RE: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
I want this this is a good idea. I want it. - Collin Ong On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, Mark T. wrote: At 09:17 AM 14/03/01 +1000, Rob wrote: why would you want to seperate these? to allow the option of grain removal WITHOUT clean? Yes, or to allow varying intensities of clean without grain removal. They should be two separate drop down options, and with the interface changes in 7.0 there's plenty of space. I for one would like to be able to see the effect of grain removal on its own without having to combine it with cleaning. Then also, a frame might need only mild cleaning but heavy grain removal. At the moment, I don't have that as an option. Rob Are Rob and I alone in wanting this change from Ed? If anyone else on the list also thinks this is a good idea, please say so now! Mark T.
RE: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
I have no strong feelings about this, but I don't see how it could hurt, and it might help. It doesn't sound hard to do. Hersch At 04:28 PM 03/14/2001 +1000, you wrote: At 09:17 AM 14/03/01 +1000, Rob wrote: why would you want to seperate these? to allow the option of grain removal WITHOUT clean? Yes, or to allow varying intensities of clean without grain removal. They should be two separate drop down options, and with the interface changes in 7.0 there's plenty of space. I for one would like to be able to see the effect of grain removal on its own without having to combine it with cleaning. Then also, a frame might need only mild cleaning but heavy grain removal. At the moment, I don't have that as an option. Rob Are Rob and I alone in wanting this change from Ed? If anyone else on the list also thinks this is a good idea, please say so now! Mark T.
RE: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
From: "Mark T." [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 16:28:11 +1000 At 09:17 AM 14/03/01 +1000, Rob wrote: why would you want to seperate these? to allow the option of grain removal WITHOUT clean? Yes, or to allow varying intensities of clean without grain removal. They should be two separate drop down options, and with the interface changes in 7.0 there's plenty of space. I for one would like to be able to see the effect of grain removal on its own without having to combine it with cleaning. Then also, a frame might need only mild cleaning but heavy grain removal. At the moment, I don't have that as an option. Rob Are Rob and I alone in wanting this change from Ed? If anyone else on the list also thinks this is a good idea, please say so now! Mark T. Yes, I would like it very much. In fact, I was the first one to ask for it the same day that Ed released the first Vuescan with it a month or more ago. _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
RE: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
Yes, or to allow varying intensities of clean without grain removal. They should be two separate drop down options, and with the interface changes in 7.0 there's plenty of space. I for one would like to be able to see the effect of grain removal on its own without having to combine it with cleaning. Then also, a frame might need only mild cleaning but heavy grain removal. At the moment, I don't have that as an option. ... Are Rob and I alone in wanting this change from Ed? No. If anyone else on the list also thinks this is a good idea, please say so now! I'm not a fan of sending "I agree" or "me to" to lists, but I'll write it here if it will help. -- Bob Shomler http://www.shomler.com/gallery.htm
RE: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
I had understood that grain removal was a by-product of the ICE-type cleaning and therefore could not be separated. If it can, certainly I agree that should be an independent option. Not sure about VueScan, but ASF's GEM and ROC do not depend on ICE. Two separate sources for this statement: 1) Minolta's medium format scanner has GEM and ROC but not ICE and 2) the patent that appears to be the basis for ROC (#5,673,336). The patent states that an IR channel is not necessary for the removal of color crosstalk but that the process of removing crosstalk improves the IR detection of defects.
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
If I remember correctly, about a week or two ago, someone on the list had a post that also said that ICE or its equivalent needed the IR channel but that GEM ad ROC or their equivalent operated independently and did not need the IR Channel. Gordon Not sure about VueScan, but ASF's GEM and ROC do not depend on ICE. The patent states that an IR channel is not necessary for the removal of color crosstalk but that the process of removing crosstalk improves the IR detection of defects.
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
"Maris V. Lidaka, Sr." [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I had understood that grain removal was a by-product of the ICE-type cleaning and therefore could not be separated. If it can, certainly I agree that should be an independent option. No, grain removal and dust/scratch removal are different filters in both Nikonscan 3 and Vuescan. At the moment however, Vuescan forces you to combine them at higher "cleaning" settings. I don't know if Nikonscan lets you apply them separately. There's a slight softening of the image caused by ICE or Vuescan's dust/scratch filter, but this isn't a specific grain reduction feature. Rob
RE: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
Jules writes ... I think many on the list would vote for a separate checkbox control to enable grain removal independently of the clean/scrub/scour setting. but scrub = clean + grain removal and scour = clean + heavier grain removal AFAIK the clean algorithm does change between the settings. It certainly did before grain removal was added. So it's not true to say that the only thing which varies is the degree of grain removal. why would you want to seperate these? to allow the option of grain removal WITHOUT clean? Yes, or to allow varying intensities of clean without grain removal. They should be two separate drop down options, and with the interface changes in 7.0 there's plenty of space. I for one would like to be able to see the effect of grain removal on its own without having to combine it with cleaning. Then also, a frame might need only mild cleaning but heavy grain removal. At the moment, I don't have that as an option. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
RE: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
At 09:17 AM 14/03/01 +1000, Rob wrote: why would you want to seperate these? to allow the option of grain removal WITHOUT clean? Yes, or to allow varying intensities of clean without grain removal. They should be two separate drop down options, and with the interface changes in 7.0 there's plenty of space. I for one would like to be able to see the effect of grain removal on its own without having to combine it with cleaning. Then also, a frame might need only mild cleaning but heavy grain removal. At the moment, I don't have that as an option. Rob Are Rob and I alone in wanting this change from Ed? If anyone else on the list also thinks this is a good idea, please say so now! Mark T.
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
In a message dated 3/6/2001 6:00:02 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: is there any chance we'll see the next version of VS present the scan properly in "monitor space"??? To reiterate ... if you ask for AdobeRGB color space, Vuescan will show you AdobeRGB data in monitor space ... and your scans will appear under-saturated in Vuescan, but fine in Photoshop. The next version won't, but it's possible that I can do this in the future. It's fairly complex to take an arbitrary .icc file and transform colors. It might be easier if I always display in sRGB on the screen but save to the file in the selected color space. Regards, Ed Hamrick
RE: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
Speaking of which ... is there any chance we'll see the next version of VS present the scan properly in "monitor space"??? To reiterate ... if you ask for AdobeRGB color space, Vuescan will show you AdobeRGB data in monitor space ... and your scans will appear under-saturated in Vuescan, but fine in Photoshop. I think this will be the most important improvement you can make to the user interface.
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
Rob Geraghty wrote: Alan wrote: I agree that the dialog box would be a good thing, but I do have to point out that directory creation already happens, and automatically, if you enter a pathname into the raw, TIFF, or JPEG file name fields! Which is nice, but less foolproof than the common dialog box. If you make a mistake anywhere in the directory structure, a new structure with the error in it will be created. The common dialog box only creates one level at a time. Rob Good point.
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
I find I have to hit it 2 or 3 times before it takes effect. At 12:40 AM 03/06/2001 -0500, you wrote: A more responsive abort button would be nice. Not infrequently I find myself having made a mistake but spending a good deal of time while the scan is occurring waiting for a window when I can abort. Not sure if this might be due to something about my system though. John M.
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
In a message dated 3/5/2001 5:33:29 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As an alternative to scroll bars, would it be possible to use instead a hand to grab the image with the mouse and pull it to the location one wants, like ACDSee? The problem with this is two-fold - clicking in the middle of the crop box already moves the crop box, and dragging the image only lets you move it one screen at a time (scroll bars give you quick scrolling anywhere within the image). I realize that I could make the cursor modal, where it sometimes moves the crop box and other times moves the zoomed image, but I'd prefer to avoid modal things - it hurts ease of use for beginning users. Regards, Ed Hamrick
RE: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
Changes sound good to me too. Please do make these changes. Thanks in advance. First I thought I should not reply because you (Ed) asked for opinions of people who objected to the suggested changes or who would like things to be done differently. Finally I came up with a suggestion, but the real suggestion is in the first line. Just a little thought on behaviour which is arguably a bug: I use preview memory setting and it does not seem to remember from which frame (in Scanwit case 1-4, 1-6) the last preview came. So if e.g. I batch scanned a set '1, 2F, 3R-6R' and enter a new set for the new frames '1, 2F-4F, 5, 6L' the preview will immediately turn the last frame preview of the previous set (6R) to the orientation of the first frame of the next set (1, i.e. to the left) and the crop box does not change orientation. Please let the crop box always follow the orientation of the preview (perhaps you already did, but the bug is in remembering the frame in the preview to which the orientation applies). Also if possible and not objectionable do not calculate the preview from memory of the frame of the last preview if it does not equal the frame (number) of the next (to be done) preview. I hope I made myself clear, it is hard to tell what I mean without showing it. Of course: I do not have the newest Vuescan version, but I know it is in the 6.7.x range. Jerry. -Original Message- From: Ezio [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 1:36 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements YES ! Thanks Ed ! [] - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 11:56 AM Subject: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements I'm thinking about some improvements to the VueScan user interface, and I'd like to solicit feedback and suggestions. These are the main things I'm thinking of - let me know if you don't like these changes or if you'd like to see things done differently:
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
"Hersch Nitikman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote re the abort button: I find I have to hit it 2 or 3 times before it takes effect. I suspect this is more to do with how well the scanner responds to an abort instruction while scanning than vuescan itself. Rob
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The problem with this is two-fold - clicking in the middle of the crop box already moves the crop box, and dragging the image only lets you move it one screen at a time (scroll bars give you quick scrolling anywhere within the image). I for one would prefer that clicking in the crop box did *not* move it under any circumstances. I've never seen a cropping mechanism that works this way anywhere else, and I suspect it's the cause of some of my frustration with positioning and sizing. It's much easier to (as in the HP TWAIN interface) start the corner of a new crop box if you click outside the existing one and drag to size it, or just drag the edges of an existing box. Rob
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
Rob Geraghty wrote: The only interface feature of vuescan which regularly drives me crazy is resizing the outline for the crop. Sometimes dragging an edge moves the whole box, sometimes it's possible to set the area outside the scannable area, sometimes it drags the corner instead of the side or vice versa. Amen to that! Drives me up the wall, too. Charles
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 3/5/2001 5:33:29 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As an alternative to scroll bars, would it be possible to use instead a hand to grab the image with the mouse and pull it to the location one wants, like ACDSee? The problem with this is two-fold - clicking in the middle of the crop box already moves the crop box, and dragging the image only lets you move it one screen at a time (scroll bars give you quick scrolling anywhere within the image). I realize that I could make the cursor modal, where it sometimes moves the crop box and other times moves the zoomed image, but I'd prefer to avoid modal things - it hurts ease of use for beginning users. I see. This raises the question of what the zoom feature is for, and it sounds like you intend it to be useful for cropping in the main. I had supposed it might be useful to zoom a portion in order to see the effects more readily of different preview/color options. My notion would be that when the thing is in zoom mode, you wouldn't be able to crop (but this is because I almost always just scan the full frame and crop in PS). Joel W. __ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
- Original Message - From: "Collin Ong" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 3:12 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements On Mon, 5 Mar 2001, shAf wrote: I though Ed made the point: "clean" would NOT soften the image except in the regions where dust was removed, BUT that softening kicks in for "scrub" "scour" because of his grain removal algorithm is used(?) Ed, I think many on the list would vote for a separate checkbox control to enable grain removal independently of the clean/scrub/scour setting. but scrub = clean + grain removal and scour = clean + heavier grain removal why would you want to seperate these? to allow the option of grain removal WITHOUT clean? ~j
RE: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
Joel asks ... ... This raises the question of what the zoom feature is for, ... One of the few features I appreciated about Nikonscan was the ability to zoom in and focus. Without this capability I would have never realized the focusing issues which affect scanning with my LS-2000 ... for example, the difference for holding the film flat between the film strip feeder and the film strip holder. Presumably, Vuescan can allow us to zoom in this far(?) The use of "strip holder" vs "strip feeder" brings up another bugaboo with VS. That being, because I choose to scan my negatives with the film strip holder, VS "mode" assumes I am scanning a slide. I do understand this has no affect on choosing the proper media (at least, I hope not), but it is confusing. shAf :o)
RE: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
Jules writes ... I think many on the list would vote for a separate checkbox control to enable grain removal independently of the clean/scrub/scour setting. but scrub = clean + grain removal and scour = clean + heavier grain removal why would you want to seperate these? to allow the option of grain removal WITHOUT clean? Presumably Ed's implimentation of "dust removal" would be an on/off switch, and the implimentation of "grain removal" would be a pull down list. I imagine this might cater to less confusion, and possibly those who simply do not want to throw another filter at they're data if they choose some degree of grain removal. I am with you, and find Ed's dust removal via IR so innocuous I use it all the time ... it doesn't bother me that its also part of grain removal. shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
On my LS-30 the abort command acts with what I consider reasonable speed, considering that the scanner has to physically stop it motion etc. As I recall, Ed did previously improve the abort command. Maris - Original Message - From: "Rob Geraghty" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 3:50 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements | "Hersch Nitikman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote re the abort button: | I find I have to hit it 2 or 3 times before it takes effect. | | I suspect this is more to do with how well the scanner responds to | an abort instruction while scanning than vuescan itself. | | Rob | | |
RE: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
I see. This raises the question of what the zoom feature is for, and it sounds like you intend it to be useful for cropping in the main. Yes, it's mainly useful for adjusting the cropping more precisely. As well as exposure I would venture to guess...
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
Ed, Thanks for the opportunity for all of us to give you input. 1.) The zoom preview sounds awesome. If we could zoom in two to four times to 400% it would be even better. 2.) Yes. 3.) Sounds like a good improvement. I would also suggest that a Prescan Tab should be added to the left side that would display a Prescan Window. A Prescan button would also be added that would allow a low resolution prescan of whatever film was placed in the scanner, up to 40 frames. The frames would be displayed in the Prescan window as thumbnails. These thumbnails would be selectable via the mouse using standard Windows selection techniques. (left click, control-left click, shift-left click). The selection would show up in the Frame Number settings, which would now be on the updated Crop Tab. While your at it, a histogram with mouse selectable white and black points would be way cool. Along with a little Unsharp Mask most images could be scanned and be ready to go straight out of Vuescan. Photoshop would only be needed for image manipulation or darkroom type finessing, not for scanning images. And the value of Vuescan will have grown exponentially (IMO). Keep up the great work! Bob Kehl - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 4:56 AM Subject: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements I'm thinking about some improvements to the VueScan user interface, and I'd like to solicit feedback and suggestions. These are the main things I'm thinking of - let me know if you don't like these changes or if you'd like to see things done differently: 1) Adding a "Zoom in" and "Zoom out" button that will double (or halve) the size of either the preview or scan images. While zoomed, the preview or scan window will have scroll bars. I'll also remove the "Exit" button to free up some space. 2) Move the Preview and Scan tabs to the left side of the window and move all the option tabs to the right side of the window. 3) Reorganize the tabs on the right side to make them a bit more logical and useful (these suggestions came from a helpful user): Scanner tab. This tab would include Scan From, Mode, Auto Scan, Auto Eject, Media Type, and Bits Per Pixel from the Device tab; Resolution, Auto Focus, Auto Exposure, and Number of Passes from the options tab. Color tab. This would include all the items in the current Color tab, plus all the items in the Media tab. Crop tab. This would include all the options from the current Crop tab plus, from the Device tab, the Region, Mirror, Rotate, and Frame numbers settings. Files tab. Everything from the current Files tab, along with Size Reduction, Get dpi, and Watermark from the Options tab. Preferences tab. This would have all the settings from what is now called the Window tab. If you have strong feelings about my doing things differently, please let me know soon. Regards, Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
I agree with Rob. Windows Common Dialog Boxes are what we have become accustomed to. (Forgive me Mac users!) Anything else is cumbersome and slows down our work, unless we are scanning every day and thereby get used to Vuescan's uniqueness. But most of us would rather be shooting pictures every day and scanning less frequently. Therefore something more standard would be greatly beneficial. Bob Kehl - Original Message - From: Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 7:17 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements Michael wrote: I concur, and that recent addition (not having to go to the Vuescan program files for the "crops") was really helpful. Paths are tough, and any improvements here (and there've been many) are welcome. IMO something like the Microsoft Common Dialog Box would be a great boon for setting the paths. That way it's done visually and you don't have to remember or type the text by hand. I'm talking about interface style when I mention the common dialog box - it would increase the size of the install to include the actual OCX (comdlg32.ocx, 137KB). The common dialog box also allows you to create directories in the process of creating the path, which is very handy. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
Ed Hamrick wrote: I realize that I could make the cursor modal, where it sometimes moves the crop box and other times moves the zoomed image, but I'd prefer to avoid modal things - it hurts ease of use for beginning users. I tend to agree. I've had my fill of "gimmickey" cursors, and the supposedly-changeable ones in PS bug the devil out of me. IMHO Ed's straight-ahead approach seems logical and easy-enough to use, once you get used to it. Best regards--LRA --- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
- Original Message - From: "shAf" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 8:52 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements Manually adjusting exposure, also brings up a point. I wish the number which would be input could be more intuitive. For example, if I wanted to increase the exposure by an f/stop equivelent, then double the number; 2 stops, quadruple the number. Trying to do this obviously brings up the question of doing this, and also having it equivalently affect ALL scanners VS supports. In this context, we do have to be careful/understanding when we make such suggestions for VS. brilliant idea. it would so cool to do all the measurements and adjustements in terms of EI values. this would be technically difficult to do, because each scanner would have to have it's own scales, calibrations might be off, etc. also, it may be intuitive to photographers, but what about graphic artists? is VueScan directed at photographers only? ~j
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
Ed-- I sometimes use zooming as a "throw away" to better correct colors detail-definition, where the real "subject" is perhaps 10% or less of the full picture. Will your implementation of the new zoom feature in Vuscan permit this, or would the image have to be rescanned with the adjusted settings after zooming? Both methods are do-able, but the first is faster. Best regards--LRA PS--I really wish other software developers would open up dialogs like this--HINT! for any of them reading the List. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 6, 2001 5:03:20 PM GMT Subject: Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements In a message dated 3/6/2001 9:54:57 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I see. This raises the question of what the zoom feature is for, and it sounds like you intend it to be useful for cropping in the main. Yes, it's mainly useful for adjusting the cropping more precisely. Regards, Ed Hamrick --- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
RE: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
Ed - I hope you _really_ wanted all of this feed back. :-) It sure beats talking about CD-Rs and printers. Most of my comments just reiterate what others have already told you, but it never hurts to repeat good ideas. I think your rearrangement of the options is a very good idea. I am always having to hunt around in order to find out where I need to set a particular option and it is never clear which options affect the raw scan and which ones only apply to the post scan processing. It looks like your rearrangement separates the device options (affecting the raw scan), the color and cropping options (affecting the image appearance), the file options, and the miscellaneous options. I would put the tabs containing the options on the left side and the image tabs on the right. Actually, why are there two sets of tabs? Is there much loss if the options and image are not visible at the same time? This would let the image fill more of the window. In addition to zooming in and out, I think you need "Actual Pixels" and "Fit Image" buttons. The buttons could be quite small and just labeled "---", "-", "+", and "+++". I hope you realize that this will create more pressure on you to color correct the displayed image. Identical to the way Photoshop will display the image (i.e., embedded color space -- monitor color space) should suffice. :-) I like the idea of having a grabber to move the zoomed image around. When the cursor is near the crop box, it should change to "|", "_", "|_", etc. Any other time it would be available for moving the image around. If you implement the ability to auto focus within a region, the cursor should also change near the focus box. Any time the cursor is within the image I would like to have a read out at the bottom displaying the XY position and the RGB value.
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
Yes, this already works in VueScan. Turn off "Options|Auto exposure" and set "Options|RGB exposure" and "Options|Infrared exposure". This controls the same SCSI fields as Nikon changes when you set the "Analog gain" option in NikonScan. Ed, As a VueScan and NikonScan user (I have an LS-30), I have to say that I cannot figure out what values I would put into VueScan in the two fields you mentioned whereas I use the NikonScan analog gain quite a bit - I can set negative or positive EV numbers. I just looked at VueScan, and if I turn off Auto exposure, I get the following numbers in the RBG exposure 0.925 and Infrared 1.999. I don't know what those mean, why they're different or what I should set them to. I looked at the help and it says that the numbers are a multiplier, so I assume that 0.925 is the equivalent of a small negative EV in NikonScan. I think this is a good general illustration of the difficulties of the VueScan interface. Even when I know what I want to do, I can't figure out what combination of boxes to check or what magic numbers need to be entered. When I have a problem scan, VueScan generally does a much better job than NikonScan in producing a quality image. However, I still find VueScan so hard to figure out that I use NikonScan most of the time. I think the general issue is that related things are not connected in the interface in any way. For example, when I asked Ed why I couldn't use cleaning, I didn't realize I had to set bits per pixel in the color tab to 64 as well as set the Clean in the Options tab to Clean. There are no clues that these two things are related. In NikonScan I have one pull down list for off/clean/clean+sharpen. To get back to the Analog Gain issue, why wouldn't you just have a +/- EV control for that? And how on earth would the user know what to put for the infrared exposure when that's something you can't see anyway? Another user had commented that workflow rather than logical groupings should drive the organization of the user interface. I think I agree with that although it is a hard problem to support the workflow of many different scanners with one interface. regards, Jo Ann
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
Ed. Something along this line and what Hersh said earlier. I find the Scan memory odd. It has really no advantage unless you want another file of the same scan. I would prefer changing it to something like PreScan, which will do the scan, not output a file, and allow me to check the changes I make to the what I thought was the last preview, if it is unsatisfactory. This will allow the previews to operate quuickly yet allow me to verify that the SCAN is what I want. If I think that the scan will be fine, I can skip it and do the Scan to the output file. If I use it and then scan to output, I will know that it is whayt I want. Gordon John Matturri wrote: A more responsive abort button would be nice. Not infrequently I find myself having made a mistake but spending a good deal of time while the scan is occurring waiting for a window when I can abort. Not sure if this might be due to something about my system though. John M.
RE: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
Gordon writes ... Ed. Something along this line and what Hersh said earlier. I find the Scan memory odd. It has really no advantage unless you want another file of the same scan. ... Exactly! Keep in mind, you, at least some of us, want another file. If you scan into a color space, you really do not have any idea what the scan really looks like until it is opened into Photoshop. That is why I turn on "saving a 1/4 res JPEG" and scan memory 'til I get it right ... and then I turn on "full res TIFF". Speaking of which ... is there any chance we'll see the next version of VS present the scan properly in "monitor space"??? To reiterate ... if you ask for AdobeRGB color space, Vuescan will show you AdobeRGB data in monitor space ... and your scans will appear under-saturated in Vuescan, but fine in Photoshop. shAf :o)
RE: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
Ed writes ... I'm thinking about some improvements to the VueScan user interface, and I'd like to solicit feedback and suggestions. These are the main things I'm thinking of - ... If you have strong feelings about my doing things differently, please let me know soon. I like these changes ... they seem to better reflect and separate the 2 modes for Vuescan ... (1) the raw scan and (2) subsequent cropping. I believe they'll allow new users to learm more quickly. If I had a wish list, I would (respectfully) suggest: (1) The focus number update itself with each "manual focus", allowing us to check more easily the film's flatness and choose intermediate values or a value specific to the where detail is important. (2) Make the individual RGB blackpoint and whitepoint values more intuitive. For example, if the general value reflects the %pixels to clip to Wp or Bp, then why can't the individual channel values reflect the same thing(?). (3) Also with regard to color balance settings, I don't understand why, for given brightness and contrast settings, choosing and experimenting with the different color balance methods (auto, neutral, white balance, etc) result in such coarse changes to the image. The direction in which the color balance changes is understandable, but whereas a good crop for "white balance" indicated specific brightness and gamma, I might choose "neutral" for another negative, but given both negatives were properly exposed, I need to unintuitively alter brightness and contrast to get the neutral balance right(?) (4) I think we all need to come up with how to better set the file paths ... or maybe I simply need to understand your current philosophy and experiment more. But I wish I could consistently store the settings in a specific location, independent of where I put my projects. Can I assume the "default" directory could be considered the "project" directory, and the locations where all raw, TIFFs and JPEGs go?? thanx for everything ... shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
Ed, Forgive me for not replying to your list. I will in another post. Yesterday, I fired up my LS-30 for the first time in several months to scan a Kodachrome slide. I was blown away by the improvement in VueScan in handling Kodachromes! I went into Nikonscan just to verify that it wasn't some sort of friendly gremlin healing my LS-30. No, some old compressed, unusable scan. Thank you! I can finally go where I wanted to go in PixelLand with my slides. I do have two nits to pick. 1) I tried using "clean" and while doing an excellent job of cleaning, it very noticeably degraded the image sharpness. Am I missing something here? 2) Is there a way to turn off the flashing of the cropping marquee? Marching ants or solid lines would be preferable, IMHO. Anyone who has a scanner supported by VueScan is nuts scanning without it. Best regards, Ken Jaskot - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm thinking about some improvements to the VueScan user interface, and I'd like to solicit feedback and suggestions.
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
On Mon, 5 Mar 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 3) Reorganize the tabs on the right side to make them a bit more logical and useful (these suggestions came from a helpful user): The suggested reorganization would definitely be an improvement, and the groupings are logical. However, I would suggest looking at the grouping from the standpoint of workflow usage rather than logic. This would group things that need to be setup once and rarely changed together, then stuff that would change every session, and then keep everything that you need to tweak a specific scan together. The idea being to minimize changing tabs all the time when you are tweaking a scan. An example: Preferences tab. This would have all the settings from what is now called the Window tab. Scanner tab. This tab would include Scan From, Mode, Auto Scan, Auto Eject, Session tab. Media Type, Bits Per Pixel, Resolution, Auto Focus, Auto-Exposure, Number of passes, File tab stuff Scan tab. Crop tab stuff, plus Region, Mirror, Rotate, Frame numbers, color tab stuff, maybe some of the media tab stuff. Possibly duplicates of: Number of passes, auto-exposure The distribution of the various options within each tab should probably be discussed further, but the main idea would be to allow most tweaking of scans to take place with all the relevant options on the same screen. Crop tab. This would include all the options from the current Crop tab plus, from the Device tab, the Region, Mirror, Rotate, and Frame numbers settings. About the rotate function, I've never spend enough time to totally figure this out, but it seems to operate relative to the orignal scan orientation, so it usually takes several tries for me to get something oriented correctly. Can the rotate option function relative to the currently displayed orientation? Thanks, Collin
RE: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
Ed, If #1 means that it would be possible to view them at 100%, I think it would be useful, just as viewing images at 100% in Photoshop provides the most utility. Count me as a YES for the rest. Bob Reilly -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 5:56 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements I'm thinking about some improvements to the VueScan user interface, and I'd like to solicit feedback and suggestions. These are the main things I'm thinking of - let me know if you don't like these changes or if you'd like to see things done differently: 1) Adding a "Zoom in" and "Zoom out" button that will double (or halve) the size of either the preview or scan images. While zoomed, the preview or scan window will have scroll bars. I'll also remove the "Exit" button to free up some space. 2) Move the Preview and Scan tabs to the left side of the window and move all the option tabs to the right side of the window. 3) Reorganize the tabs on the right side to make them a bit more logical and useful (these suggestions came from a helpful user): Scanner tab. This tab would include Scan From, Mode, Auto Scan, Auto Eject, Media Type, and Bits Per Pixel from the Device tab; Resolution, Auto Focus, Auto Exposure, and Number of Passes from the options tab. Color tab. This would include all the items in the current Color tab, plus all the items in the Media tab. Crop tab. This would include all the options from the current Crop tab plus, from the Device tab, the Region, Mirror, Rotate, and Frame numbers settings. Files tab. Everything from the current Files tab, along with Size Reduction, Get dpi, and Watermark from the Options tab. Preferences tab. This would have all the settings from what is now called the Window tab. If you have strong feelings about my doing things differently, please let me know soon. Regards, Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 4:56 AM Subject: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements | 1) Adding a "Zoom in" and "Zoom out" button that will double | (or halve) the size of either the preview or scan images. While | zoomed, the preview or scan window will have scroll bars. Very helpful for flatbed users as the image ends up too small when I used my Epson flatbed (uses the 2X2 frames grid). | I'll also remove the "Exit" button to free up some space. Good idea. It's easy but not necessary. | 2) Move the Preview and Scan tabs to the left side of the | window and move all the option tabs to the right side of | the window. I would do this the other way around - but then I'm right-handed ;) It just seems that most programs have the settings on the top and/or left, and resulting document, image, or what have you on the bottom and/or right, so this becomes custormary and intuitive for users. | 3) Reorganize the tabs on the right side to make them | a bit more logical and useful (these suggestions came | from a helpful user): | | Scanner tab. This tab would include Scan From, Mode, Auto Scan, Auto Eject, | Media Type, and Bits Per Pixel from the Device tab; Resolution, Auto Focus, | Auto Exposure, and Number of Passes from the options tab. I would rename "Mode" to "Device" but the rest I like | Color tab. This would include all the items in the current Color tab, plus | all the items in the Media tab. Sound fine to me. | Crop tab. This would include all the options from the current Crop tab plus, | from the Device tab, the Region, Mirror, Rotate, and Frame numbers settings. Excellent way to do it. Rename the tab to Frame or Compose perhaps? And maybe add the Size Reduction option to this tab instead of Files tab. IMHO a Reduction is more like a Rotate than a file type or dpi spec. | Files tab. Everything from the current Files tab, along with Size Reduction, | Get dpi, and Watermark from the Options tab. Yes, except for Size Reduction as I mentioned. | Preferences tab. This would have all the settings from what is now called the | Window tab. Yes - much clearer. Or maybe call it the Appearance tab? as crop specs and file specs are also Preferences, and these options deal with where (in what program if any) and how you view the resulting image. Thanks very much for giving us the opportunity to input ideas on this - you are unique! Maris Lidaka
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
1)Ed has previously said that this is an unfortunate but unreformable byproduct of Clean, Scrub and Scour. 2)On the Window tab uncheck "Blink crop box" Maris - Original Message - From: "Software City" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 10:54 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements | Ed, | Forgive me for not replying to your list. I will in another post. | Yesterday, I fired up my LS-30 for the first time in several months to | scan a Kodachrome slide. I was blown away by the improvement in VueScan in | handling Kodachromes! I went into Nikonscan just to verify that it wasn't | some sort of friendly gremlin healing my LS-30. No, some old compressed, | unusable scan. Thank you! I can finally go where I wanted to go in PixelLand | with my slides. | I do have two nits to pick. | 1) I tried using "clean" and while doing an excellent job of cleaning, | it very noticeably degraded the image sharpness. Am I missing something | here? | 2) Is there a way to turn off the flashing of the cropping marquee? | Marching ants or solid lines would be preferable, IMHO. | Anyone who has a scanner supported by VueScan is nuts scanning without | it. | Best regards, | Ken Jaskot | - Original Message - | From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | I'm thinking about some improvements to the VueScan | user interface, and I'd like to solicit feedback and suggestions. | | |
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
The thing I'd most like to see is to have the preview window 'live', i.e., when I invoke a scan option, have the effect show on the preview. That would make a whole lot of difference. At 05:56 AM 03/05/2001 -0500, you wrote: I'm thinking about some improvements to the VueScan user interface, and I'd like to solicit feedback and suggestions. These are the main things I'm thinking of - let me know if you don't like these changes or if you'd like to see things done differently: 1) Adding a Zoom in and Zoom out button that will double (or halve) the size of either the preview or scan images. While zoomed, the preview or scan window will have scroll bars. I'll also remove the Exit button to free up some space. 2) Move the Preview and Scan tabs to the left side of the window and move all the option tabs to the right side of the window. 3) Reorganize the tabs on the right side to make them a bit more logical and useful (these suggestions came from a helpful user): Scanner tab. This tab would include Scan From, Mode, Auto Scan, Auto Eject, Media Type, and Bits Per Pixel from the Device tab; Resolution, Auto Focus, Auto Exposure, and Number of Passes from the options tab. Color tab. This would include all the items in the current Color tab, plus all the items in the Media tab. Crop tab. This would include all the options from the current Crop tab plus, from the Device tab, the Region, Mirror, Rotate, and Frame numbers settings. Files tab. Everything from the current Files tab, along with Size Reduction, Get dpi, and Watermark from the Options tab. Preferences tab. This would have all the settings from what is now called the Window tab. If you have strong feelings about my doing things differently, please let me know soon. Regards, Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
In a message dated 3/5/2001 3:43:20 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 1)Ed has previously said that this is an unfortunate but unreformable byproduct of Clean, Scrub and Scour. The "Clean" option shouldn't visibly soften the image. Is it softening it? Is this with Kodachrome film or Ektachrome film? Is this with VueScan 6.7.5 (this version works best)? Regards, Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
In a message dated 3/5/2001 3:46:35 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The thing I'd most like to see is to have the preview window 'live', i.e., when I invoke a scan option, have the effect show on the preview. That would make a whole lot of difference. The problem with this is that the preview is almost always for a larger scan area than the scan. This is the only reason there are two different image windows. I may be misunderstanding what you've written however - could you elaborate on what you're asking for? Regards, Ed Hamrick
RE: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
IronWorks writes ... 1)Ed has previously said that this is an unfortunate but unreformable byproduct of Clean, Scrub and Scour. ... I though Ed made the point: "clean" would NOT soften the image except in the regions where dust was removed, BUT that softening kicks in for "scrub" "scour" because of his grain removal algorithm is used(?) shAf :o)
RE: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
Ed wrote: I'm thinking about some improvements to the VueScan user interface...These are the main things I'm thinking of clip 1) Adding a "Zoom in" and "Zoom out" button that will double (or halve) the size of either the preview or scan images. While zoomed, the preview or scan window will have scroll bars. That sounds very useful. Good thinking. 2) Move the Preview and Scan tabs to the left side of the window and move all the option tabs to the right side of the window. I'm less sure about that one. They seem logical to me now, although I've been known to hit the wrong one by accident, then have to search for the "Abort" button. If you move them, put that one over there, too. 3) Reorganize the tabs on the right side to make them a bit more logical and useful (these suggestions came from a helpful user): You sure know how to hurt a dyslexic, don't you? ;-) Sounds good, though. Best regards--LRA --- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
Ed Hamrick wrote: I'm thinking about some improvements to the VueScan user interface, and I'd like to solicit feedback and suggestions. The suggestions sound good (especially the preview zoom). There's another thing I would find useful (although I might be a minority of one). I still find tweaking the white and black percentages a bit hit and miss and end up doing this in Photoshop. Would it be possible to have a droppers to select white/black points, which would then show as an appropriate percentages? I know that this wouldn't be of much use to those users who primarily batch scan but I thought I'd mention it. It may just be that I've just not worked up a very good workflow yet! Al Bond
RE: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
shAF writes: (4) I think we all need to come up with how to better set the file paths ... or maybe I simply need to understand your current philosophy and experiment more. But I wish I could consistently store the settings in a specific location, independent of where I put my projects. Can I assume the "default" directory could be considered the "project" directory, and the locations where all raw, TIFFs and JPEGs go?? thanx for everything ... shAf :o) I concur, and that recent addition (not having to go to the Vuescan program files for the "crops") was really helpful. Paths are tough, and any improvements here (and there've been many) are welcome. Best regards--LRA --- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
RE: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
shAF writes: (4) I think we all need to come up with how to better set the file paths ... or maybe I simply need to understand your current philosophy and experiment more. But I wish I could consistently store the settings in a specific location, independent of where I put my projects. Can I assume the "default" directory could be considered the "project" directory, and the locations where all raw, TIFFs and JPEGs go?? thanx for everything ... shAf :o) I concur, and that recent addition (not having to go to the Vuescan program files for the "crops") was really helpful. Paths are tough, and any improvements here (and there've been many) are welcome. Best regards--LRA --- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
RE: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
shAF writes: (4) I think we all need to come up with how to better set the file paths ... or maybe I simply need to understand your current philosophy and experiment more. But I wish I could consistently store the settings in a specific location, independent of where I put my projects. Can I assume the "default" directory could be considered the "project" directory, and the locations where all raw, TIFFs and JPEGs go?? thanx for everything ... shAf :o) I concur, and that recent addition (not having to go to the Vuescan program files for the "crops") was really helpful. Paths are tough, and any improvements here (and there've been many) are welcome. Best regards--LRA --- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
Hersh wote: The thing I'd most like to see is to have the preview window 'live', i.e., when I invoke a scan option, have the effect show on the preview. That would make a whole lot of difference. That was an incarnation in a much earlier 6.x Vuescan version (possibly a Beta), and I liked it too. It more-or-less bypassed the "Preview Memory" command and had faster feedback, which is always welcome for OTJ color-correction. OTH, the current version may have more accuracy to it, or more stablility. Ed? --LRA --- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
RE: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
On Mon, 5 Mar 2001, shAf wrote: I though Ed made the point: "clean" would NOT soften the image except in the regions where dust was removed, BUT that softening kicks in for "scrub" "scour" because of his grain removal algorithm is used(?) Ed, I think many on the list would vote for a separate checkbox control to enable grain removal independently of the clean/scrub/scour setting. Collin
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
Just one more general request not related to the specifics of the changes: I and several/many others save our Vuescan.ini file and then replace the .ini in the new program with our saved settings. With all the changes on layout you are anticipating, please warn us if and when a new version comes out where we should not do this. This may be a nonsensical request, but I don't know programming except for a little BASIC I learned at Dartmouth, the originator of timesharing (remember that?). Maris - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 4:56 AM Subject: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements | I'm thinking about some improvements to the VueScan | user interface, and I'd like to solicit feedback and suggestions. [snipped]
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
What I mean is that if I set rotation to 90ccw, I'd like to see that happen to the image in the preview window. And if I propose a change in 'white point', e.g., that the effect would show in the preview, so I could change my mind if I didn't like it. Or, if I change the film type, the effect show up in the relatively low resolution preview, so I wouldn't have to change these things and rescan the high res image. As of now, nothing changes till the full scan happens. In Nikon Scan (excuse the dirty words) if I invoke a change in preview mode before scanning, I can see the effect in advance. Hersch At 04:40 PM 03/05/2001 -0500, you wrote: In a message dated 3/5/2001 3:46:35 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The thing I'd most like to see is to have the preview window 'live', i.e., when I invoke a scan option, have the effect show on the preview. That would make a whole lot of difference. The problem with this is that the preview is almost always for a larger scan area than the scan. This is the only reason there are two different image windows. I may be misunderstanding what you've written however - could you elaborate on what you're asking for? Regards, Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
YES ! Thanks Ed ! Sincerely. Ezio www.lucenti.com e-photography site - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 11:56 AM Subject: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements I'm thinking about some improvements to the VueScan user interface, and I'd like to solicit feedback and suggestions. These are the main things I'm thinking of - let me know if you don't like these changes or if you'd like to see things done differently: 1) Adding a "Zoom in" and "Zoom out" button that will double (or halve) the size of either the preview or scan images. While zoomed, the preview or scan window will have scroll bars. I'll also remove the "Exit" button to free up some space. 2) Move the Preview and Scan tabs to the left side of the window and move all the option tabs to the right side of the window. 3) Reorganize the tabs on the right side to make them a bit more logical and useful (these suggestions came from a helpful user): Scanner tab. This tab would include Scan From, Mode, Auto Scan, Auto Eject, Media Type, and Bits Per Pixel from the Device tab; Resolution, Auto Focus, Auto Exposure, and Number of Passes from the options tab. Color tab. This would include all the items in the current Color tab, plus all the items in the Media tab. Crop tab. This would include all the options from the current Crop tab plus, from the Device tab, the Region, Mirror, Rotate, and Frame numbers settings. Files tab. Everything from the current Files tab, along with Size Reduction, Get dpi, and Watermark from the Options tab. Preferences tab. This would have all the settings from what is now called the Window tab. If you have strong feelings about my doing things differently, please let me know soon. Regards, Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
Kodachrome 6.7.4. I'll load 6.7.5 tonight let you know. Sorry for the incomplete post. Ken Jaskot - Original Message - The "Clean" option shouldn't visibly soften the image. Is it softening it? Is this with Kodachrome film or Ektachrome film? Is this with VueScan 6.7.5 (this version works best)? Regards, Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
Maybe my request reflected a lack of appreciation of where else to go for the same features. At 06:29 PM 03/05/2001 -0500, you wrote: Hersh wote: The thing I'd most like to see is to have the preview window 'live', i.e., when I invoke a scan option, have the effect show on the preview. That would make a whole lot of difference. That was an incarnation in a much earlier 6.x Vuescan version (possibly a Beta), and I liked it too. It more-or-less bypassed the "Preview Memory" command and had faster feedback, which is always welcome for OTJ color-correction. OTH, the current version may have more accuracy to it, or more stablility. Ed? --LRA --- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
RE: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
Collin wrote: I think many on the list would vote for a separate checkbox control to enable grain removal independently of the clean/scrub/scour setting. I'd vote for that. Not necessarily because it would help a lot - more because at the moment I have no way to tell what difference it makes to do one, the other or both. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
RE: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
Michael wrote: I concur, and that recent addition (not having to go to the Vuescan program files for the "crops") was really helpful. Paths are tough, and any improvements here (and there've been many) are welcome. IMO something like the Microsoft Common Dialog Box would be a great boon for setting the paths. That way it's done visually and you don't have to remember or type the text by hand. I'm talking about interface style when I mention the common dialog box - it would increase the size of the install to include the actual OCX (comdlg32.ocx, 137KB). The common dialog box also allows you to create directories in the process of creating the path, which is very handy. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
Ed Hamrick wrote: I'm thinking about some improvements to the VueScan user interface, and I'd like to solicit feedback and suggestions. The only interface feature of vuescan which regularly drives me crazy is resizing the outline for the crop. Sometimes dragging an edge moves the whole box, sometimes it's possible to set the area outside the scannable area, sometimes it drags the corner instead of the side or vice versa. Most programs which have resizable items change the mouse pointer appropriately for what kind of drag is available at that point - a horizontal double ended arrow for horizontal drag, vertical for vertical, angled for corners. This adds a visual assistance to the process. It seems to be too easy to trigger the wrong movement in the crop outline. Being able to set the crop outside the scan area is wierd. I can work with the behaviour of the crop box, but it means I end up taking a lot longer to set it than in say the HP TWAIN interface or Nikonscan, where I simply click on a corner and drag over the region I want. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
Title: Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements on 3/5/01 3:56 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm thinking about some improvements to the VueScan user interface, and I'd like to solicit feedback and suggestions. Regards, Ed Hamrick I just started to try out the share ware version, so I don't have much to say yet. But a couple things come to mind: change the Right and Left rotate commancs to CW and CCW; no big deal and a matter of preference, although it is also more logical you might make the white and black points selectable on screen, like they do in Minolta Scan Dual II software. Or is that getting into a whole new graphical programming area? -Berry
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
Joel Wilcox wrote: --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1) Adding a "Zoom in" and "Zoom out" button that will double (or halve) the size of either the preview or scan images. While zoomed, the preview or scan window will have scroll bars. As an alternative to scroll bars, would it be possible to use instead a hand to grab the image with the mouse and pull it to the location one wants, like ACDSee? I'd like the hand, too. Like Photoshop! Ed, I assume you mean the zoom could be applied repeatedly? --Alan
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
Rob Geraghty wrote: IMO something like the Microsoft Common Dialog Box would be a great boon for setting the paths. That way it's done visually and you don't have to remember or type the text by hand. I'm talking about interface style when I mention the common dialog box - it would increase the size of the install to include the actual OCX (comdlg32.ocx, 137KB). The common dialog box also allows you to create directories in the process of creating the path, which is very handy. I agree that the dialog box would be a good thing, but I do have to point out that directory creation already happens, and automatically, if you enter a pathname into the raw, TIFF, or JPEG file name fields! --Alan
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
Alan wrote: I agree that the dialog box would be a good thing, but I do have to point out that directory creation already happens, and automatically, if you enter a pathname into the raw, TIFF, or JPEG file name fields! Which is nice, but less foolproof than the common dialog box. If you make a mistake anywhere in the directory structure, a new structure with the error in it will be created. The common dialog box only creates one level at a time. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
Something in the nature of clean light, medium, and heavy perhaps? Maris - Original Message - From: "Bob Shomler" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 8:51 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements | I though Ed made the point: "clean" would NOT soften the image except | in the regions where dust was removed, BUT that softening kicks in for | "scrub" "scour" because of his grain removal algorithm is used(?) | ... | I think many on the list would vote for a separate checkbox control to | enable grain removal independently of the clean/scrub/scour setting. | | That would be best; but if not that, at least change the terms in the Clean option selection set to more accurately reflect what they cause vuescan to do now (the terms Scrub and Scour seem to have little relation to the grain removal process that is performed in the current release). | | -- | Bob Shomler | http://www.shomler.com/gallery.htm |
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
A more responsive abort button would be nice. Not infrequently I find myself having made a mistake but spending a good deal of time while the scan is occurring waiting for a window when I can abort. Not sure if this might be due to something about my system though. John M.
