your image editor. Otherwise you are basing your evaluation on the capabilities of the scanner software to automatically guess the software adjustments needed for a final output. You do not want those software adjustments made for you as each adjustment degrades the image a little bit.

Typically the best scan looks flat but contains the maximum detail it can obtain from the negative. That is what you should be striving for. Then you can use your image editor to make it look like what you want.

FWIW, I find the Vuescan software to be best at accomplishing the goal of the best final result, regardless of scanner hardware used because it makes the minimum amount of software adjustments.

Just remember that the detail gathered by the scanner hardware and the file delivered are basically unrelated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom