> SilverFast does a good job too, but I prefer Vuescan's > algorithms. And Vuescan is cheaper, can handle a ton of > different scanners if you decide to move to a different scanner > at some point. I use it to drive both a Minolta SDII and an > Epson 2450.
I had a look at Silverfast but didn't like the one scanner option although ultimately I suppose it could be more accurate, I'd also like to add an old Umax Astra 1220S flatbed to the SCSI chain for the odd print scan. > 48bit TIFF (with LZW compression if you want to save space) and > the maximum optical resolution of the scanner are good (I am not > sure of the optical resolution of the Scan Dual, I have a Scan > Dual II and I know that's 2820ppi). I'm thinking of going without compression then writing everything to DVD+R or CDR at some point, although I have yet to select the blank media, Fuji, Traxdata? I believe the maximum resolution is 2438 dpi which results in max. 3504 x 2336 about 8.18 million pixel, not the best but it's free :) > A couple of tips: > - If you batch up your negs/slides into groups with similar > characteristics, you can then batch scan with one set of > settings more efficiently (up to strips of 6 negs or 4 slides > with that scanner, I believe). Yes I was working on saving profiles for particular film types and loading them each time I switched film emulsion, I've yet to figure out if vuescan will batch scan unattended (without me manually feeding that is) > The advantage to scanning and saving RAW files in Vuescan is > that it will do much like a RAW format in a camera ... dump the > scanner's raw data out to a file ... which can then be > reprocessed many times with different rendering settings to get > a better scan. Much better than re-scanning the originals many > times, and a lot quicker. Of course, it costs more time and > space to save RAW files. Whether its worth it to you only you > can decide. (A lot of my negatives are archived digitally as a > Vuescan RAW file, a 48bit TIFF-LZW file, and an index page per > roll of film.) I really will have to dabble with RAW at some point, I could basically produce TIFF and RAW at one go with each negative plus the index page I suppose, why are the RAW files given a TIFF file extension is RAW not a format in it's own right? > Scanning is a slow and tedious process, but I like having > archive copies of my negatives and prints that I can replicate > losslessly and manage electronically. It will pass the time at lunch where I work :) but needless to say it will be a long job, I just wanted some informed opinion from experienced users such as yourself before starting only to find I'd gone down the wrong road :) Many thanks for the info and tips. Best regards, John
