| Author |
Message |
Don
Guest
|
 Posted:
Mon Oct 31, 2005 9:37 pm Post subject:
Re: Canon FS2710 slow scans with Canocraft FS - fast with Vu |
|
|
On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 08:13:19 +1100, Bruce Graham
<jbgraham@nowhere.com.au> wrote:
| Quote: | Don has yet to agree that Vuescan has any redeeming feature.
|
That's a prime example of baseless mud-slinging.
And that after I just complimented you in the other message about how
reasonable you were! (fx. shakes head) Oh well... :-/
If you bothered to actually *read* my messages before throwing mud you
may have noticed that they are always objective, factual and give
credit where credit is due.
Here are two specific instances where I complimented Vuescan in case
of my old LS-30:
1. It retrieved the full 10-bits (NikonScan only produces 8-bit files)
2. It had no artificial limit on exposure (NikonScan limits exposure
to +/-2 EV). However, the Vuescan exposure bug kicks in as the values
go up resulting in "random exposures" and the readout is out of sync
with the actual exposure value. And, of course, Vuescan employs the
immensely inane "multiplier" instead of the industry standard EV.
I have also repeatedly stated that (as an assembler programmer at
heart) I find direct access to hardware "neat".
So much for your theory...
Don. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Don
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 31, 2005 9:37 pm Post subject:
Re: Canon FS2710 slow scans with Canocraft FS - fast with Vu |
|
|
On 30 Oct 2005 19:07:48 -0800, "Roger S." <rsmith02@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | "Don has yet to agree that Vuescan has any redeeming feature"
Well it's a good thing we don't listen to him, then ; )
|
The facts, i.e. "your" (plural) obsessive and reflex attacks, indicate
exactly the opposite.
If "you" (plural) really did listen, i.e. actually *read* before
lashing out, maybe you'd come up with some cogent and civil responses.
Don. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bruce Graham
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Nov 01, 2005 5:00 am Post subject:
Re: Canon FS2710 slow scans with Canocraft FS - fast with Vu |
|
|
In article <o2ecm19mgfofana7fre4t1m5bheiesra47@4ax.com>,
phoney.email@yahoo.com says...
| Quote: | On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 08:13:19 +1100, Bruce Graham
jbgraham@nowhere.com.au> wrote:
Don has yet to agree that Vuescan has any redeeming feature.
That's a prime example of baseless mud-slinging.
And that after I just complimented you in the other message about how
reasonable you were! (fx. shakes head) Oh well... :-/
If you bothered to actually *read* my messages before throwing mud you
may have noticed that they are always objective, factual and give
credit where credit is due.
Here are two specific instances where I complimented Vuescan in case
of my old LS-30:
1. It retrieved the full 10-bits (NikonScan only produces 8-bit files)
2. It had no artificial limit on exposure (NikonScan limits exposure
to +/-2 EV). However, the Vuescan exposure bug kicks in as the values
go up resulting in "random exposures" and the readout is out of sync
with the actual exposure value. And, of course, Vuescan employs the
immensely inane "multiplier" instead of the industry standard EV.
I have also repeatedly stated that (as an assembler programmer at
heart) I find direct access to hardware "neat".
So much for your theory...
Don.
well I'm glad to stand corrected! |
BTW Canon Filmget also has an arbitrary exposure scale - I think it
relates to the scanner stepper motor multiplier. With all of these odd
animals in the scanner farmyard, it would be difficult for Mr Hamrick to
convert them all to EV (yes, I know about lowest common denominator -
Vuescan is a lot better than that).
Bruce G |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bruce Graham
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Nov 01, 2005 6:44 am Post subject:
Re: Canon FS2710 slow scans with Canocraft FS - fast with Vu |
|
|
In article <budcm1lfr3nn572b3v303rnevqsgeh754s@4ax.com>,
phoney.email@yahoo.com says...
| Quote: | On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 08:26:09 +1100, Bruce Graham
jbgraham@nowhere.com.au> wrote:
The only reason such a neutral, matter-of-fact statement makes some
Vuescan users explode with blind rage is because they have that huge
chip on their shoulder. The ones that don't, simply admit they don't
care for quality, shrug, and continue using it.
shrug, Vuescan gives better quality than Filmget for most scans
That's my point, exactly! BTW, I wasn't attacking you. Unlike the
"rabid Vuescan sect" you're happy with the results. So what if Vuescan
is not a quality product? Big deal! It does what you want and that's
all that counts.
(and the
calibration holds for a long time - I think Vuescan automatically
calibrates every month now).
That premise is not correct. A calibration does not "hold" because the
conditions inside the scanner change constantly. Therefore - if one
cares for such things - the software (or the user) should calibrate at
regular intervals.
Now, in case of conventional light source scanners, the light bulb
also slowly deteriorate over time. In that case a monthly calibration
should cover this gradual change.
However, during regular use the conditions fluctuate quite a lot, far
more than the gradual deterioration of the conventional light bulb,
and - again, if one cares for such things - that means more frequent
calibration.
Don.
I'm not sure what you mean by "conventional light bulb" in this context. |
I think the Canon has a flouro source which may be what you meant.
Anyway, failure to calibrate for a long period can result in very slight
banding, which I think is drift (and maybe microscopic dust on) in the
CCD/amplifier chain rather than the lamp. Monthly calibration seems to
be enough to eliminate this effect.
I'm sure that some spectral changes occur as well, but given that I
perceptually colour correct each scan, that effect is quite irrelevant in
my workflow. Final correction is done in post processing anyway.
Conceivably, the spectral response could change during the scan if
scanning commences immediately after the light is switched on but I have
not been able to see any change in colour across the scan. Both Vuescan
and Filmget do this in batch scanning when IR cleaning is used because
the main lamp must be turned off while the IR scan is done, then on again
for the next RGB scan.
Bruce G |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Nov 01, 2005 8:32 pm Post subject:
Re: Canon FS2710 slow scans with Canocraft FS - fast with Vu |
|
|
On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 11:44:18 +1100, Bruce Graham
<jbgraham@nowhere.com.au> wrote:
| Quote: | Now, in case of conventional light source scanners, the light bulb
also slowly deteriorate over time. In that case a monthly calibration
should cover this gradual change.
However, during regular use the conditions fluctuate quite a lot, far
more than the gradual deterioration of the conventional light bulb,
and - again, if one cares for such things - that means more frequent
calibration.
I'm not sure what you mean by "conventional light bulb" in this context.
I think the Canon has a flouro source which may be what you meant.
|
That's right. Virtually any light source other than LEDs suffers from
that and it eventually burns out. LEDs, by contrast, last "forever"
and will outlive both the scanner and the user.
| Quote: | Anyway, failure to calibrate for a long period can result in very slight
banding, which I think is drift (and maybe microscopic dust on) in the
CCD/amplifier chain rather than the lamp. Monthly calibration seems to
be enough to eliminate this effect.
I'm sure that some spectral changes occur as well, but given that I
perceptually colour correct each scan, that effect is quite irrelevant in
my workflow. Final correction is done in post processing anyway.
Conceivably, the spectral response could change during the scan if
scanning commences immediately after the light is switched on but I have
not been able to see any change in colour across the scan. Both Vuescan
and Filmget do this in batch scanning when IR cleaning is used because
the main lamp must be turned off while the IR scan is done, then on again
for the next RGB scan.
|
Yes, often times we lose track when chasing "perfection" so it helps
to lean back, every now and then, and look at the big picture in full
context. As in: How important is such accuracy, really? I do this all
the time, as well, and then make compromises accordingly.
In case of calibration, in my workflow it doesn't take any time so I
calibrate before each image. Right now, I'm busy with mounted slides
so I take a slide out, click on calibrate, and then use the blow brush
to clean the next slide. By the time I'm done cleaning the scanner is
done calibrating so I don't really have to wait. But in real terms,
it's an overkill potentially putting extra wear and tear on the
scanner as the assembly shuffles back and forth.
Don. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Nov 01, 2005 8:33 pm Post subject:
Re: Canon FS2710 slow scans with Canocraft FS - fast with Vu |
|
|
On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 10:00:17 +1100, Bruce Graham
<jbgraham@nowhere.com.au> wrote:
| Quote: | well I'm glad to stand corrected!
|
In which case I'm glad to say "let bygones be bygones". I don't hold a
grudge, unlike the rabid Vuescan lot (not to be confused with the few
reasonable Vuescan users).
| Quote: | BTW Canon Filmget also has an arbitrary exposure scale - I think it
relates to the scanner stepper motor multiplier. With all of these odd
animals in the scanner farmyard, it would be difficult for Mr Hamrick to
convert them all to EV (yes, I know about lowest common denominator -
Vuescan is a lot better than that).
|
Actually, it would not. (For real reason see below.) The formula for
exposure is very simple. EV also makes much more sense to the user
because the display scale doesn't change. By comparison, the inane
Vuescan "multiplier" value is much more convoluted to the user. Best
explained with an example:
Let's assume an exposure of 3. Doubling this exposure results in 6.
Now, let's take an exposure of 10. Doubling that results in 20.
So, to achieve the same effect (doubling) in the first case you had to
increase by 3 while in the second case you had to increase by 10!?
Now that's bad enough, but if you wanted to fine tune the exposure in
the first case you only have 3 clicks to play with, while in the
second case you have 10. (I'm using integer math because it's easier
to explain. In reality floating point values are used.)
But wait, it gets even worse! It's exactly in the short exposures
where you need increased granularity, not in the long exposures.
Vuescan's silly multiplier does exactly the opposite!
Of course, such "doubling" doesn't really make sense, but that's my
point exactly. EV, but contrast, may also have its inconsistencies,
but at least it's something everyone is familiar with and has a feel
for. So, this Vuescan "multiplier value" is (factually) just
mind-numbingly inane and makes absolutely no sense in terms of
usability. (And we haven't even mentioned the fact it's buggy!!!)
The real reason the author uses it is because he doesn't have to
think. It's also what he started with, I guess, and he "fell in love
with his initial design". All that's a tell-tale sign of an
incompetent "programmer" and he's notorious for forcing such
convoluted "solutions" on the user because he's either to lazy or just
plain incapable.
Did you know, for example, that originally there was no preview in
Vuescan? The author fought tooth and nail against preview with his
catch-all phrase "You don't need that". Go figure... :-/
Not to mention he has a very short fuse and is the only person in this
group to use obscenities in the 3-4 years I've been here. Not exactly
attributes you expect to find in a programmer. Any programmer.
Don. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Roger S.
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Nov 01, 2005 10:03 pm Post subject:
Re: Canon FS2710 slow scans with Canocraft FS - fast with Vu |
|
|
I calibrate at least at the start of a session and more than that when
I'm scanning slides- there's usually some down time when I'm examining
an image in Photoshop.
By the time my scanner wears out I hope to have an affordable DSLR. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Roger S.
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Nov 01, 2005 10:14 pm Post subject:
Re: Canon FS2710 slow scans with Canocraft FS - fast with Vu |
|
|
Don wrote:
"The formula for exposure is very simple. EV also makes much more sense
to the user
because the display scale doesn't change. By comparison, the inane
Vuescan "multiplier" value is much more convoluted to the user."
I completely agree. That would be preferable. I'm still not sure I
know what the VS exposure settings are for my scanner. I think there
are only six possible values, but do they start 1, 2, 4... ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
larry07
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 02, 2005 4:10 am Post subject:
Re: Canon FS2710 slow scans with Canocraft FS - fast with Vu |
|
|
I am using Vuescan and all my scans have $ signs on them :-) But at
least it allows me to evaluated the program before deciding to part
with some hard earned cash on it. In terms of speed it's light years
faster than CanoCraft and for my modest needs, the speed makes up for
any deficiencies it might have |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Roger S.
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 02, 2005 4:14 am Post subject:
Re: Canon FS2710 slow scans with Canocraft FS - fast with Vu |
|
|
Try the latest version- no $ I believe (not sure if ever or just not
during the trial period) . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Roger S.
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 02, 2005 5:15 am Post subject:
Re: Canon FS2710 slow scans with Canocraft FS - fast with Vu |
|
|
Don, that is completely inconsistent with your first statement- if you
made reasonable fact-based statements to begin with you wouldn't get
attacked:
"In general, Vuescan is just too buggy and unreliable to be used for
any serious scanning. It may OK for a casual scan intended as a highly
compressed small JPG but that's about it"
Where does your statement say that Vuescan *may* be too buggy
unreliable for serious scans but that you should test it to see if it
meets your needs? Your second sentence would be reasonable except that
you categorically state that a small .jpg is about all VS is good for.
You didn't suggest that he try it to see, but condemned VS with a
blanket statement. This statement is simply your semi-informed
opinion, so why do you lash out at those who disagree based on their
own experience?
Others like myself are more than capable of reading (in fact read and
analyze for a living), evaluating scans for quality, and giving
assessments of how well a program works or doesn't work. We're all
entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts, as the saying
goes. I think we agree on the basic facts about Vuescan, so please
respect diverging opinions about the value of the program. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 02, 2005 8:09 pm Post subject:
Re: Canon FS2710 slow scans with Canocraft FS - fast with Vu |
|
|
On 1 Nov 2005 08:14:50 -0800, "Roger S." <rsmith02@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | I completely agree. That would be preferable. I'm still not sure I
know what the VS exposure settings are for my scanner. I think there
are only six possible values, but do they start 1, 2, 4... ?
|
I'm not familiar with FilmGet so I can't tell. I guess you can try a
few tests but it may get complicated.
If you're really curious, I think the easiest would be to use linear
gamma (1.0). You may also need to disable Auto Exposure and go into
manual mode - if there is such a thing.
Then find a manual exposure until some notable part of the histogram
reaches the right edge i.e. 256. Then cut exposure by "1". If that
notable part of the histogram now goes only to about 128, that's -1
EV. If not, then some other unit is used.
Don. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 02, 2005 8:09 pm Post subject:
Re: Canon FS2710 slow scans with Canocraft FS - fast with Vu |
|
|
On 1 Nov 2005 14:10:38 -0800, "larry07" <larry07@imap.cc> wrote:
| Quote: | I am using Vuescan and all my scans have $ signs on them :-)
|
I told you it was buggy! ;o)
Seriously though, Vuescan's watermark is not a real watermark so it's
easily removed.
| Quote: | But at
least it allows me to evaluated the program before deciding to part
with some hard earned cash on it. In terms of speed it's light years
faster than CanoCraft and for my modest needs, the speed makes up for
any deficiencies it might have
|
While it's laudable to offer a program for evaluation there are a
couple of caveats. Some features which are essential for thorough
testing - such as raw scan - are disabled. Also, the "watermark" skews
the data.
On the other hand, if you don't care for such level of detail then
it's certainly handy to be able to try it out. For one, you get to
"enjoy" Vuescan's "unique" user interface... ;o)
Don. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 02, 2005 8:09 pm Post subject:
Re: Canon FS2710 slow scans with Canocraft FS - fast with Vu |
|
|
On 1 Nov 2005 15:15:09 -0800, "Roger S." <rsmith02@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Don, that is completely inconsistent with your first statement- if you
made reasonable fact-based statements to begin with you wouldn't get
attacked:
|
No, it's not inconsistent, Roger. You're talking things out of
context. The next paragraph is a simple fact. If you want I will again
post a (partial) list of just some of the major bugs illustrating just
how buggy and unreliable Vuescan is. And that doesn't come from me,
but from *frustrated Vuescan users themselves*! And it's not just
inconveniences but specific, documented and major bugs!
| Quote: | "In general, Vuescan is just too buggy and unreliable to be used for
any serious scanning. It may OK for a casual scan intended as a highly
compressed small JPG but that's about it"
Where does your statement say that Vuescan *may* be too buggy
unreliable for serious scans but that you should test it to see if it
meets your needs?
|
In the very *NEXT* sentence in the *SAME* paragraph:
--- start ---
On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 13:46:12 +0200, Don <phoney.email@yahoo.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | On the other hand, if you
don't care for quality it may be acceptable in which case find a
version with least bugs and stick with it. Avoid upgrading
automatically and let others debug the most blatant bugs first.
--- end --- |
That's why I warn *explicitly* about quoting out of context!
That's also what I mean by "lashing out without reading"!
The above careful statement is what I always say! It's up to the user!
I'll be happy to provide many more quotes if you want.
What you're missing, as usual, Roger is the context:
1. We've been at this for a while.
2. You are a Vuescan user already. Etc.
So there's no point in repeating all that each time during the thread.
I took it as a given you would understand that some of the statements
in the course of the thread are in the context of *this* discussion
and *direct* responses, not some generic statements. As such they
don't always require constant repetition of all the qualifications.
| Quote: | Your second sentence would be reasonable except that
you categorically state that a small .jpg is about all VS is good for.
|
Because that's a fact! If you bothered to *thoroughly* test Vuescan as
I have, you'd know! But don't take my word for it:
--- start ---
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 21:07:15 +0200, "Bart van der Wolf"
<bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote:
| Quote: | Why don't you scan with Vuescan right away?
Unfortunately, to date VueScan is not capable of scanning the Raw data
with a linear gamma. The higher film densities are scanned with
reduced contrast. This results in relatively lifeless shadows in
slides, or dull highlights in negatives. Mind you, it's a matter of
the software not interpreting the scanner response as it should, the
Minolta software does it as can be expected.
--- end --- |
To put things in context, Bart is not a Vuescan critic. He is also not
some "plain vanilla" uneducated user, either. Indeed, he's one of the
most "devout" Vuescan fans who's been pining ever since Vuescan author
ran away from here chased by angry Vuescan users furious about bugs.
But Bart does run thorough tests and, as much as he slobbers over it,
even he had to conclude and admit that Vuescan is far too inferior to
be used for any serious scanning!
Now, if you have a problem with that why don't you take it up with him
or any of the other, numerous frustrated Vuescan users?
But no, you would rather "shoot the messenger" i.e. "blame Don"!
| Quote: | You didn't suggest that he try it to see, but condemned VS with a
blanket statement.
|
The part you omitted says exactly the opposite! The context! Again,
the context! But apparently you really want another quote. All right:
--- start ---
On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 15:24:25 +0200, Don <phoney.email@yahoo.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | Seriously, unless your requirements are really low, Vuescan is far too
buggy and unreliable. Free to try, though, although critical features
are disabled:
http://www.hamrick.com
Others swear by SilverFast, also free to try but you must download a
scanner specific version:
http://www.silverfast.com
Don.
--- end --- |
Happy now? Many more where that came from!
As always, whenever the context requires it, I supply the necessary
data.
| Quote: | This statement is simply your semi-informed
opinion,
|
No, it's based on facts, outlined *repeatedly*!
| Quote: | so why do you lash out at those who disagree based on their
own experience?
|
Provide a *single* quote *in context* (!) of me ever "lashing out"!
Furthermore, provide a single quote *in context* (!) of me ever
commenting on other people's *opinion* (not factoids!)?
NOTE: Quotes ***in context***, please! <===!!! Don't pick and choose.
| Quote: | Others like myself are more than capable of reading (in fact read and
analyze for a living), evaluating scans for quality, and giving
assessments of how well a program works or doesn't work. We're all
entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts, as the saying
goes. I think we agree on the basic facts about Vuescan, so please
respect diverging opinions about the value of the program.
|
There's a huge difference between reading and "reading into"!
There is also a huge difference between thorough objective testing and
casual subjective "evaluation".
And, as I keep repeating - but it's just simply not getting through:
My statements are about *facts*, not opinions.
I have said nothing about your or anybody else's opinions because
there is nothing to be said about opinions since they are essentially
subjective feelings. And everyone is entitled to them.
I've given you quotes throughout this discussion supporting each and
every fact. You have provided *none*!
So, can you come up with a *single* quote where I say *anything* (let
alone disparaging!) about other people's *opinion* (not factoids!)?
You guessed it, any quote *in context*, please!
Don. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wilfred
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 02, 2005 8:24 pm Post subject:
Re: Canon FS2710 slow scans with Canocraft FS - fast with Vu |
|
|
Don wrote:
| Quote: | On 1 Nov 2005 14:10:38 -0800, "larry07" <larry07@imap.cc> wrote:
I am using Vuescan and all my scans have $ signs on them :-)
But at
least it allows me to evaluated the program before deciding to part
with some hard earned cash on it. In terms of speed it's light years
faster than CanoCraft and for my modest needs, the speed makes up for
any deficiencies it might have
While it's laudable to offer a program for evaluation there are a
couple of caveats. Some features which are essential for thorough
testing - such as raw scan - are disabled. Also, the "watermark" skews
the data.
|
From http://www.hamrick.com/vuescan/vuescan.htm#changes:
"What's new in version 8.3.01
* Trial version is now fully functional, with no watermarking
* Trial version uses Guided mode only"
I'm not sure how you can do everything in Guided mode, but it seems that
at least some of the restrictions you both mention are no longer there
in the latest versions (current is 8.3.06)
--
Wilfred van der Vegte.
e-mail: first five letters of my first name at gmx dot net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in