Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Best scanning manager program?

Last response: in Computer Peripherals
Share
Anonymous
a b α HP
September 6, 2005 5:30:40 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner,comp.periphs.scanners (More info?)

I have an HP 7410 all-in-one, running under XP Pro. The scan manager
program that comes with the HP isn't very good, so I'm wondering if there's
a great scanning manager program (for documents and photographs).

Any recommendations?
September 7, 2005 12:03:08 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner,comp.periphs.scanners (More info?)

Per T. Wise:
>I have an HP 7410 all-in-one, running under XP Pro. The scan manager
>program that comes with the HP isn't very good, so I'm wondering if there's
>a great scanning manager program (for documents and photographs).
>
>Any recommendations?
>

Duno from "great", but after taking a strong dislike to Nikon's freebie I
settled on VueScan.

Currently driving a CoolScan 4000 (film) and a CanoScan LIDE-SomethingOrOther
(flatbed).

The price was right and I have no complaints.
--
PeteCresswell
Anonymous
a b α HP
September 7, 2005 4:00:29 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner,comp.periphs.scanners (More info?)

T. Wise wrote:
> I have an HP 7410 all-in-one, running under XP Pro. The scan manager
> program that comes with the HP isn't very good, so I'm wondering if there's
> a great scanning manager program (for documents and photographs).
>
> Any recommendations?

Dunno if your scanner is supported (most are),
but I've been using Vuescan. It has totally transformed
my Epson 4990 into a superb scanning machine.

Some claim it is not user-friendly. I guess that is contingent
on one's degree of familiarization, I find it quite friendly. Once
I worked out the twists of its interface, it turned into a mean
piece of software!

www.hamrick.com
is the place to go to for further info.

Others swear by Scanfast. I've tried their SE product,
came with my scanner. It's friendly, but the interface
got in the way once I became more proficient in its use.

Try it out as well. Google the name and you'll find the site.

Go to www.scantips.com for more than you ever wanted to
know about flat-bed image scanners!
Related resources
Anonymous
a b α HP
September 7, 2005 7:37:53 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner,comp.periphs.scanners (More info?)

Noons wrote:
>
> Others swear by Scanfast. I've tried their SE product,

Profuse apologies: that should have read Silverfast,
not Scanfast!
September 7, 2005 5:26:25 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner,comp.periphs.scanners (More info?)

Per Noons:
>Some claim it is not user-friendly.

That always mystified me. Compared to NikonScan (whose UI seems tb have
designed by somebody's 13-year-old kid trying incorporate every oddball control
he could find...) I find VueScan to be a model of adherence to the Windows UI
standards.

Mostly if something can be broken or misunderstood, I'm the one what will do it.
OTOH, I found VueScan to be easily usable without even reading the instructions.
--
PeteCresswell
September 7, 2005 6:03:59 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner,comp.periphs.scanners (More info?)

> Dunno if your scanner is supported (most are),
> but I've been using Vuescan. It has totally transformed
> my Epson 4990 into a superb scanning machine.
>

Which edition of Vuescan, Standard or Professional?
September 7, 2005 7:48:21 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner,comp.periphs.scanners (More info?)

On 7 Sep 2005 00:00:29 -0700, "Noons" <wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

>> Any recommendations?
>
>Dunno if your scanner is supported (most are),
>but I've been using Vuescan.

Vuescan is notoriously buggy and unreliable. Check the archives for a
constant stream of user complaints and bug reports, some duped users
even screaming for their money back. No refunds, though.

However, if you don't care for quality and just want a quick a dirty
web scan it just may do the trick. The only challenge is to locate a
version that "works" (and that's a real challenge!). If you do, resist
the urge to upgrade, or at least keep the old version just in case!

>Others swear by Scanfast.

That's SilverFast.

>I've tried their SE product,
>came with my scanner. It's friendly, but the interface
>got in the way once I became more proficient in its use.
>
>Try it out as well. Google the name and you'll find the site.

http://www.silverfast.com

Do note that you need to download a scanner specific version! Most
people consider it very good but it comes at a price. One notable
point I would make is that it's for people who favor "auto
everything".

In the interest of full disclosure, I don't use either of them,
although I've tested them both.

Don.
September 7, 2005 9:04:26 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner,comp.periphs.scanners (More info?)

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 13:26:25 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)"
<x@y.z.invalid.USA> wrote:

>Per Noons:
>>Some claim it is not user-friendly.
>
>That always mystified me.

And I'm mystified that you're mystified! ;o)

>Compared to NikonScan (whose UI seems tb have
>designed by somebody's 13-year-old kid trying incorporate every oddball control
>he could find...) I find VueScan to be a model of adherence to the Windows UI
>standards.

Ah, well, that explains it, then! Your knowledge of UI design is
apparently nonexistent... And that's being as diplomatic as I can
given the context. ;o)

Vuescan doesn't adhere to *any* UI standards! Doesn't even come close!

Vuescan is an ergonomic nightmare! Ever heard of "muscle memory"? Not
to mention hidden settings or, arcane interaction of unrelated
settings or, settings on different tabs influencing each other or,
missing user feedback or, secretly rolling back settings after the
user sets them... etc... etc... etc...

Vuescan is so bad I wouldn't even use it as an example of how *not* to
design a UI - as that risks vaguely implying Vuescan has a UI! ;o)

>Mostly if something can be broken or misunderstood, I'm the one what will do it.

The corollary of that is:

If something is broken and confusing you'll be the one who's happy
with it! ;o)

Your above assertion seems to confirm it.

Don.
Anonymous
a b α HP
September 7, 2005 11:33:30 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner,comp.periphs.scanners (More info?)

(PeteCresswell) wrote:
> That always mystified me. Compared to NikonScan (whose UI seems tb have
> designed by somebody's 13-year-old kid trying incorporate every oddball control
> he could find...) I find VueScan to be a model of adherence to the Windows UI
> standards.


Akshally, I beg to differ. The UI is not Windows standard at all.
What it is is *portable*. Ie, it is written using a portable library
mechanism that lets it "look and feel" exactly the same regardless
of where you are running the program: Mac, Windows and Linux.

That is, IMHO and given that no one else seems to bother with that
all important aspect, one of the most amazing things about Vuescan.

It is terminally easy nowadays to develop something that looks
"windows-like" or "mac-like" or whatever-like. But to write something
as complex as Vuescan and make it look the same and operate the same
in all three environements is a major achievement.

Having said that, I do not diminish that it has some user interface
quirks. But for the price, I can't complain: have you checked how
many bugs exists in much more expensive software nowadays?
:( 


> OTOH, I found VueScan to be easily usable without even reading the instructions.

Same here. It was quite refreshing in fact to not have to contend
with cryptic icons and ad-hoc graphics all over the place.
Anonymous
a b α HP
September 7, 2005 11:38:50 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner,comp.periphs.scanners (More info?)

Mike wrote:
> > Dunno if your scanner is supported (most are),
> > but I've been using Vuescan. It has totally transformed
> > my Epson 4990 into a superb scanning machine.
> >
>
> Which edition of Vuescan, Standard or Professional?


I've been using Pro because I want to keep the RAW scans
and reprocess them with all sorts of image filters in GIMP.

These "raw" files, by the way, are not camera RAW files but
raw data *inside* a vanilla TIFF file. That makes them quite
easy to manage with standard OS thumbnails. And better yet:
I can read them with GIMP and process them myself if I'm not
happy with what Vuescan is doing. Can't get any better than that,
IMHO!
Anonymous
a b α HP
September 8, 2005 1:01:27 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner,comp.periphs.scanners (More info?)

Noons wrote:
>
> It is terminally easy nowadays to develop something that looks
> "windows-like" or "mac-like" or whatever-like. But to write something
> as complex as Vuescan and make it look the same and operate the same
> in all three environements is a major achievement.
>
> Having said that, I do not diminish that it has some user interface
> quirks. But for the price, I can't complain: have you checked how
> many bugs exists in much more expensive software nowadays?
> :( 
Actually, there is also an advantage in doing cross-platform: a bug which is
at some stage harmless on one platform will show up early on another. The
result is more stable software. That is in part also due to the fact that
writing a cross platform application like VueScan (and to a lesser degree
Silverfast) simply requires a higher level of software engineering skills
than say a windows-only package.

-- Hans
September 8, 2005 10:32:55 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner,comp.periphs.scanners (More info?)

On 7 Sep 2005 19:33:30 -0700, "Noons" <wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

>But to write something
>as complex as Vuescan and make it look the same and operate the same
>in all three environements is a major achievement.

Please forgive me, but that's just nonsense.

Vuescan is not complex. It's mind-numbingly simple, assuming a
competent software engineer. Cross-platform development has been going
on for decades and has absolutely nothing to do with Vuescan problems.

The trouble with Vuescan is that it appears to have been casually
written by an amateur weekend programmer. Then as the features
proliferated (so-called "featuritis") he never did what any competent
programmer does: Re-evaluate the initial design. Instead, he
apparently committed the rookie mistake of "falling in love with his
original design".

To combat this some methodologies actually require programmers (after
an initial design phase) to literally throw away *all* notes and start
from scratch. The idea is you can start fresh with the new knowledge
but without the burden of an existing design.

In case of Vuescan, however, in order to fit the round peg of new
features into the square peg of vastly inadequate initial design, the
author just got into ever more trouble. A classic symptom of this is
when bugs proliferate and never go away and perennial unreliability.
Sounds familiar?

NOTE: Simply sticking a new "major" number after a program name does
*not* imply a serious redesign.

>Having said that, I do not diminish that it has some user interface
>quirks. But for the price, I can't complain: have you checked how
>many bugs exists in much more expensive software nowadays?
>:( 

Not at the same rate and persistence as Vuescan's!

How do you explain the most pedestrian bugs like "broken cropping" or
"0-byte file scan", etc appearing in major version *8*? That's
inexcusable! It indicates massive incompetence and total absence of
any semblance of quality control.

I know some Vuescan fans will emotionally overreact but it's a simple
statement of fact when I say that I have never seen a program so buggy
and unreliable as Vuescan in my 25+ years in the business.

Don.
September 8, 2005 10:32:57 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner,comp.periphs.scanners (More info?)

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 09:01:27 +0200, HvdV <nohanz@svi.nl> wrote:

>Actually, there is also an advantage in doing cross-platform: a bug which is
>at some stage harmless on one platform will show up early on another.

The corollary is that a bug originating on one platform will
proliferate to others.

>The result is more stable software.

In case of Vuescan it's exactly the opposite, confirming the above
corollary.

>That is in part also due to the fact that
>writing a cross platform application like VueScan (and to a lesser degree
>Silverfast) simply requires a higher level of software engineering skills
>than say a windows-only package.

Not really, if the basic design is done right. The modules are still
the same regardless. It's the "umbrella" design that binds them which
needs more thought. In case of Vuescan the inadequacy on this level
only exposes massive incompetence.

Don.
Anonymous
a b α HP
September 8, 2005 11:44:24 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner,comp.periphs.scanners (More info?)

Don wrote:

> >But to write something
> >as complex as Vuescan and make it look the same and operate the same
> >in all three environements is a major achievement.
>
> Please forgive me, but that's just nonsense.

There is nothing to forgive, I do respect anyone's opinions
no matter how different they are from mine.

> Vuescan is not complex. It's mind-numbingly simple, assuming a
> competent software engineer. Cross-platform development has been going
> on for decades and has absolutely nothing to do with Vuescan problems.

Beg to disagree. If handling scanners in multiple platforms
was simple, there would be a LOT more programs like Vuescan.
There is only one so far that covers that many scanners in
that many platforms. There must be a reason for that, it's not
like there isn't a demand for such programs.


> To combat this some methodologies actually require programmers (after
> an initial design phase) to literally throw away *all* notes and start
> from scratch. The idea is you can start fresh with the new knowledge
> but without the burden of an existing design.


Sure. But this is not a software house with standards,
methodologies, etcetc. This is a single man band, doing more
than a lot of companies with all those in place. Case in
point: Silverfast, from a much bigger stable. Yet feature-wise,
Vuescan leaves it for dead. Sure, Silverfast has a much more
polished interface for first time users. But just to give
you an example: it took me a while to figure out how the ICE
button worked! Was it on when the button looked like it was
pressed? Or off, because the icon was clear if not depressed?
No feedback whatsoever.

I much prefer Vuescan's option: listbox, pick between "none",
"light", "medium" or "heavy". Call me crazy, but it is clear
and concise...

Note that I am not denying there are problems with the UI.
One that you mentioned before and I particularly dislike
is the quaint way it changes the appearance of other tabs
when I change an option in the current tab. If I go and check
why, it makes sense it did so. But it is disconcerting when
one starts using it and it does that!

Still, I can't afford the time to think about it and contact the
author with alternative ways of handling those issues.
Maybe you could do that? Or have done so and got nowhere?

> author just got into ever more trouble. A classic symptom of this is
> when bugs proliferate and never go away and perennial unreliability.
> Sounds familiar?

Does it ever! Having been on the software business for many years,
I know exactly what you talking about.
But I disagree that there is perennial unreliability there.
It has crashed my system the grand total of twice (and locked up once)
since I started using it. Cripes, Firefox has done so more times
than I care to mention and I keep using it! See what I mean? :) 


>
> Not at the same rate and persistence as Vuescan's!

Can't comment there. I'm on my first download of
the product, so I don't have any experience on
bug persistence.


> How do you explain the most pedestrian bugs like "broken cropping" or
> "0-byte file scan", etc appearing in major version *8*? That's
> inexcusable! It indicates massive incompetence and total absence of
> any semblance of quality control.

I'm at a loss here. "broken cropping"? It seems to work fine for me.
Sure, the interface is quirky for multiple crops: I'd rather be able
to define and adjust/nudge each crop of a strip myself, rather than
have to fiddle with sliders for borders, gaps, LxW and so on. But
that is a design issue, not a "broken" thing?
"0-byte file scan" also leaves me perplexed. Care to explain
a bit more about this one: haven't hit it.

> I know some Vuescan fans will emotionally overreact but it's a simple
> statement of fact when I say that I have never seen a program so buggy
> and unreliable as Vuescan in my 25+ years in the business.

Obviously you have not been involved with databases!
(DAMHIKT...)
Anonymous
a b α HP
September 9, 2005 3:39:18 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner,comp.periphs.scanners (More info?)

Don wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 09:01:27 +0200, HvdV <nohanz@svi.nl> wrote:
>
>
>>Actually, there is also an advantage in doing cross-platform: a bug which is
>>at some stage harmless on one platform will show up early on another.
>
>
> The corollary is that a bug originating on one platform will
> proliferate to others.

I'm not talking about things like divide by zero bugs here, but of bugs
caused for example by invalid programmer assumptions. Such bugs can remain
undetected or worse undiagnosed for years. In a multi platform environment
such bugs have a larger chance of getting detected on one of the platforms
and then fixed for all. This assumes one is using different compilers.
>
>
>
>
>>That is in part also due to the fact that
>>writing a cross platform application like VueScan (and to a lesser degree
>>Silverfast) simply requires a higher level of software engineering skills
>>than say a windows-only package.
>
>
> Not really, if the basic design is done right. The modules are still
> the same regardless. It's the "umbrella" design that binds them which
> needs more thought. In case of Vuescan the inadequacy on this level
> only exposes massive incompetence.

IMO you can only make such harsh judgements if you've seen the actual Vuescan
code.
Stated differently my point was that you can't keep a cross platform package
afloat if the code is a mess and you are an incompetent programmer as well.


-- Hans
Anonymous
a b α HP
September 9, 2005 5:52:03 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner,comp.periphs.scanners (More info?)

Don, you don't need to respond to *each* comment posted with a new
reply. You've now taken over an entire page of comments and anyone
tuning into the thread now would only see your comments.

Don wrote:
"Yes, there is a "secret" option to turn the "screen update" off. But
that's a cure worse than the disease!! Now the display has nothing to
do with actual settings currently active. That's positively crazy! And
certainly brakes every UI guideline regarding ergonomics."

I complained about this 8 months ago or so. I believe this is fixed
and isn't a problem any longer. I regularly enter in exposure values
manually and it doesn't refresh while you're typing anymore. That was
annoying!
September 10, 2005 1:16:38 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner,comp.periphs.scanners (More info?)

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 23:39:18 +0200, HvdV <nohanz@svi.nl> wrote:

>>>Actually, there is also an advantage in doing cross-platform: a bug which is
>>>at some stage harmless on one platform will show up early on another.
>>
>> The corollary is that a bug originating on one platform will
>> proliferate to others.
>
>I'm not talking about things like divide by zero bugs here,

Neither am I. (see below) Divide by zero is not platform specific.

>but of bugs
>caused for example by invalid programmer assumptions. Such bugs can remain
>undetected or worse undiagnosed for years.

Indeed, and (for example) the Vuecan's profile bug of a couple of
years ago is a prime example that multi-platform did not save it from
invalid programmer assumptions.

>In a multi platform environment
>such bugs have a larger chance of getting detected on one of the platforms
>and then fixed for all. This assumes one is using different compilers.

I understand that. It's what NASA does on its vehicles by using 5
different processors and 5 different languages (compilers) performing
the same task. NASA does that to avoid this "cross pollution" of bugs
and then uses "majority decision" when results differ.

But that's not the point I was making. Trying to solve a platform
specific problem inadequately will proliferate to other platforms,
even though it nominally has nothing to do with those other platforms.

>>>That is in part also due to the fact that
>>>writing a cross platform application like VueScan (and to a lesser degree
>>>Silverfast) simply requires a higher level of software engineering skills
>>>than say a windows-only package.
>>
>> Not really, if the basic design is done right. The modules are still
>> the same regardless. It's the "umbrella" design that binds them which
>> needs more thought. In case of Vuescan the inadequacy on this level
>> only exposes massive incompetence.
>
>IMO you can only make such harsh judgements if you've seen the actual Vuescan
>code.

Actually, I *have* seen snippets of Vuescan code. Well, indirectly...

I disassembled Vuescan (a couple of years ago when I evaluated it) to
check how it handled Kodachromes (and then, perhaps, retrofit
individual AG control) but gave up because it was a total mess.

Granted, there are all sorts of caveats attached to such "evaluation",
and I'm aware of most (if not all) of them, but even with that proviso
what I've seen was truly appalling.

However, be that as it may, it's not really necessary to see the code.
When a programmer can't fix a bug for *two years* (e.g. Minolta) and
does so only after someone else posts a solution here then, yes, it's
certainly not harsh to call such a "programmer" (and I use the term
loosely) incompetent!

Add to that endless (often elementary!) "peekaboo" bugs which appear
and disappear with alternate releases! Such a "programmer" can not
only be justifiably termed incompetent, but massively incompetent.

>Stated differently my point was that you can't keep a cross platform package
>afloat if the code is a mess and you are an incompetent programmer as well.

Evidently! ;o)

And Vuescan is a prime example of that as it sinks ever deeper with
each new "upgrade"! That's exactly my point! When a program in it's
*8th* major version start producing 0-byte files, that's incompetence
beyond words.

Don.
September 10, 2005 1:16:44 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner,comp.periphs.scanners (More info?)

On 8 Sep 2005 19:44:24 -0700, "Noons" <wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

>> >But to write something
>> >as complex as Vuescan and make it look the same and operate the same
>> >in all three environements is a major achievement.
>>
>> Please forgive me, but that's just nonsense.
>
>There is nothing to forgive, I do respect anyone's opinions
>no matter how different they are from mine.

Yes, but there are much more civilized ways of expressing that. Even
though it's not an excuse I was just pressed for time but still felt
uncomfortable with the term. So, thank you for understanding!!

>> Vuescan is not complex. It's mind-numbingly simple, assuming a
>> competent software engineer. Cross-platform development has been going
>> on for decades and has absolutely nothing to do with Vuescan problems.
>
>Beg to disagree. If handling scanners in multiple platforms
>was simple, there would be a LOT more programs like Vuescan.
>There is only one so far that covers that many scanners in
>that many platforms. There must be a reason for that, it's not
>like there isn't a demand for such programs.

I think the reasons for that are much more mundane. Specifically, two
key ones: market share and native software.

Scanner programs are still a niche market, relatively speaking,
meaning there's no sufficient volume which would make it attractive
for the "big boys" to enter.

But, perhaps more importantly, scanners already come with native
software which is more than adequate for vast majority of users. There
is usually a quick-and-dirty "auto" mode for "civilians" and after
turning all the settings off the "pros" can still get their raw scans.

Indeed, the Vuescan author himself once wrote that he saw these native
programs which came with the scanner as his competition, not
SilverFast.

A scanner program at its most basic is simply data acquisition. And
that's very straightforward. Especially, now that the hardware
interface has been standardized (i.e. USB with even FireWire on the
decline) instead of a myriad of custom "solutions" like those parallel
port scanners of a few years ago.

What's left is image editing (which in my opinion doesn't even belong
in a scanner program but the "civilians" need it). And those image
editing routines are well known and readily available.

So given all that, making a single program access different scanner is
really very elementary.

>> To combat this some methodologies actually require programmers (after
>> an initial design phase) to literally throw away *all* notes and start
>> from scratch. The idea is you can start fresh with the new knowledge
>> but without the burden of an existing design.
>
>Sure. But this is not a software house with standards,
>methodologies, etcetc. This is a single man band, doing more
>than a lot of companies with all those in place.

Yes it's a one man show but that's not the issue.

By the same token, a user could say: I'm not a big company but just a
little guy here scanning my family photos, can I get your software for
free?

Not much sympathy for that now, is there?

Conversely, whether the software is made by one man or a
multinational, in the context of a marketplace it lives or dies based
on what it does or doesn't do.

And there Vuescan fails miserably even if we do cut it some slack.

Even a one man band can check if the software actually scans before
unleashing it on the unsuspecting public!

And when that public complains, instead of fixing it he sends emails
to his users telling them "if you don't like it, delete it" or tells
them they've been "blacklisted" because they *justifiably* complained!

>point: Silverfast, from a much bigger stable. Yet feature-wise,
>Vuescan leaves it for dead. Sure, Silverfast has a much more
>polished interface for first time users.

And that's the key! SiverFast's target audience are "civilians" who
only want a big, single "auto everything" button.

Vuescan, on the other, hand is "scattered" (a reflection of a badly
thrown together "user interface") oscillating between "auto" and
"technical".

What is the point of simply listing many "features" if they simply
don't work, or worse cause damage?

>I much prefer Vuescan's option: listbox, pick between "none",
>"light", "medium" or "heavy". Call me crazy, but it is clear
>and concise...

That's personal preference. By the same token, others may find such
description simplistic and would want a numerical display, or
whatever. But that's not the point...

What I'm talking about is something completely different. Take the
"display refresh" or whatever it's called in Vuescan. I'm referring to
entering a value in the setting and when after each keystroke the
whole screen redraws. Typing too fast causes keystrokes to be
"swallowed" without *any* feedback! So, instead of exposure "50", one
would end up with "5".

Yes, there is a "secret" option to turn the "screen update" off. But
that's a cure worse than the disease!! Now the display has nothing to
do with actual settings currently active. That's positively crazy! And
certainly brakes every UI guideline regarding ergonomics.

>Note that I am not denying there are problems with the UI.
>One that you mentioned before and I particularly dislike
>is the quaint way it changes the appearance of other tabs
>when I change an option in the current tab. If I go and check
>why, it makes sense it did so. But it is disconcerting when
>one starts using it and it does that!
>
>Still, I can't afford the time to think about it and contact the
>author with alternative ways of handling those issues.
>Maybe you could do that? Or have done so and got nowhere?

I have no interest in Vuescan, whatsoever.

The author is notorious for his short temper and abusive outbursts. In
the three years I've been here he's still the only one to have
actually screamed obscenities...

I gave Vuescan early on because NikonScan did not have Kodachrome
option for my scanner at the time (LS-30). Now it's an LS-50.

Back then it struck me that Vuescan did not have individual Analog
Gain setting. This caused a saga you can read in the archives:

The author's (arrogant) response was "You don't need that!"
(Since then I learned that's his favorite response. Apparently,
initially, Vuescan didn't even have a preview window, and when people
asked for it, that's the response they got... :-/)

Anyway, I did "need that" and the author went through several
contradictory statements starting with "I can't implement individual
AG because it would upset my color balance" and ending with
"implementing individual AG is elementary". Hmmm...!?

That didn't sit well with actual users and they sheepishly started
saying they would like individual AG too, so the author "challenged"
me to come up with a slide to "get to the bottom of this".

I promptly posted one *and* also included a scan where Vuescan
performed well to show both my objectiveness and to prove there was
nothing wrong with the scanner or the installation. (BTW, if you check
the archives the images are still available!)

To make a long story short (too late! ;o)) the author said fixing this
image would be easy. I asked him to provide specific settings (so that
I can't be accused of sabotage and give him a chance to prove me
wrong).

Unable to provide them, he exploded with a tantrum and abusive
language.

When he calmed down he implemented individual AG which Vuescan users
begged him to do for months. The thanks I got from those very users is
that they too started hurling abuse... Go figure...

Anyway, don't take my word for it. It's all in the archives!

>> author just got into ever more trouble. A classic symptom of this is
>> when bugs proliferate and never go away and perennial unreliability.
>> Sounds familiar?
>
>Does it ever! Having been on the software business for many years,
>I know exactly what you talking about.
>But I disagree that there is perennial unreliability there.
>It has crashed my system the grand total of twice (and locked up once)
>since I started using it. Cripes, Firefox has done so more times
>than I care to mention and I keep using it! See what I mean? :) 

My Firefox hasn't done that... yet... ;o) but I'm afraid Vuescan *is*
unreliable when I read all the complaints after each new release.

Now, being in the business, I suspect you're using the software
"defensively" i.e. not upgrading just because there's a new version,
as well as keeping a "known good version" backed up "just in case"
whenever you do decide to upgrade - after others have beta-tested it
for you... ;o)

Also, it may very well be that employing such a strategy you have
found a version which serves your requirements, but that's only a one
person's experience.

If we examine Vuescan in its entirety and objectively then the only
conclusion is that it *is* perennially buggy, although you or some
others may have found a combination which satisfies your/theirs
specific requirements.

There's no contradiction between that subjective, narrow definition,
and a generic, objective definition of Vuescan as perennially buggy.

>> Not at the same rate and persistence as Vuescan's!
>
>Can't comment there. I'm on my first download of
>the product, so I don't have any experience on
>bug persistence.

Oh, boy! You're in for a fun time!!! ;o)

Anyway, that explains it! Do check the archives for a litany of
reappearing Vuescan bugs. If you plan to use it, it's certainly in
your interest to do that!

>> How do you explain the most pedestrian bugs like "broken cropping" or
>> "0-byte file scan", etc appearing in major version *8*? That's
>> inexcusable! It indicates massive incompetence and total absence of
>> any semblance of quality control.
>
>I'm at a loss here. "broken cropping"? It seems to work fine for me.

Yes, there were several threads, over the last 3-4 months where
cropping did not work. Did... Did not... Did... Did not... Etc...

>"0-byte file scan" also leaves me perplexed. Care to explain
>a bit more about this one: haven't hit it.

Yes, there was one version where the Vuescan would start a scan, and
then huff and puff, only to produce a 0-byte file. Many angry users...

When challenged recently I posted a partial list of various Vuescan
bugs. Considering you just downloaded it this should be "required
reading". Check the archives for the following message:

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 20:51:05 +0200, Don <phoney.email@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Subject:
Re: Vuescan 8.2.24, what's new: "Significantly improved infrared
cleaning "?

>> I know some Vuescan fans will emotionally overreact but it's a simple
>> statement of fact when I say that I have never seen a program so buggy
>> and unreliable as Vuescan in my 25+ years in the business.
>
>Obviously you have not been involved with databases!
>(DAMHIKT...)

Ha! ;o) And double Ha! ;o)

From IBM mainframe's *logical* IMS (for those in the know the
"logical" bit is important!) to Microsoft's unilateral re-definition
of NULL! And just for the heck of it, another "Ha!" ;o)

Don.
Anonymous
a b α HP
September 10, 2005 4:58:42 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner,comp.periphs.scanners (More info?)

Don wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 23:39:18 +0200, HvdV <nohanz@svi.nl> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Indeed, and (for example) the Vuecan's profile bug of a couple of
> years ago is a prime example that multi-platform did not save it from
> invalid programmer assumptions.
Detecting a bug early is of course only useful if you do something about it.
>
>
>
> But that's not the point I was making. Trying to solve a platform
> specific problem inadequately will proliferate to other platforms,
> even though it nominally has nothing to do with those other platforms.
Sure, in that case you'd be better off looking for another job.
>
>
>
> I disassembled Vuescan (a couple of years ago when I evaluated it) to
> check how it handled Kodachromes (and then, perhaps, retrofit
> individual AG control) but gave up because it was a total mess.
Maybe he was using a very good compiler which does all kinds of
transformations on the code...
>
> Granted, there are all sorts of caveats attached to such "evaluation",
> and I'm aware of most (if not all) of them, but even with that proviso
> what I've seen was truly appalling.
What was it then what was so appalling?
>
> However, be that as it may, it's not really necessary to see the code.
> When a programmer can't fix a bug for *two years* (e.g. Minolta) and
> does so only after someone else posts a solution here then, yes, it's
> certainly not harsh to call such a "programmer" (and I use the term
> loosely) incompetent!
(see my other post) I think it is more likely he can't handle the workload.
What in this case might also play a role is that (as he says on his web site)
he doesn't get along with Minolta. Happens, but not so smart to state that in
public.
>
>
>>Stated differently my point was that you can't keep a cross platform package
>>afloat if the code is a mess and you are an incompetent programmer as well.
>
>
> Evidently! ;o)
>
> And Vuescan is a prime example of that as it sinks ever deeper with
> each new "upgrade"! That's exactly my point! When a program in it's
> *8th* major version start producing 0-byte files, that's incompetence
> beyond words.

You say quality wise it is going under, with the suggestion it is also
going under commercially. Could be, but from its popularity in this newsgroup
I gather it is not. Does anyone know how large the Vuescan installed base is
and how many licenses are sold each year? Same for Silverfast?

-- Hans
Anonymous
a b α HP
September 10, 2005 1:42:42 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner,comp.periphs.scanners (More info?)

Don:
"Isn't it only common courtesy to respond when people write to you? "

Don't take it the wrong way but they're not necessarily writing TO you.
It's an open forum, not the "ask Don about Vuescan" forum.
Out-of-date factual statements are not facts, but since you don't use
Vuescan you have no way of knowing which bugs have been fixed and which
ones are still present. This makes your advice of limited use and
mainly of historic interest to people like me who remember each bug
fondly : )

Of course you refuse to step back and let people who use Vuescan
comment on particular aspects of the program, as you are convinced that
everyone else is deluded and can't see the flaws in the program which
you obsessively document and repeately post. This is offensive and
condescending, but you don't seem to realize this and understand why
people react negatively to you. You then question the character of
posters like me if we point out what works in the program as well as
the flaws, which is the definition of a balanced, not biased,
assessment. Please examine your own biases as you selectively cite
"facts" and ask youself how you know what you're writing was and
continues to be true, and beyond that, if it is a fair assessment.
You're certainly entitled to write whatever you want, but that doesn't
mean that you should.

My Current Vuescan experience:
The default refresh delay no longer stops you as you're typing. At
least I no longer have problems, and have not disabled the refresh
feature (which Ed unhelpfully told me to do before). I'm using 8.2.25.
There is now a "refresh fast" check box (I have it checked) and a
refresh delay box which defaults to 1.

IR cleaning also works much better now than in previous versions and I
no longer find that it fails. The medium and heavy settings (as of
8.2.25) still soften the image significantly so I don't recommend using
them if there is fine detail you care about.

IT8 support also works well and I got better (closer to the target
slide and better with other reference slide) results with the Vuescan
IT8 support than with LittleCMS profiler after recent side-by-side
tests.

Scanner used with 8.2.25 is the FS4000US via scsi under WindowsXP with
a hardware calibrated monitor. YMMV.
September 10, 2005 9:12:57 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner,comp.periphs.scanners (More info?)

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 00:58:42 +0200, HvdV <nohanz@svi.nl> wrote:

>> Indeed, and (for example) the Vuecan's profile bug of a couple of
>> years ago is a prime example that multi-platform did not save it from
>> invalid programmer assumptions.
>
>Detecting a bug early is of course only useful if you do something about it.

Or *can* do something about it!

For example, Vuescan was unusable with a Minolta scanner for over *two
years*! The author repeatedly manifested he was *incapable* of fixing
it. Lots of empty promises but the bug persisted in each new release.

However, that didn't prevent the author from listing this scanner as
"supported" and refuse to refund the money to people who complained.

>> But that's not the point I was making. Trying to solve a platform
>> specific problem inadequately will proliferate to other platforms,
>> even though it nominally has nothing to do with those other platforms.
>
>Sure, in that case you'd be better off looking for another job.

That's all I'm saying.

>> I disassembled Vuescan (a couple of years ago when I evaluated it) to
>> check how it handled Kodachromes (and then, perhaps, retrofit
>> individual AG control) but gave up because it was a total mess.
>
>Maybe he was using a very good compiler which does all kinds of
>transformations on the code...

No, that wasn't it. I'm very familiar with what a (C) compiler does
but it was the underlying "logic" which was a total mess.

>> Granted, there are all sorts of caveats attached to such "evaluation",
>> and I'm aware of most (if not all) of them, but even with that proviso
>> what I've seen was truly appalling.
>
>What was it then what was so appalling?

Incredibly sloppy code full of band-aids. One example I still
remember, there was one table atomized into several parts for no good
reason with absolutely awful "work-around" code. It was clearly a case
of sloppy design i.e. hardcoding of table size and then trying to get
around it. Just awful. No wonder Vuescan falls over all the time.

>> However, be that as it may, it's not really necessary to see the code.
>> When a programmer can't fix a bug for *two years* (e.g. Minolta) and
>> does so only after someone else posts a solution here then, yes, it's
>> certainly not harsh to call such a "programmer" (and I use the term
>> loosely) incompetent!
>
>(see my other post) I think it is more likely he can't handle the workload.

As that saying goes: "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the
kitchen!"

>What in this case might also play a role is that (as he says on his web site)
>he doesn't get along with Minolta. Happens, but not so smart to state that in
>public.

You have to view this in full context. That's certainly not smart but
it's a lesser of two evils. Well, it is in his mind... Nevertheless,
blaming Minolta openly (and I wasn't even aware of this until now!)
shows his total lack of any business sense overcome by bad temper.

You see, the Vuescan author was unable to fix a bug in his program to
work with a Minolta scanner for TWO years (the infamous "stripes").
Minolta's native software had no such problems (some people reported a
similar flaw in the very first version, but within a couple of weeks
Minolta provided a working upgrade).

The Vuescan author finally fixed his program (after *two* years!) but
only when a regular contributor here told him how to do it.

So blaming Minolta for his own incompetence is not only pathetic and
shows a total lack of any business sense (as you also spotted) but it
shows lack of any *common sense* and a kind of delusion believing that
such an emotional outburst somehow excuses his own incompetence!?

>>>Stated differently my point was that you can't keep a cross platform package
>>>afloat if the code is a mess and you are an incompetent programmer as well.
>>
>>
>> Evidently! ;o)
>>
>> And Vuescan is a prime example of that as it sinks ever deeper with
>> each new "upgrade"! That's exactly my point! When a program in it's
>> *8th* major version start producing 0-byte files, that's incompetence
>> beyond words.
>
>You say quality wise it is going under, with the suggestion it is also
>going under commercially.

I have no idea what it's doing commercially. There is some
circumstantial evidence - the author's bad temper - that it's not
doing very well, but that's not definitive. After all, he has always
been cranky and abusive.

>Could be, but from its popularity in this newsgroup
>I gather it is not. Does anyone know how large the Vuescan installed base is
>and how many licenses are sold each year? Same for Silverfast?

The author *claimed* 50,000 users on his site (if I remember
correctly) but offered no independent proof of that whatsoever.

Also, you have to take the "popularity" in this group with a boulder
of salt. For one, this group is a very small and unrepresentative
sample. There are less than 20 messages per day on average and even if
we assume each message is from a different person and the number of
lurkers is 10 times that, the total still comes to only about a couple
of hundred people, at best. And only a handful are Vuescan users.

But more importantly, you get a very skewed view because there are a
few rabid Vuescan "fans" who are very vocal giving a wrong impression.
Those very "fans" - who can't stand to see *objective* fact about
Vuescan and immediately attack - then go on to constantly complain
about Vuescan bugs which makes their "defense" of Vuescan irrational.

Some "fans" don't even use Vuescan because it's so buggy, but still
continue to rabidly "defend" it anyway without providing any facts.

Don.
September 10, 2005 9:13:00 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner,comp.periphs.scanners (More info?)

On 9 Sep 2005 13:52:03 -0700, "Roger S." <rsmith02@gmail.com> wrote:

>Don, you don't need to respond to *each* comment posted with a new
>reply. You've now taken over an entire page of comments and anyone
>tuning into the thread now would only see your comments.

Isn't it only common courtesy to respond when people write to you?

Not to mention, if I don't comment *with supporting facts* then people
like you would (and have! - quotes available on request) accuse me of
"bashing without proof". So, damned if I do, damned if I don't!

Besides, everyone is entitled to write, just as everyone is entitled
*not* to read.

Finally, if you don't want to read someone's post use a filter, that's
what they're for. Or simply press the key needed to skip the message.

Besides, from your comment below it appears you read my messages with
interest so I don't understand the above, contradictory, complaint.

>Don wrote:
>"Yes, there is a "secret" option to turn the "screen update" off. But
>that's a cure worse than the disease!! Now the display has nothing to
>do with actual settings currently active. That's positively crazy! And
>certainly brakes every UI guideline regarding ergonomics."
>
>I complained about this 8 months ago or so. I believe this is fixed
>and isn't a problem any longer. I regularly enter in exposure values
>manually and it doesn't refresh while you're typing anymore. That was
>annoying!

The question is, has this "display update" just been turned off (i.e.
that "secret" option has been made permanent) or has the input code
actually been modified?

What I mean is, does the actual setting correspond to the display?
Using the above "secret" option made the display and the actual
setting potentially different which is against all UI guidelines.

Don.
Anonymous
a b α HP
September 11, 2005 2:10:42 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner (More info?)

On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 13:30:40 -0700, "T. Wise" <terwise111@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>I have an HP 7410 all-in-one, running under XP Pro. The scan manager
>program that comes with the HP isn't very good, so I'm wondering if there's
>a great scanning manager program (for documents and photographs).
>
>Any recommendations?
>


Advice so far has been, er, less than helpful. But that may be because
you haven't said what you want to do with this "scanning manager
program".

Scan to a particular format?

Organise your scans?

Scan to fax?

Etc etc.

The software you use depends on what you want to do. Tell us and you
might get more sensible advice than UI wars.

MK
Anonymous
a b α HP
September 11, 2005 3:53:57 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner,comp.periphs.scanners (More info?)

Don apparently said,on my timestamp of 10/09/2005 5:16 AM:

> Yes, but there are much more civilized ways of expressing that. Even
> though it's not an excuse I was just pressed for time but still felt
> uncomfortable with the term. So, thank you for understanding!!

Hey, no sweat! I get my feathers ruffled every once in a
while as well, no one is perfect.

> Indeed, the Vuescan author himself once wrote that he saw these native
> programs which came with the scanner as his competition, not
> SilverFast.

Well, yes. I can see that. However I think Vuescan has one major
advantage for folks like me who run Windows and Linux: it runs
everywhere. The scanner makers are still in the "windows-only" era
with a few, far and between, providing Mac versions. Never mind that
Linux has nowadays a larger market share than Macs. Ah well, that's
the hardware folks! I still remember Logitech telling me they
couldn't afford to write drivers for OS2! Like: a mouse driver is
rocket science?... :) 


> Yes, there is a "secret" option to turn the "screen update" off. But
> that's a cure worse than the disease!! Now the display has nothing to
> do with actual settings currently active. That's positively crazy! And
> certainly brakes every UI guideline regarding ergonomics.

Hmmm, I found that screen refresh irritating at the start. I read through
the FAQs and the UG and the solution was there: set the refresh time to 0.
Then it's just a matter of ^E once I wanted a refresh. No great issue
with me, but I can see where it would irritate other users with that
refresh on every keypress.


> Back then it struck me that Vuescan did not have individual Analog
> Gain setting. This caused a saga you can read in the archives:

Ah OK, it's something you've complained about before and got nowhere.
Fair enough, I'll have a look around.

> Now, being in the business, I suspect you're using the software
> "defensively" i.e. not upgrading just because there's a new version,
> as well as keeping a "known good version" backed up "just in case"
> whenever you do decide to upgrade - after others have beta-tested it
> for you... ;o)

Yup. "Been there, done that" kinda thing...

> Anyway, that explains it! Do check the archives for a litany of
> reappearing Vuescan bugs. If you plan to use it, it's certainly in
> your interest to do that!

Will do, thanks.

> From IBM mainframe's *logical* IMS (for those in the know the
> "logical" bit is important!) to Microsoft's unilateral re-definition
> of NULL! And just for the heck of it, another "Ha!" ;o)

Oh boy! A partner in crime! ;) 

--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
in sunny Sydney, Australia
wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au.nospam
September 11, 2005 3:53:58 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner,comp.periphs.scanners (More info?)

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 23:53:57 +1000, Noons <wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au>
wrote:

>> Indeed, the Vuescan author himself once wrote that he saw these native
>> programs which came with the scanner as his competition, not
>> SilverFast.
>
>Well, yes. I can see that. However I think Vuescan has one major
>advantage for folks like me who run Windows and Linux: it runs
>everywhere.

That's very true. However, when the program is just too buggy and far
too unreliable to be useful, then it's a case of diminishing returns.
I mean, it's the same as the price argument. Cheap, yes, we all want
that, but when it just doesn't work, even free is too expensive. Heck,
I wouldn't use Vuescan even if they paid me! ;o)

I do run Linux occasionally but not as much as I want to (life keeps
getting in the way). There is SANE but, apparently, it's relatively
limited. Nevertheless, having the same program run on all platforms
one uses is a clear plus. The key word being "run"!

>Hmmm, I found that screen refresh irritating at the start. I read through
>the FAQs and the UG and the solution was there: set the refresh time to 0.
>Then it's just a matter of ^E once I wanted a refresh. No great issue
>with me, but I can see where it would irritate other users with that
>refresh on every keypress.

Humans are adaptable and we can get used to all sorts of things. But
the point is that's a clear violation of all UI guidelines. If it were
only that, it would be bad enough, but there is an endless slew of
such "annoyances" (some of which I outlined earlier). Like I say, one
is bad enough, but the cumulative totality just shows a complete lack
of understanding of UI design or ergonomics.

>> From IBM mainframe's *logical* IMS (for those in the know the
>> "logical" bit is important!) to Microsoft's unilateral re-definition
>> of NULL! And just for the heck of it, another "Ha!" ;o)
>
>Oh boy! A partner in crime! ;) 

Yup! ;o)

Don.
September 11, 2005 7:41:59 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner,comp.periphs.scanners (More info?)

On 10 Sep 2005 09:42:42 -0700, "Roger S." <rsmith02@gmail.com> wrote:

>Don:
>"Isn't it only common courtesy to respond when people write to you? "
>
>Don't take it the wrong way but they're not necessarily writing TO you.
> It's an open forum, not the "ask Don about Vuescan" forum.

Roger, I'm not talking it personally. This is evident from the fact
that in this context I do *not* respond to abusive messages only to
civilized posts.

You're also mixing two things:
1. Responses to specific points I raised i.e. an ongoing conversation.
I'm surely entitled to respond to these. They *are* writing to me!
2. False statements which need to be corrected.
Again, I'm surely entitled to respond to these too! That's what
this forum is all about. Helping those who ask for help *and*
correcting misleading statements.

>Out-of-date factual statements are not facts, but since you don't use
>Vuescan you have no way of knowing which bugs have been fixed and which
>ones are still present. This makes your advice of limited use and
>mainly of historic interest to people like me who remember each bug
>fondly : )

Again, you're missing the point. The premise is: Vuescan is buggy.
Historical evidence is essential in establishing there is an
*uninterrupted* avalanche of Vuescan bugs making this premise true.

Secondly, just because a certain bug - as fond as you are of any one
of them ;o) - is currently "in hiding" is irrelevant. Why? Because
Vuescan has demonstrated *repeatedly* that the same bugs keep coming
back over and over and over again...

Therefore, when it comes to Vuescan no bug is out-of-date, just
temporarily dormant as historical evidence shows. Before you overreact
to that, check the archives! It's a simple and demonstrable fact.

>Of course you refuse to step back and let people who use Vuescan
>comment on particular aspects of the program

Do you have any evidence of that? Of course, that's completely wrong.

The truth is Vuescan users can't stand to have the bugs pointed out
and would rather live in the fantasy world where Vuescan is perfect.
So they rabidly attack anyone stating that simple objective fact.

Shooting the messenger will *not* fix Vuescan bugs!!!

>, as you are convinced that
>everyone else is deluded and can't see the flaws in the program which
>you obsessively document and repeately post. This is offensive and
>condescending,

I'm sorry Roger, but *that* above statement is both condescending and
offensive *without any proof*.

Can you quote a *single* manifestation of this *in context*?

I never make generic, sweeping statement like the one you just made
without any supporting evidence. All my assertions are supported by
objective fact!

>but you don't seem to realize this and understand why
>people react negatively to you.

I do realize why they react negatively and you've just demonstrated a
few reasons:
1. They ignore facts.
2. They fail to understand I have no agenda but just state facts.
3. They don't like those facts and overreact emotionally.
etc.

>You then question the character of
>posters like me if we point out what works in the program as well as
>the flaws, which is the definition of a balanced, not biased,
>assessment.

I do *not* question their character but simply respond to an
unprovoked and *unsubstantiated* attack with simple facts!

People assume things *without* providing *any* evidence whatsoever (as
you just did, two days running, now!) and then go on to ignore - even
complain! (as you are doing) when I present evidence and fact to the
contrary!

Again, damned if I do, damned if I don't! That's hardy logical, let
alone fair!

>Please examine your own biases as you selectively cite
>"facts" and ask youself how you know what you're writing was and
>continues to be true, and beyond that, if it is a fair assessment.

There are no biases. How can stating objective facts be bias? Don't
you think people would provide conflicting evidence if it existed?

How do you explain when people like Bart continue to "defend" Vuescan
but then let it slip they don't use Vuescan because it's too buggy?

How do you explain when people like Ralf who stalked Vuescan critics
with abusive messages for months come clean in the end admitting they
are really very frustrated with Vuescan?

Etc, etc... Those are pertinent facts, Roger, and unless you take them
into account you will never get an objective overview as demonstrated
by your false assertions.

>My Current Vuescan experience:
>The default refresh delay no longer stops you as you're typing. At
>least I no longer have problems, and have not disabled the refresh
>feature (which Ed unhelpfully told me to do before). I'm using 8.2.25.
> There is now a "refresh fast" check box (I have it checked) and a
>refresh delay box which defaults to 1.

Great! Enjoy!

>IR cleaning also works much better now than in previous versions and I
>no longer find that it fails. The medium and heavy settings (as of
>8.2.25) still soften the image significantly so I don't recommend using
>them if there is fine detail you care about.

Again, more power to you!

>IT8 support also works well and I got better (closer to the target
>slide and better with other reference slide) results with the Vuescan
>IT8 support than with LittleCMS profiler after recent side-by-side
>tests.

Fantastic and I'm happy for you!

But none of that has *anything* to do with the subject matter. I
myself have *repeatedly* stated that there are happy Vuescan users.
Speaking of bias, how come you never notice that?

What you're failing to grasp is that *subjective* statements like
yours have absolutely no relevance, nor do they negate the simple
*objective fact* that Vuescan is notoriously buggy and unreliable.

Just because you (or anyone else for that matter) found a path through
the Vuescan bug labyrinth and is satisfied with Vuescan results only
tells how low and uncritical your requirements are. Why? Because they
are based on subjective feelings and without providing any objective
evidence.

Saying "I like IR cleaning results" is *not* objective!!! It's a
matter of *taste*, not fact!

Don.
September 12, 2005 3:23:48 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner,comp.periphs.scanners (More info?)

"Roger S." <rsmith02@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126370561.972798.226510@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> My Current Vuescan experience:
>
> IR cleaning also works much better now than in previous versions and I
> no longer find that it fails. The medium and heavy settings (as of
> 8.2.25) still soften the image significantly so I don't recommend using
> them if there is fine detail you care about.
>

I'll second that - with the Nikon Coolscan 4000 and V8.2.35. My own
experience. Fact.

--
John
Replace 'nospam' with 'todnet' when replying.
September 12, 2005 6:15:36 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner,comp.periphs.scanners (More info?)

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 11:23:48 +0100, "John"
<warthog@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>"Roger S." <rsmith02@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1126370561.972798.226510@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> My Current Vuescan experience:
>>
>> IR cleaning also works much better now than in previous versions and I
>> no longer find that it fails. The medium and heavy settings (as of
>> 8.2.25) still soften the image significantly so I don't recommend using
>> them if there is fine detail you care about.
>>
>
>I'll second that - with the Nikon Coolscan 4000 and V8.2.35. My own
>experience. Fact.

It's also miles behind ICE. Another fact.

It's also after months of bungling. Another fact.

And last but not least, just wait a while and it will be broken again
in a version or two. Another fact.

But you know that already:

--- cut ---
On Wed, 4 May 2005 19:59:50 +0100, "John" <warthog@nospam.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

>So it looks like a serious bug with the cropping system, as you suggest. Don
>will say "told you so" -well, he did! Stick to your working version.
>Upgrade at your peril!
--- cut ---

I'll be looking forward to a similar message in regard to broken IR
cleaning! ;o)

Don.
September 12, 2005 6:15:37 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner,comp.periphs.scanners (More info?)

"Don" <phoney.email@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:torai11jjb4jksmtop048jvrq4lbppkbrs@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 11:23:48 +0100, "John"
> <warthog@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >"Roger S." <rsmith02@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:1126370561.972798.226510@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> My Current Vuescan experience:
> >>
> >> IR cleaning also works much better now than in previous versions and I
> >> no longer find that it fails. The medium and heavy settings (as of
> >> 8.2.25) still soften the image significantly so I don't recommend using
> >> them if there is fine detail you care about.
> >>
> >
> >I'll second that - with the Nikon Coolscan 4000 and V8.2.35. My own
> >experience. Fact.
>
> It's also miles behind ICE. Another fact.

It's not, actually, but you wouldn't know, since you don't use it. Works
with Kodachrome too - ICE doesn't.

>
> It's also after months of bungling. Another fact.
>
You say bungling, I say development.

> And last but not least, just wait a while and it will be broken again
> in a version or two. Another fact.
>
> But you know that already:
>
> --- cut ---
> On Wed, 4 May 2005 19:59:50 +0100, "John" <warthog@nospam.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >So it looks like a serious bug with the cropping system, as you suggest.
Don
> >will say "told you so" -well, he did! Stick to your working version.
> >Upgrade at your peril!
> --- cut ---
>
> I'll be looking forward to a similar message in regard to broken IR
> cleaning! ;o)
>

Don't hold your breath. This version has everything I need, so I shall be
following my excellent advice above which you seem so keen on quoting of
late. Shame you don't quote it in context, but I guess in the absence of any
actual *recent* experience of your own, you have to resort to regurgitating
other people's comments, out of context and out of date.

--
John
Replace 'nospam' with 'todnet' when replying.
Anonymous
a b α HP
September 13, 2005 3:41:54 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner,comp.periphs.scanners (More info?)

Don wrote:

"Look, Roger, the following two statements are *NOT* mutually
exclusive!!!
1. Vuescan is notoriously buggy and unreliable.
2. Roger (or <insert name here>) likes Vuescan.
They are also *NOT* contradictory and that's what you're failing to
grasp."

Actually, I was going to make a post exactly along these lines because
this isn't what we disagree about. While the statement that Vuescan is
"buggy and unreliable" is overly broad (it depends on version and
scanners used), it is an opinion easily supportable with facts and one
with which I happen to agree with. Track record is important for the
"reliable" half of that statement, even if "buggy" depends on version.

Do I like Vuescan? Well, it's a good program with a somewhat flawed
execution. It's a tool and I like it when it works.

You seem very literal-minded, ignoring the subtext of your comments and
naively denying that listing facts is a subjective, qualitative
process. The facts you list support your conclusion that Vuescan is
flawed and the results are poor. Nothing can change your opinion
because you dismiss any statement that is not critical of Vuescan as
being the work of blind Vuescan apologists and you don't use the
program yourself, so you will never get first-hand counter-evidence of
it working well.
This is purely subjective, so stop deluding yourself that you are
somehow objective and detached. There is no such thing. Facts are
simply evidence that people are unlikely to disagree with at the
present time, and the ways they are used and interpreted are 100%
subjective. This is the difference between historians and Holocost
deniers, scientists and global warming skeptics. There are "facts" on
all sides but the quality and quantity differ. By refusing to examine
your biases I think you're on the low quality side of things.

Even engineers have to play in the subjective world with the rest of
us. Evidence simply informs and supports argument- it doesn't conclude
anything- that's up to the writer. Tabulation IS judgment when you
are using it to prove your point, and I think you are a biased and
misleading guide to the status of Vuescan. Others may agree or
disagree.

Don wrote:
"This even includes *regular* Vuescan users who say "sure, Vuescan is
buggy, but I don't care because it caters to my (inferior)
requirements". "
and then:
"You immediately jump to an *irrational* "conclusion" that I somehow
pass judgment on those users. I do not!!! I'm just stating a fact
without passing any judgment."

Well, let's look at the evidence just from your last post. The word
"inferior" is a value judgment and a relative statement. The
implication of this statement is that there are superior, knowledgable
scan operators and then Vuescan users with "inferior" requirements.
This is not an objective observation and you have provided no evidence
to support your assertion other than your own claims that you are more
concerned than most about image quality (unverifiable- I have read your
posts on kodachrome exposure control, but how do I know your
requirements are more stringent than other experienced users- I don't,
and based on posts here and on photo.net, I don't think it's true), and
that others like Bart who also seem knowledgable don't or no longer use
Vuescan because of image quality. I can find you counter-examples on
who post on Photo.net digital darkroom who use Vuescan and are
meticulous about scan quality.

In my experience scanner hardware is the deciding factor with almost no
picture quality difference from Vuescan compared with Filmget (Vuescan
IR worse, slide exposure and color balance much better). Vuescan's
advantages are about workflow first and foremost for me, as picture
quality is a wash, based on my own testing.

"That's what you don't get because you rush to emotional "conclusions".


All humans are emotional beings, so why try to belittle others by
implying that their emotions are stronger than their reason? Again,
this is an insulting judgment you made from your own values with divide
people into "objective, rational" and "emotional, irrational." This
distinction is ridiculous and once again, insulting. Don, do you
interact with people outside of internet forums and do you treat them
this way?
September 13, 2005 8:31:16 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner,comp.periphs.scanners (More info?)

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 13:40:00 +0100, "John"
<warthog@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>> >I'll second that - with the Nikon Coolscan 4000 and V8.2.35. My own
>> >experience. Fact.
>>
>> It's also miles behind ICE. Another fact.
>
>It's not, actually, but you wouldn't know, since you don't use it.

The common consensus here (according to Vuescan users themselves!) is
that Vuescan's IR cleaning is vastly inferior to ICE. (Quotes
available on request.)

Since you now apparently differ, the onus is on you to prove all those
Vuescan users wrong and provide some *verifiable* supporting evidence
or at the very least a plausible explanation for your assertion.

NOTE: "IR kinda, sorta looks good to me." is *not* objective evidence!

>Works with Kodachrome too - ICE doesn't.

If you knew the internal workings of both you would understand what's
going on. ICE is based on a complex heuristics algorithm analyzing
image content. Vuescan takes the easy way and just simply applies a
threshold to the IR channel and then just blurs everything
indiscriminately regardless of image content.

And, just as above, your definition of "works" is quite different from
everybody else's. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but let's have
some *verifiable* evidence.

>> It's also after months of bungling. Another fact.
>>
>You say bungling, I say development.

In the *8th* major program version!? After at least 4 years? That's
way past development.

>> And last but not least, just wait a while and it will be broken again
>> in a version or two. Another fact.
>>
>> But you know that already:
>>
>> --- cut ---
>> On Wed, 4 May 2005 19:59:50 +0100, "John" <warthog@nospam.demon.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >So it looks like a serious bug with the cropping system, as you suggest.
>Don
>> >will say "told you so" -well, he did! Stick to your working version.
>> >Upgrade at your peril!
>> --- cut ---
>>
>> I'll be looking forward to a similar message in regard to broken IR
>> cleaning! ;o)
>
>Don't hold your breath.

Well, at least back then you were still objective and willing to
acknowledge fact. Sorry to hear you decided to stop doing that.

>Shame you don't quote it in context, but I guess in the absence of any
>actual *recent* experience of your own, you have to resort to regurgitating
>other people's comments, out of context and out of date.

Now that you gushed with feeling and got that off your chest, would
you care to actually provide some evidence?

Let's have some of that alleged "missing context"!

Don.
September 13, 2005 9:13:08 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner,comp.periphs.scanners (More info?)

"Don" <phoney.email@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:jeodi195ihrt1d3hqkh7fuoee98icf5unv@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 13:40:00 +0100, "John"
> <warthog@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> >I'll second that - with the Nikon Coolscan 4000 and V8.2.35. My own
> >> >experience. Fact.
> >>
> >> It's also miles behind ICE. Another fact.
> >
> >It's not, actually, but you wouldn't know, since you don't use it.
>
> The common consensus here (according to Vuescan users themselves!) is
> that Vuescan's IR cleaning is vastly inferior to ICE. (Quotes
> available on request.)
>
> Since you now apparently differ, the onus is on you to prove all those
> Vuescan users wrong and provide some *verifiable* supporting evidence
> or at the very least a plausible explanation for your assertion.
>
> NOTE: "IR kinda, sorta looks good to me." is *not* objective evidence!
>
> >Works with Kodachrome too - ICE doesn't.
>
> If you knew the internal workings of both you would understand what's
> going on. ICE is based on a complex heuristics algorithm analyzing
> image content. Vuescan takes the easy way and just simply applies a
> threshold to the IR channel and then just blurs everything
> indiscriminately regardless of image content.
>
> And, just as above, your definition of "works" is quite different from
> everybody else's. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but let's have
> some *verifiable* evidence.
>
> >> It's also after months of bungling. Another fact.
> >>
> >You say bungling, I say development.
>
> In the *8th* major program version!? After at least 4 years? That's
> way past development.
>
> >> And last but not least, just wait a while and it will be broken again
> >> in a version or two. Another fact.
> >>
> >> But you know that already:
> >>
> >> --- cut ---
> >> On Wed, 4 May 2005 19:59:50 +0100, "John" <warthog@nospam.demon.co.uk>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >So it looks like a serious bug with the cropping system, as you
suggest.
> >Don
> >> >will say "told you so" -well, he did! Stick to your working version.
> >> >Upgrade at your peril!
> >> --- cut ---
> >>
> >> I'll be looking forward to a similar message in regard to broken IR
> >> cleaning! ;o)
> >
> >Don't hold your breath.
>
> Well, at least back then you were still objective and willing to
> acknowledge fact. Sorry to hear you decided to stop doing that.
>
> >Shame you don't quote it in context, but I guess in the absence of any
> >actual *recent* experience of your own, you have to resort to
regurgitating
> >other people's comments, out of context and out of date.
>
> Now that you gushed with feeling and got that off your chest, would
> you care to actually provide some evidence?
>
> Let's have some of that alleged "missing context"!
>
> Don.

Don,

All these points have been made before and argued to death. I have not the
desire nor the energy to enter into yet another protracted, pointless,
circular discussion with you. Those who care can trawl through the archives
and find the 'facts' for themselves. I believe that reasonable people will
trust the word of those who have relevant and recent experience of a product
over those who, for whatever reason, choose to trash a product relentlessly.

If all this antagonism gives you a buzz then fine, but frankly, it does
nothing for me. I have better things to do.

I wish you well.

--
John
Replace 'nospam' with 'todnet' when replying.
Anonymous
a b α HP
September 14, 2005 12:06:48 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner,comp.periphs.scanners (More info?)

Recently, Roger S. <rsmith02@gmail.com> posted:
(in response to yet another obno-post from Don...)
>
> Don, do you
> interact with people outside of internet forums and do you treat them
> this way?
>
ROTFLMAO!

I'd think it unlikely, as he'd probably have to gum his meals by now!

Neil
September 14, 2005 11:03:54 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner,comp.periphs.scanners (More info?)

On 13 Sep 2005 11:41:54 -0700, "Roger S." <rsmith02@gmail.com> wrote:

> While the statement that Vuescan is
>"buggy and unreliable" is overly broad

Of course, it's broad! It takes the *full* context into account, not
any one single version in isolation. It says "Vuescan", not "Vuescan
version xxx"!

>(it depends on version and
>scanners used), it is an opinion easily supportable with facts and one
>with which I happen to agree with. Track record is important for the
>"reliable" half of that statement, even if "buggy" depends on version.

The bugs depend on the version but your gist is all I'm saying! Glad
we're finally "on the same page" as the saying goes!

>Do I like Vuescan? Well, it's a good program with a somewhat flawed
>execution. It's a tool and I like it when it works.

Which is why I actually recommended Vuescan to some people (including
a reference to the web site!) *if* and when Vuescan's limited
capabilities satisfy their specific requirements.

We should stop agreeing like this! ;o)

>You seem very literal-minded, ignoring the subtext of your comments and
>naively denying that listing facts is a subjective, qualitative
>process. The facts you list support your conclusion that Vuescan is
>flawed and the results are poor. Nothing can change your opinion
>because you dismiss any statement that is not critical of Vuescan as
>being the work of blind Vuescan apologists and you don't use the
>program yourself, so you will never get first-hand counter-evidence of
>it working well.

Oh well, the agreement was too good to last... :-(

No, Roger, that is your *misinterpretation* without any basis in fact.
You are unilaterally *assigning* me an opinion where none exist!!! And
then go off on a tangent based on this incorrect assumption.

I'm just stating objective facts and drawing a *consequential*
conclusion from them. That has *nothing* to do with opinion!

The trouble is (some) Vuescan "fans" *misinterpret* this fact as an
"attack" and then spiral into a self-induced frenzy. Why do I say
that? Because they offer no evidence but base a whole hierarchy of
superimposed "logic" on top of a faulty initial premise!

>This is purely subjective, so stop deluding yourself that you are
>somehow objective and detached. There is no such thing. Facts are
>simply evidence that people are unlikely to disagree with at the
>present time, and the ways they are used and interpreted are 100%
>subjective. This is the difference between historians and Holocost
>deniers, scientists and global warming skeptics. There are "facts" on
>all sides but the quality and quantity differ.

You're getting at something completely different here. We're *not*
talking about *shades* of opinion based on *inconclusive* data. We are
talking about *measurable* and *substantial* evidence.

If program A has 5 bugs and program B has 6 bugs, to call program A
"buggy and unreliable" would be over the top and uncalled for.

However, if program A has 500 bugs and program B has 6, then to call
program A "buggy and unreliable" is a simple demonstrable fact.

If someone then overreacts to that simple, demonstrable fact and
rabidly attacks the person stating this, we would call them "touchy"
or "having a chip on their shoulder" or some such. Don't you agree?

>By refusing to examine
>your biases I think you're on the low quality side of things.

And this is where your argument brakes down. Show me *one* example of
this alleged "bias" *in context*!!!

And please don't just make a statement and then spiral into a web of
"conclusions" based on that incorrect statement! One thing at a time,
please! That's the perennial trouble here. Some Vuescan fans
immediately race ahead and spiral into a "feedback loop".

Show me *one* example *in context* and we'll take it from there.

>Don wrote:
>"This even includes *regular* Vuescan users who say "sure, Vuescan is
>buggy, but I don't care because it caters to my (inferior)
>requirements". "
>and then:
>"You immediately jump to an *irrational* "conclusion" that I somehow
>pass judgment on those users. I do not!!! I'm just stating a fact
>without passing any judgment."
>
>Well, let's look at the evidence just from your last post. The word
>"inferior" is a value judgment and a relative statement.

Based of fact which immediately proceeded it!!! I presented the fact,
and then drew the *only* possible conclusion *within the context*!

Notably, you have not provided *any* fact or evidence but started this
whole thread with your personal opinion (to paraphrase: "I like my
current Vuescan version"). Nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't
address any of what I'm talking about.

>The
>implication of this statement is that there are superior, knowledgable
>scan operators and then Vuescan users with "inferior" requirements.

NO!!! And again: NO!!!

That's your *misinterpretation* and the main cause for your
misunderstanding in spite of my explicit and repeated explanations!

If someone only scans in low resolution for the Web, that requirement
is *NOT* inferior! (Well, it may be in absolute terms, but that's not
my concern nor do I address that in any way.) In the *given context*
it's merely an *appropriate* requirement for them. That's all! And to
state that is not a qualitative determination of any kind whatsoever!

>"That's what you don't get because you rush to emotional "conclusions".
>
>All humans are emotional beings, so why try to belittle others by
>implying that their emotions are stronger than their reason?

It is *not* belittling!!! It's an explanation because they provide no
fact! (see below)

>Again,
>this is an insulting judgment you made from your own values with divide
>people into "objective, rational" and "emotional, irrational."

That is your misinterpretation and the main problem (see below).

I am not dividing people, just explaining why they overreact! If
people would only look at the facts *without overreacting* we would
get much farther, much more quickly - as was the case at the start of
this very message!!

>This
>distinction is ridiculous and once again, insulting. Don, do you
>interact with people outside of internet forums and do you treat them
>this way?

This (and two immediate preceding paragraphs) are a prime example of
what I'm talking about. You're racing ahead with your "conclusions" by
even throwing aspersions outside of Internet forums without any basis
is fact.

That's what I mean when I say "Vuescan fans enter a self-perpetuated
feedback loop". Please, slow down, take one thing at a time and
support each by fact, instead of just racing ahead uncontrollably like
that. We'd get much more done, much more quickly, and with far less
"excitement" on *all* sides.

Don.
September 14, 2005 11:04:00 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner,comp.periphs.scanners (More info?)

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 17:13:08 +0100, "John"
<warthog@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>Don,
>
>All these points have been made before and argued to death. I have not the
>desire nor the energy to enter into yet another protracted, pointless,
>circular discussion with you.

Which then, of course, begs the question: Why start one?

.... inflammatory paragraph omitted ...

>I have better things to do.

As do I. However, I do have the common courtesy of responding when
challenged, as long as the discussion remains civil and civilized.

>I wish you well.

You too.

Actually, John, it was quite refreshing when you joined because - even
though you are a Vuescan user - you were quite relaxed and willing to
"disagree agreeably" without inflammatory personal attacks.

Don.
Anonymous
a b α HP
September 15, 2005 5:04:25 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner,comp.periphs.scanners (More info?)

I just joined this group, and just read 40+ messages on this topic.
All I can say is,

1. there appear to be two viable non-vendor choices. Silverfast and
VueScan.
2.Neither one sounds "ideal."
3. This discussion seems to have morphed into a software engineering
food fight. I work in a Silicon Valley enterprise software company
(though in marketing, not engineering), so I can appreciate this
discussion in a way. However, I suspect most readers of this group
don't care any longer.

Can I restart this discussion, for my particular situation. My
questions, for the situation below, are:

1. Between Silverfast and VueScan, which gives me the highest degree
of automation when I need it (for a box of slides or strip of film)?

2. Which gives me the most flexible options for a custom settings, for
a more precise scan, probably one at a time?

3. In real life, under real usage, what is the minimum PC config I
would want to run your recommended software? processor speed, RAM,
disk storage.

4. Assuming that I expect my workflow (I haven't gone digital quite
yet) to be "centered" on Photoshop, not Photoshop Elements, which
version of Silverfast would I want? And why?

5. As a side question, what are the specific issues regarding
Kodachrome and recent model Nikon scanners? Can either of these two
packages compensate for these issue?

6. Can either of these packages utilize the built-in image correction
features such as ICE, etc.

Now, thank you for reading this far. Here is my situation:

I have:

5000+ black and white negs, mostly Plus-X and
Tri-X, home developed in various developers. Maybe a small amount of
black and white film based on C-41.

About 1000 color negatives, various Kodak films, C-22 and C-41
processes. Mostly in 4 or 6 image strips.

At least 8000 Kodachrome 25 and 64 slides. K12 and K14
processes. 2 x 2 mounts. Mostly Kodak, some third party lab in
either cardboard or plastic. Some in uncut rolls.

About 1000 Ektachrome high speed slides, pushed to 1600 and
3200. Mostly cardboard mounts. Some in rolls.

I would like to scan most of these images, and do my sorting/culling
after scanning, particular the negatives. Probably in Photoshop, on a
20" monitor. Beats a loupe. :) 

Being a looong time Nikon user, I will probably opt for the 5000 plus
the slide autoloader, so I can batch-scan overnight. With this volume
to be scanned, I can justify the cost of the scanner plus slide
autoloader. Besides, I will stay with film for at least one more
year, possibly longer, until the Nikon digital camera of my "dreams"
is on the market and at a reasonable price. I expect this to occur
not before 2007, maybe 2008.

So I expect to end up scanning 15 K, maybe up to 20K images My
equipment cost per scan could be well under ten cents, or ten plus
scans for one dollar US.

Having my druthers, I would like a "RAW" format output done at 2000
lines or greater. I expect to be doing digital photography with RAW
format.

(I'm upgrading my PC in anticipation of large files and many of them.
I will probably use an 80/160 GB SCSI tape drive for backup.)

Thank you in advance.
Anonymous
a b α HP
September 15, 2005 5:37:47 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner,comp.periphs.scanners (More info?)

Father Kodak wrote:

> 1. Between Silverfast and VueScan, which gives me the highest degree
> of automation when I need it (for a box of slides or strip of film)?

I reckon they're just about the same...


> 2. Which gives me the most flexible options for a custom settings, for
> a more precise scan, probably one at a time?

Vuescan has more settings, but it takes a while to learn
how to use them all effectively. And it can scan negatives
into a kind of raw format which lets you do later colour
balance. I don't think Silverfast can do the same.

> 3. In real life, under real usage, what is the minimum PC config I
> would want to run your recommended software? processor speed, RAM,
> disk storage.

Don't think it makes a diff which of Vuescan or Silverfast you use.
Get a fast CPU, at least 512Mb RAM. And the biggest disk(s) you can
afford. USB2 is a must. More later.


> 4. Assuming that I expect my workflow (I haven't gone digital quite
> yet) to be "centered" on Photoshop, not Photoshop Elements, which
> version of Silverfast would I want? And why?

Can't help. Don't use Photoshop myself, I'm a GIMP man.

> 5. As a side question, what are the specific issues regarding
> Kodachrome and recent model Nikon scanners? Can either of these two
> packages compensate for these issue?

Can't help: haven't tried Kodachrome yet.


> 6. Can either of these packages utilize the built-in image correction
> features such as ICE, etc.

They can use the hardware infra-red facility but don't use the
proprietary processing algorithm.

> I would like to scan most of these images, and do my sorting/culling
> after scanning, particular the negatives. Probably in Photoshop, on a
> 20" monitor. Beats a loupe. :) 

Reason why I went for scanners as well! :) 
If I may offer a suggestion: go for a lcd panel display
rather than a conventional monitor. Much easier on the eyes.


> autoloader. Besides, I will stay with film for at least one more
> year, possibly longer, until the Nikon digital camera of my "dreams"
> is on the market and at a reasonable price. I expect this to occur
> not before 2007, maybe 2008.

With luck. The way they're wasting time with gimmicks,
it won't happen... I'm getting ready to go MF meanwhile.


> So I expect to end up scanning 15 K, maybe up to 20K images My

Man! You're in for a lot of pain and long hours...


> (I'm upgrading my PC in anticipation of large files and many of them.
> I will probably use an 80/160 GB SCSI tape drive for backup.)

May I suggest a DVD/CD writer instead? And the best recording
media you can find/afford? Tapes are slow (unless you're prepared
to spend big), can be notoriously unreliable and usually
require specialised software to operate effectively.

With either Windows or Linux, DVD/CD writables are a breeze
nowadays. Pick a good long-lasting media supplier (delkin, verbatim)
and you got a much more cost-effective solution. Besides,
tapes take up a lot of space.

HTH
Anonymous
a b α HP
September 15, 2005 1:05:36 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner,comp.periphs.scanners (More info?)

excuse me for being lazy, but your story is long, and my time limited.

1. RAW format applies to digital cameras, scaners work differently.
Save in 16 bit tiff or psd, providing the scanning progie supposts 16
bit scans.
2. Considering you have BW silver based films a scaner with diffused
illumination would be a better choice.
3. Considering all color films - get something with infrared chanel as
well.
4. try vuescan and any other progz by yourself, do not expect a
meaningful reply, unless there is another person with similar needs.
You must decide (compromise).
5. get the fastest PC with as much RAM you can afford. Double core -
why not? hard disks are cheao these days, RAM too.

and most of all - how many days to retirement? It's gonna to take a
while to scan THAT amount of frames.
from my experience with Nikon LS30 on P4 - 3 hours for one roll.


On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 01:04:25 -0700, Father Kodak
<dont_bother@IDontCare.COM> wrote:

*I just joined this group, and just read 40+ messages on this topic.
*All I can say is,
*
*1. there appear to be two viable non-vendor choices. Silverfast and
*VueScan.
*2.Neither one sounds "ideal."
*3. This discussion seems to have morphed into a software engineering
*food fight. I work in a Silicon Valley enterprise software company
*(though in marketing, not engineering), so I can appreciate this
*discussion in a way. However, I suspect most readers of this group
*don't care any longer.
*
*Can I restart this discussion, for my particular situation. My
*questions, for the situation below, are:
*
*1. Between Silverfast and VueScan, which gives me the highest degree
*of automation when I need it (for a box of slides or strip of film)?
*
*2. Which gives me the most flexible options for a custom settings, for
*a more precise scan, probably one at a time?
*
*3. In real life, under real usage, what is the minimum PC config I
*would want to run your recommended software? processor speed, RAM,
*disk storage.
*
*4. Assuming that I expect my workflow (I haven't gone digital quite
*yet) to be "centered" on Photoshop, not Photoshop Elements, which
*version of Silverfast would I want? And why?
*
*5. As a side question, what are the specific issues regarding
*Kodachrome and recent model Nikon scanners? Can either of these two
*packages compensate for these issue?
*
*6. Can either of these packages utilize the built-in image correction
*features such as ICE, etc.
*
*Now, thank you for reading this far. Here is my situation:
*
*I have:
*
* 5000+ black and white negs, mostly Plus-X and
*Tri-X, home developed in various developers. Maybe a small amount of
*black and white film based on C-41.
*
* About 1000 color negatives, various Kodak films, C-22 and C-41
*processes. Mostly in 4 or 6 image strips.
*
* At least 8000 Kodachrome 25 and 64 slides. K12 and K14
*processes. 2 x 2 mounts. Mostly Kodak, some third party lab in
*either cardboard or plastic. Some in uncut rolls.
*
* About 1000 Ektachrome high speed slides, pushed to 1600 and
*3200. Mostly cardboard mounts. Some in rolls.
*
*I would like to scan most of these images, and do my sorting/culling
*after scanning, particular the negatives. Probably in Photoshop, on a
*20" monitor. Beats a loupe. :) 
*
*Being a looong time Nikon user, I will probably opt for the 5000 plus
*the slide autoloader, so I can batch-scan overnight. With this volume
*to be scanned, I can justify the cost of the scanner plus slide
*autoloader. Besides, I will stay with film for at least one more
*year, possibly longer, until the Nikon digital camera of my "dreams"
*is on the market and at a reasonable price. I expect this to occur
*not before 2007, maybe 2008.
*
*So I expect to end up scanning 15 K, maybe up to 20K images My
*equipment cost per scan could be well under ten cents, or ten plus
*scans for one dollar US.
*
*Having my druthers, I would like a "RAW" format output done at 2000
*lines or greater. I expect to be doing digital photography with RAW
*format.
*
*(I'm upgrading my PC in anticipation of large files and many of them.
*I will probably use an 80/160 GB SCSI tape drive for backup.)
*
*Thank you in advance.
Anonymous
a b α HP
September 15, 2005 4:35:32 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner,comp.periphs.scanners (More info?)

In article <1126773467.585594.222110@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Noons <wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

>If I may offer a suggestion: go for a lcd panel display
>rather than a conventional monitor. Much easier on the eyes.

A discussion in another forum indicated that low-end and middle range
LCDs still don't have the color fidelity that a quality CRT has. If
you choose LCD you should consider high end units (i.e., 20" LCD in
the $2000-2500 price range!!) Me? I'm sticking with my CRT for now.

>May I suggest a DVD/CD writer instead? And the best recording
>media you can find/afford? Tapes are slow (unless you're prepared
>to spend big), can be notoriously unreliable and usually
>require specialised software to operate effectively.

Tapes may be slow but typically hold more data than other formats.
I've had very few reliability issues with tapes and I've been doing
tape backups of one type or another for 20 years. Still have the
tapes and can still read them. For "specialized software" on either
Mac or PC, use Retrospect from Dantz.


Also, I noticed in the original query that only Vuescan and Silverfast
were mentioned for use on a Nikon scanner. Why not NikonScan? I've
used all three (Silverfast in demo mode only, however) and continue to
use both Vuescan and Nikonscan. Sometimes one works better than the
other; sometimes the other works better.

-db-
Anonymous
a b α HP
September 16, 2005 12:43:27 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner,comp.periphs.scanners (More info?)

In article <1126773467.585594.222110@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au says...
> > So I expect to end up scanning 15 K, maybe up to 20K images My
>
> Man! You're in for a lot of pain and long hours...
>
and thats just learning how, then more pain and many more hours doing it,
then starting over as you get better.

Scanning is only worth the effort for your *chosen* images, so don't loop
the loupe just yet.
September 16, 2005 12:53:43 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner,comp.periphs.scanners (More info?)

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 01:04:25 -0700, Father Kodak
<dont_bother@IDontCare.COM> wrote:

OK, I'll add my thoughts to the mix.
(Sorry, I didn't mean to get carried away)

>I just joined this group, and just read 40+ messages on this topic.
>All I can say is,
>
>1. there appear to be two viable non-vendor choices. Silverfast and
>VueScan.

Don't discard NikonScan either

>2.Neither one sounds "ideal."

I've not found one yet, I'd consider "ideal". Each has their points.
I contantly switch between NikonScan and VueScan. I like them both.

>3. This discussion seems to have morphed into a software engineering
>food fight. I work in a Silicon Valley enterprise software company
>(though in marketing, not engineering), so I can appreciate this
>discussion in a way. However, I suspect most readers of this group
>don't care any longer.
>
>Can I restart this discussion, for my particular situation. My
>questions, for the situation below, are:
>
>1. Between Silverfast and VueScan, which gives me the highest degree
>of automation when I need it (for a box of slides or strip of film)?

"I think" VueScan will give you a higher degree of control, but with
that comes a steeper learning curve, and more work at least initially.

On thing to remember about slides. NO program or pieces of equipment
is completely reliable with auto feeders. It may run trouble free for
hours only to jam when you turn your back, or it may jam incessantly.
This is more the fault of the slides than the equipment. Paper slide
holders are prone to curling as well as edge curling and spreading.
Some plastic slide mounts refuse to feed in specific directions. I
had several thousand that would only feed backwards which is no big
problem, you just have to remember to do it.

>
>2. Which gives me the most flexible options for a custom settings, for
>a more precise scan, probably one at a time?

Again, I would say, VueScan, but much of the work will most likely go
just fine using NikonScan.

>
>3. In real life, under real usage, what is the minimum PC config I
>would want to run your recommended software? processor speed, RAM,
>disk storage.

Image processing is one of the most CPU intensive operations you can
find. As an opinion, get the biggest, baddest machine you can afford
and then at least tripple the size of the drive you thought you
needed.

>
>4. Assuming that I expect my workflow (I haven't gone digital quite
>yet) to be "centered" on Photoshop, not Photoshop Elements, which
>version of Silverfast would I want? And why?

I'd get the latest version of what ever, but check the forums to see
if any one is having a problem with a specific scanner with that
version.

>
>5. As a side question, what are the specific issues regarding
>Kodachrome and recent model Nikon scanners? Can either of these two
>packages compensate for these issue?

Some claim so, I've never seen any "with the exception" of the IR
cleaning regardless of scanner can be inconsistent between batches of
Kodachrome. It's a dye transfer process which is quite different from
Ektachrome, Fuji, and others (E7).
>
>6. Can either of these packages utilize the built-in image correction
>features such as ICE, etc.

Kinda, sorta. They have their own way of using the IR source, but
*seem* to work fine for me with the exception of some Kodachrome.

>
>Now, thank you for reading this far. Here is my situation:
>
>I have:
>
> 5000+ black and white negs, mostly Plus-X and
>Tri-X, home developed in various developers. Maybe a small amount of
>black and white film based on C-41.

ICE does not work with B & W negatives so you do not have the luxury
of IR scratch and dust removal. I've not seen a small scanner yet
where I liked the results with B & W, but there are many I haven't
tried as well.

>
> About 1000 color negatives, various Kodak films, C-22 and C-41
>processes. Mostly in 4 or 6 image strips.

>
> At least 8000 Kodachrome 25 and 64 slides. K12 and K14
>processes. 2 x 2 mounts. Mostly Kodak, some third party lab in
>either cardboard or plastic. Some in uncut rolls.

How long have your had these masochistic tendencies?
You are talking many hundreds of hours of work here.

http://www.rogerhalstead.com/scanning.htm may help, but I do need to
update it.

>
> About 1000 Ektachrome high speed slides, pushed to 1600 and
>3200. Mostly cardboard mounts. Some in rolls.

Rolls are easier in 5 image strips (standard holder size) or if you
have a roll adapter. If you have negatives or positives rolled up
tight you will never do so again after trying to scan the warped
little buggers.

>
>I would like to scan most of these images, and do my sorting/culling
>after scanning, particular the negatives. Probably in Photoshop, on a
>20" monitor. Beats a loupe. :) 

There may be some you not only don't want to bother scanning, there
may be some you don't want to get in your equipment. As the basic
scanning with IR cleaning on the LS-5000 ED runs about 30 seconds and
you can easily take that well past a minute culling does make sense.

I did the "old family photos" so every thing was scanned and I
probably have another year or two working part time to finish. I'm
past twenty some thousand and have about 70 some DVDs full with
another set as backup.

If you use Photoshop in conjunction with VueScan it can open the
images automatically in Photoshop for editing. Scanning a strip of
five negatives or slides takes a lot of resources. When you add
Photoshop to that and the images to it, you need a *LOT* of
horsepower. I found going from 512 megs to one Gig of RAM was like
night and day. This computer is a 64 bit, 3.4 Gig Athlon with 2 Gigs
of DDR RAM at 400 MHz. The network is approaching three *terabytes*
and will hit four shortly.

I do make liberal use of external USB drives. A couple of them are
250 Gig, but the last three are all 300 Gig. They are faster than
most networks, but I'm using a hardwired gigabit network via Cat5e.
Most of the machines have two external drives and two or three
internal. One has a 400 Gig SATA RAID and this one will be getting
one soon.

One note on the USB drives. If you purchase the drive and enclosure
seperately you can get the very same drive and enclosure for $30 to
$50 less. This involves about 4 screws and two cables. Either way
you still have to format the drive. I leave them as all one
partition.

>
>Being a looong time Nikon user, I will probably opt for the 5000 plus
>the slide autoloader, so I can batch-scan overnight. With this volume

Probably not. The autoloader is a nice one, but you are at the mercy
of your slides. You learn to roll the edges of paper slide holders by
smoothing them with the back of a thumbnail or the handle of a kitchen
knife.

>to be scanned, I can justify the cost of the scanner plus slide
>autoloader. Besides, I will stay with film for at least one more
>year, possibly longer, until the Nikon digital camera of my "dreams"
>is on the market and at a reasonable price. I expect this to occur
>not before 2007, maybe 2008.

Going with the voice of experience I'd say It's going to take you
longer than that to scan in all those images.

As to the dream camera, I have a couple of nice digital cameras, but
nothing fancy. A Olympus E20N and a Nikon D70 with a good set of
lenses. I also have an F4S and my spare is an 8008S. I gave up long
ago waiting for my "dream camera".

>
>So I expect to end up scanning 15 K, maybe up to 20K images My
>equipment cost per scan could be well under ten cents, or ten plus
>scans for one dollar US.

That is one big job.

>
>Having my druthers, I would like a "RAW" format output done at 2000
>lines or greater. I expect to be doing digital photography with RAW
>format.

Tis not quite the same thing, but you can scan with the basic settings
set to get the most out of image's dynamic range and then post
process. I scan at 4000 dpi, but you are looking at some very *large*
files. That's 60 some megs per image at 8 bit color depth and 128
megs at 16 bit color depth for a full frame 35 mm negative of slide.

>
>(I'm upgrading my PC in anticipation of large files and many of them.
>I will probably use an 80/160 GB SCSI tape drive for backup.

My smallest drive is a 250 Gig although I do have a 400 Gig RAID made
from two 200 Gig SATA drives.

My own preference is to stay as far away from tape drives as I can
get. My profession was computers, I have my degree in the field, and
I worked my way up to project manager so I have more than a passing
acquaintance with them. Good tape drives are expensive and do not
allow for random searches as you can do on a CD and DVD.

All 4 computers here have dual layer DVD drives. Single layer DVDs
(4.6 Gig) are almost free if you shop around a bit. My last 25 were
free with rebate and I think I paid 20 or 30 cents for the hundred
prior to those.

A word of caution on storage of digital images. No medium is
permanent. Generally, magnetic media such as hard drives are
considered temporary although I'd think they have lifetimes measured
in years. If you use windows, use NTFS and not FAT 32.

"We thought" images were going to be long lived on CD and DVD, but
some strange ailments are turning up in some isolated cases. Remember
the back of the CD is sensitive to damage while the face can be
blocked with scratches and dirt. Still the information is burned into
the layer on the back. DVDs are a sandwich and are sensitive to
flexing. The writing is done between the two layers of plastic. Do
not pop them out of jewel cases by lifting on the edges. Press down in
the center and dump it in your hand, but holding it by the edges.
Store CDs and DVDs on edge, in a cool dry place out of direct
sunlight.

Remember too, that no mater how good your filing system, your back up
system, and your equipment, most trashed files come from user mistakes
and not the equipment.

Good Luck,

(20,000 plus done, another few thousand to go and about 200# of prints
yet to scan)

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>Thank you in advance.
Anonymous
a b α HP
September 16, 2005 1:23:41 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner,comp.periphs.scanners (More info?)

On 15 Sep 2005 01:37:47 -0700, "Noons" <wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

>Father Kodak wrote:
>

>
>Don't think it makes a diff which of Vuescan or Silverfast you use.
>Get a fast CPU, at least 512Mb RAM. And the biggest disk(s) you can
>afford. USB2 is a must. More later.

My current system is a self-built Dual AMD Athlon 2000+ (not
overclocked, and very stable) with 1 GB of RAM, and I'm about ready to
buy another 1 or 2 GB. System maxes out at 3.5 GB. (That used to be
a honkin' big mainframe not too long ago!)

For not much, I can upgrade it by about 40% by getting faster
processors And until you have experienced dual-processor computing,
you don't know just how "smooth" it is, compared to single-CPU
systems.

I use SCSI-320 drives (used off ebay) with a 64-bit LSI SCSI-320
controller. Very fast. I have 280 GB online now, lots of free space.
For photo work, I would probably add a SATA IDE RAID config with say
2x300 or 2x400 GB. Even at 133 MB/image, that's several thousand
images online at any time.
>
>
>
>

>They can use the hardware infra-red facility but don't use the
>proprietary processing algorithm.

Ah. And that proprietary processing is built into the scanner?

>
>
>Reason why I went for scanners as well! :) 
>If I may offer a suggestion: go for a lcd panel display
>rather than a conventional monitor. Much easier on the eyes.

My current monitor is an old-but-great Sun 20" CRT that I got when I
worked at Sun. I know it's old and won't hold color calibration worth
an ounce of spit, so I'm planning to get a decent LCD. I'd love to
get an Eizo, but they are a bit rich for my blood. :) 


>
>> (I'm upgrading my PC in anticipation of large files and many of them.
>> I will probably use an 80/160 GB SCSI tape drive for backup.)
>
>May I suggest a DVD/CD writer instead? And the best recording
>media you can find/afford? Tapes are slow (unless you're prepared
>to spend big), can be notoriously unreliable and usually
>require specialised software to operate effectively.

I have also thought about DVD for backup, and I'm probably going to
get a DVD soon enough anyway. But everything I've read says that DVD
media is physically a lot more fragile than CD media. Another posting
in this thread talks about how to take the disk out of the holder.
Only problem is, the half-thick jewel boxes I use (to save space) have
no way to release the disk by pressing inwards on the center.

I've had very good luck with tape over the years because I haven't
tried to skimp. I don't need to restore too often, but whenever I do,
the tape always does the job.
>
>With either Windows or Linux, DVD/CD writables are a breeze
>nowadays. Pick a good long-lasting media supplier (delkin, verbatim)

Taiyo Yuden?

>and you got a much more cost-effective solution. Besides,
>tapes take up a lot of space.

I haven't run the numbers yet, so I can't comment too much, but 80 to
160 GB on one cartridge that is about 4" x 2.5" x .75" (in its case)
is probably more space-effective than DVD. Putting aside file
compression, that one tape can hold as much as about 35 DVDs. And
it's reuseable. (Check out the Exabyte site for the torture tests on
their VXA media.)


>
>HTH
Anonymous
a b α HP
September 16, 2005 1:24:41 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner,comp.periphs.scanners (More info?)

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 20:43:27 +1000, Bruce Graham
<jbgraham@nowhere.com.au> wrote:

>In article <1126773467.585594.222110@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au says...
>> > So I expect to end up scanning 15 K, maybe up to 20K images My
>>
>> Man! You're in for a lot of pain and long hours...
>>
>and thats just learning how, then more pain and many more hours doing it,
>then starting over as you get better.
>
>Scanning is only worth the effort for your *chosen* images, so don't loop
>the loupe just yet.


Thanks. You may be right. Maybe I'll do two rounds. First, to get
"proofs" for use on the "light table." Then a second round for a more
precise result.
Anonymous
a b α HP
September 16, 2005 1:28:02 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner,comp.periphs.scanners (More info?)

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 12:35:32 +0000 (UTC), dob@pinyon.flg.noaa.gov
(David Blanchard) wrote:

>In article <1126773467.585594.222110@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,

>>rather than a conventional monitor. Much easier on the eyes.
>
>A discussion in another forum indicated that low-end and middle range
>LCDs still don't have the color fidelity that a quality CRT has. If
>you choose LCD you should consider high end units (i.e., 20" LCD in
>the $2000-2500 price range!!) Me? I'm sticking with my CRT for now.

Well, I was hoping to spend under $1000 (US) for a 20" LCD. Plus a
few hundred for basic color management tools, like Monaco EZColor.
>

>Tapes may be slow but typically hold more data than other formats.
>I've had very few reliability issues with tapes and I've been doing
>tape backups of one type or another for 20 years. Still have the
>tapes and can still read them. For "specialized software" on either
>Mac or PC, use Retrospect from Dantz.

I have been using Dantz for about 3 years now. Beats anything else it
its price range. I'm certainly not about to buy an enterprise product
like Veritas!
>
>
>Also, I noticed in the original query that only Vuescan and Silverfast
>were mentioned for use on a Nikon scanner. Why not NikonScan? I've

Dunno. I somehow assumed that NikonScan was an inferior product. No?
Well, I certainly want to keep an open mind on this.

>used all three (Silverfast in demo mode only, however) and continue to
>use both Vuescan and Nikonscan. Sometimes one works better than the
>other; sometimes the other works better.
>
>-db-
Anonymous
a b α HP
September 16, 2005 1:30:59 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner,comp.periphs.scanners (More info?)

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 09:05:36 GMT, nailer <unlisted@due2spam.on.net>
wrote:

>excuse me for being lazy, but your story is long, and my time limited.

Thanks for taking the time to reply.
>
>1. RAW format applies to digital cameras, scaners work differently.
>Save in 16 bit tiff or psd, providing the scanning progie supposts 16
>bit scans.

Ah. didn't know that.

>2. Considering you have BW silver based films a scaner with diffused
>illumination would be a better choice.

Ah, again. Can you recommend a vendor/model?

>3. Considering all color films - get something with infrared chanel as
>well.

I assume that Nikon has an infrared channel. No?

>4. try vuescan and any other progz by yourself, do not expect a
>meaningful reply, unless there is another person with similar needs.
>You must decide (compromise).

>5. get the fastest PC with as much RAM you can afford. Double core -
>why not? hard disks are cheao these days, RAM too.

Yes. See my earlier reply. I'm with you about double core, only we
called it "dual CPU" a couple of years ago. Same idea.
>
>and most of all - how many days to retirement? It's gonna to take a
>while to scan THAT amount of frames.
>from my experience with Nikon LS30 on P4 - 3 hours for one roll.

Understood. I expect this to be a "scan a roll an evening" kind of
project. For a number of months of course.
>
Anonymous
a b α HP
September 16, 2005 1:35:51 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner,comp.periphs.scanners (More info?)

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 19:03:45 +0200, Don <phoney.email@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 01:04:25 -0700, Father Kodak
><dont_bother@IDontCare.COM> wrote:
>

>
>A question back: Why do you insist on a non-vendor program?

I'm not insisting. As I noted a bit earlier, I had assumed that
Nikon's program was not as good as these third-party programs. I
would love to be corrected, since that program comes with the Nikon
scanner.

>
>This is a very important point. If you're just starting, no program
>can replace experience i.e. you can't buy experience. And only after
>you've grasped it all is when you'll be able to evaluate the programs
>according to your specific needs (which will change as you learn!).

No different than doing darkroom work.
>
>>2.Neither one sounds "ideal."
>
>It all depends on your requirements. Unfortunately that's a catch-22
>and requirements will change with time. Expect to re-start scanning
>several times *if* you're examining the results carefully.

No doubt.
>
>
>
>For pure *scanning* the requirements are very low. Any computer with
>USB 2 will do. Scanners are relatively slow devices.
>
>Now, when it comes to image editing afterwards, the story changes
>completely. Get as much RAM as you can and as fast a processor as you
>can! Plus a second (even a third!) drive! For example, one for Windows
>scratch, one of PS scratch and one for data.

Agreed. See my earlier comments on this.
>

>>4. Assuming that I expect my workflow (I haven't gone digital quite
>>yet) to be "centered" on Photoshop, not Photoshop Elements, which
>>version of Silverfast would I want? And why?
>
>Not really related.

I'm asking because the last time I visited the Silverfast site, I was
thoroughly confused as to how any of their software would replace or
complement Photoshop. Probably my newbie-ness showing here.
>

>Nikon - Kodachrome is a deadly combination! ;o) This is from someone
>who's been struggling with it for 3 years now!

Which model scanner? How do you work around the problems?
>
>However, it all goes back to your requirements and how much quality is
>enough quality. There are two basic problems:
>
>A generic one, regarding dynamic range. Kodachromes have a very wide
>dynamic range with which even 16-bit scanners struggle (if you want
>the highest quality) so you will have to at the very least multi-scan,
>or better still use High Definition Range or "Twin Scan" methods.

No problem. If I can batch-scan, then I have all night, literally, to
scan the contents of the slide autofeeder, say 50 slides.
>
>The specific one is that Nikon's Kodachrome mode does *not* go far
>enough and the scans will be still have a blue cast. The darker the
>original the more pronounced the blue cast in the scan will be.

Sounds like a job for PhotoShop.
>
Anonymous
a b α HP
September 16, 2005 1:49:31 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner,comp.periphs.scanners (More info?)

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 20:53:43 -0400, Roger
<Delete-Invallid.stuff.groups@tm.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 01:04:25 -0700, Father Kodak
><dont_bother@IDontCare.COM> wrote:
>
>
>
>On thing to remember about slides. NO program or pieces of equipment
>is completely reliable with auto feeders. It may run trouble free for
>hours only to jam when you turn your back, or it may jam incessantly.
>This is more the fault of the slides than the equipment. Paper slide
>holders are prone to curling as well as edge curling and spreading.
>Some plastic slide mounts refuse to feed in specific directions. I
>had several thousand that would only feed backwards which is no big
>problem, you just have to remember to do it.

Yes, I have been using a stackloader for years with my Kodak Carousel.
Same issues, in principle. That is why I started mounting all my
slides in PerrotColor glass/metal mounts a number of years ago.

Loved the results. Supersharp edge to edge. Great, until I noticed
that the slides were laminating to the inside of the glass. Out went
that approach, fast!

>

>>
>>3. In real life, under real usage, what is the minimum PC config I
>>would want to run your recommended software? processor speed, RAM,
>>disk storage.
>
>Image processing is one of the most CPU intensive operations you can
>find. As an opinion, get the biggest, baddest machine you can afford
>and then at least tripple the size of the drive you thought you
>needed.

Well, I already explained that I have a dual CPU system. Say 2 years
from now, when LongHorn is out and "stable," and Adobe will have
released a 64-bit version of PS, then I'll upgrade. Probably with a
motherboard that supports 2 CPUs, which are double-core themselves.
With say a max RAM of 32 to 64 GB.
>
>>

>>
>>5. As a side question, what are the specific issues regarding
>>Kodachrome and recent model Nikon scanners? Can either of these two
>>packages compensate for these issue?
>
>Some claim so, I've never seen any "with the exception" of the IR
>cleaning regardless of scanner can be inconsistent between batches of
>Kodachrome. It's a dye transfer process which is quite different from
>Ektachrome, Fuji, and others (E7).

I am aware of the differences. I didn't realize until now that these
differences had an impact on scanning.
>>
>>6. Can either of these packages utilize the built-in image correction
>>features such as ICE, etc.
>
>Kinda, sorta. They have their own way of using the IR source, but
>*seem* to work fine for me with the exception of some Kodachrome.
>

>> At least 8000 Kodachrome 25 and 64 slides. K12 and K14
>>processes. 2 x 2 mounts. Mostly Kodak, some third party lab in
>>either cardboard or plastic. Some in uncut rolls.
>
>How long have your had these masochistic tendencies?
>You are talking many hundreds of hours of work here.

I'm not a masochist. That's why I'm asking these questions before I
start buying a scanner and software.
>

>

>>20" monitor. Beats a loupe. :) 
>
>There may be some you not only don't want to bother scanning, there
>may be some you don't want to get in your equipment. As the basic
>scanning with IR cleaning on the LS-5000 ED runs about 30 seconds and
>you can easily take that well past a minute culling does make sense.

Agreed, but I have a lot of photos where getting some specific detail
right is as important as the overall image at times. Can't always
tell unless you use a loupe or project the slide.
>
>I did the "old family photos" so every thing was scanned and I
>probably have another year or two working part time to finish. I'm
>past twenty some thousand and have about 70 some DVDs full with
>another set as backup.

As I noted in another post, that is only 2 tape cartridges.
>
>If you use Photoshop in conjunction with VueScan it can open the
>images automatically in Photoshop for editing. Scanning a strip of
>five negatives or slides takes a lot of resources. When you add
>Photoshop to that and the images to it, you need a *LOT* of
>horsepower. I found going from 512 megs to one Gig of RAM was like
>night and day. This computer is a 64 bit, 3.4 Gig Athlon with 2 Gigs
>of DDR RAM at 400 MHz. The network is approaching three *terabytes*
>and will hit four shortly.

That's a fast setup.
>
>
>One note on the USB drives. If you purchase the drive and enclosure
>seperately you can get the very same drive and enclosure for $30 to
>$50 less. This involves about 4 screws and two cables. Either way
>you still have to format the drive. I leave them as all one
>partition.

Yea, I figured that.
>
>>
>>Being a looong time Nikon user, I will probably opt for the 5000 plus
>>the slide autoloader, so I can batch-scan overnight. With this volume
>
>Probably not. The autoloader is a nice one, but you are at the mercy
>of your slides. You learn to roll the edges of paper slide holders by
>smoothing them with the back of a thumbnail or the handle of a kitchen
>knife.

Agreed. If I have to restart a batch 10% of the time, I'm still
ahead. I store my slides pretty carefully.
>

>>Having my druthers, I would like a "RAW" format output done at 2000
>>lines or greater. I expect to be doing digital photography with RAW
>>format.

>
>My own preference is to stay as far away from tape drives as I can
>get. My profession was computers, I have my degree in the field, and
>I worked my way up to project manager so I have more than a passing
>acquaintance with them. Good tape drives are expensive and do not
>allow for random searches as you can do on a CD and DVD.

True about the random access. But the problem with DVDs is that you
can't do a full system backup, unattended. I have about 30+ GB of
storage in my home network now. It's a pain in the tuchus to keep
swapping tapes, which hold about 6.7 GB each. DVDs would mean even
more swapping. That is why I've started to look into "mid-range"
business tape backups, used of course. Also SCSI of course.I want to
do a full network backup, purely unattended.

So I woudln't be buying the tape drive only for photo backup.
>

>
>A word of caution on storage of digital images. No medium is
>permanent. Generally, magnetic media such as hard drives are
>considered temporary although I'd think they have lifetimes measured
>in years. If you use windows, use NTFS and not FAT 32.

That goes without saying!
>
>"We thought" images were going to be long lived on CD and DVD, but
>some strange ailments are turning up in some isolated cases. Remember
>the back of the CD is sensitive to damage while the face can be
>blocked with scratches and dirt. Still the information is burned into
>the layer on the back. DVDs are a sandwich and are sensitive to
>flexing. The writing is done between the two layers of plastic. Do
>not pop them out of jewel cases by lifting on the edges. Press down in
>the center and dump it in your hand, but holding it by the edges.

Which is why I am inclined to use tape. I realize that's not
mainstream, but that's OK by me.
>Store CDs and DVDs on edge, in a cool dry place out of direct
>sunlight.
>
>Remember too, that no mater how good your filing system, your back up
>system, and your equipment, most trashed files come from user mistakes
>and not the equipment.

True enough.
>
>Good Luck,
>
>(20,000 plus done, another few thousand to go and about 200# of prints
>yet to scan)
>
>Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>www.rogerhalstead.com
>>
>>Thank you in advance.
Anonymous
a b α HP
September 16, 2005 4:29:23 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner,comp.periphs.scanners (More info?)

Bruce Graham apparently said,on my timestamp of 15/09/2005 8:43 PM:

>
> Scanning is only worth the effort for your *chosen* images, so don't loop
> the loupe just yet.

I'm finding that as well and I'm nowhere near the number of images
this guy is going for! What I'm doing now is scanning the older
negatives and slides and archiving them in raw. That way even if the
film strips crumble into dust, at least I got something to go back to.
And only the choice ones of the modern stuff, like you say.
Life is too short...

--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
in sunny Sydney, Australia
wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au.nospam
Anonymous
a b α HP
September 16, 2005 5:51:31 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner,comp.periphs.scanners (More info?)

Father Kodak wrote:
>
> My current system is a self-built Dual AMD Athlon 2000+ (not
> overclocked, and very stable) with 1 GB of RAM, and I'm about ready to
> buy another 1 or 2 GB. System maxes out at 3.5 GB. (That used to be
> a honkin' big mainframe not too long ago!)

That should be plenty.

> For photo work, I would probably add a SATA IDE RAID config with say
> 2x300 or 2x400 GB. Even at 133 MB/image, that's several thousand
> images online at any time.

Yup, I'd say favour size over speed. Have gobbled up all the GB
I could find and *still* not enough...


> >They can use the hardware infra-red facility but don't use the
> >proprietary processing algorithm.
>
> Ah. And that proprietary processing is built into the scanner?

The algorithm itself no, AFAIK. It's usually done by licencing
the algorithm from its owner (Kodak, I believe) and adding it
to the native scanner software. Which the scanmakers can afford
to do and the third party software can't. But I reckon what
Vuescan and Silverfast do with the infrared channel is good.

If I have a very difficult negative, then I use the scanner's
native software which has the licenced D-ICE thing in it: it
certainly does a superb job. For the vast majority of work
third party software's seems to be plenty enough and faster.


> My current monitor is an old-but-great Sun 20" CRT that I got when I
> worked at Sun. I know it's old and won't hold color calibration worth
> an ounce of spit, so I'm planning to get a decent LCD. I'd love to
> get an Eizo, but they are a bit rich for my blood. :) 

I remember well those Sun monitors! They used to be all the rage
for CAD stuff. Won't venture lcd brands. But since I've
left my Viewsonic behind and gone to a 19" LCD, it's been a
lot easier on them olde eyes! Particularly the absence of
any noticeable flicker. Also, the lcd colours on turn on
seem to stabilise faster than a conventional crt.


> I've had very good luck with tape over the years because I haven't
> tried to skimp. I don't need to restore too often, but whenever I do,
> the tape always does the job.


As a friend of mine says: it's not a matter of *if* you'll need
a backup, it's a matter of *when*...


> Taiyo Yuden?

Don't know them. We only got the major names here in Australia.


> I haven't run the numbers yet, so I can't comment too much, but 80 to
> 160 GB on one cartridge that is about 4" x 2.5" x .75" (in its case)
> is probably more space-effective than DVD. Putting aside file
> compression, that one tape can hold as much as about 35 DVDs. And
> it's reuseable. (Check out the Exabyte site for the torture tests on
> their VXA media.)

Ah yes. But the entry-point prices?...
I'm on a budget, so I have to stay with DVD.
Anonymous
a b α HP
September 16, 2005 12:26:19 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner,comp.periphs.scanners (More info?)

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 21:30:59 -0700, Father Kodak
<dont_bother@IDontCare.COM> wrote:

*On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 09:05:36 GMT, nailer <unlisted@due2spam.on.net>
*wrote:
*
*>excuse me for being lazy, but your story is long, and my time limited.
*
*Thanks for taking the time to reply.
*>
*>1. RAW format applies to digital cameras, scaners work differently.
*>Save in 16 bit tiff or psd, providing the scanning progie supposts 16
*>bit scans.
*
*Ah. didn't know that.

real RAW is a direct dump from light sensitive elements (array)
without processing. usually, but not always in cameras. In scaners
some progs will let you dump RAW, but it has no advantage over 16bit
tiff (processed).
*
*>2. Considering you have BW silver based films a scaner with diffused
*>illumination would be a better choice.
*
*Ah, again. Can you recommend a vendor/model?

i like my Nikon, but it has LED based illumination which makes all
scratches and dirt very visible. Silver based images couldn't be
ïmroved" by ICE technology, so expect long hours retouching.
Scanners with diffused light "suppres" dirt/scratches, like printers
in minilabs. Sometime it is easier to flat-scan a print than a neg in
good film scanner.
*
*>3. Considering all color films - get something with infrared chanel as
*>well.
*
*I assume that Nikon has an infrared channel. No?

yes, it works well in Nikon scanners on dye based films.
*
*>4. try vuescan and any other progz by yourself, do not expect a
*>meaningful reply, unless there is another person with similar needs.
*>You must decide (compromise).
*
*>5. get the fastest PC with as much RAM you can afford. Double core -
*>why not? hard disks are cheao these days, RAM too.
*
*Yes. See my earlier reply. I'm with you about double core, only we
*called it "dual CPU" a couple of years ago. Same idea.

not exactly, you can have a mobo with two sockets for two CPU or one
socket enabled for dual core single cpu.

*>
*>and most of all - how many days to retirement? It's gonna to take a
*>while to scan THAT amount of frames.
*>from my experience with Nikon LS30 on P4 - 3 hours for one roll.
*
*Understood. I expect this to be a "scan a roll an evening" kind of
*project. For a number of months of course.


gee, large number. have fun. BTW notall DVD blanks are equal, get
something reliable, even if it costs more.
*>
!