Re: filmscanners: Vuescan question
I prefer to fine-tune color, contrast and everything else in post-scan processing in Photopaint or Photoshop or PSP or whatever your favorite program is. Thanks Maris - is their any benefit to be had by doing things this way as opposed to doing it up-front? Other than , I suppose , when scanning a batch of stuff using the same parameters ? Steve
RE: filmscanners: Vuescan question
At 12:51 24-07-01 +1000, Julian Robinson wrote: I am one of those who has not found the problems that others report with Nikonscan; I have found it to do what it should do, quickly and with great control. In general I agree with that and especially appreciate the control that NS gives me. There are, however, difficult slides especially old Kodachromes where Vuescan does a better job so it's good to have both of them. The bottom line for me is that I have both, and I actually use Nikonscan. There are plenty of others for whom the opposite will apply. I will say that for most people there is nothing wrong with Nikonscan, and it is one of the most powerful OEM scanning softwares around. Agreed. Version 3.1 of NS still crashes on my system from time to time but I've learned to live with it. I just wish that Nikon's programmers were even remotely as clever as Ed Hamrick because Vuescan is much faster than NS in all its functions. It's frustrating that NS performs file operations so glacially. Cary Enoch Reinstein aka Enoch's Vision, Inc., Peach County, Georgia http://www.enochsvision.com/, http://www.bahaivision.com/ -- Behind all these manifestations is the one radiance, which shines through all things. The function of art is to reveal this radiance through the created object. ~Joseph Campbell
Re: filmscanners: Vuescan question
Other than personal preference, the only benefit I see is that you can see the image better in Photopaint/PS and have more features available with which to make various adjustments, including changing to different color spaces, and have the information panel available. Maris - Original Message - From: Steve Woolfenden [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 5:12 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Vuescan question | I prefer to | fine-tune color, contrast and everything else in post-scan processing in | Photopaint or Photoshop or PSP or whatever your favorite program is. | | Thanks Maris - is their any benefit to be had by doing things this way as | opposed to doing it up-front? Other than , I suppose , when scanning a batch | of stuff using the same parameters ? | Steve | |
Re: filmscanners: Vuescan question
Thanks Marc , didnt know you were here too! I'll check this out. Steve Steve, You may want to check out http://www.scantips.com Marc
Re: filmscanners: Vuescan question
I was in the same boat as you, and of the same opinion, until I downloaded a recent version of Vuescan. I'm very impressed with the improvements Ed has made recently (I use an LS-30). There are still occasions where Nikonscan seems to get the better range of colors with chromes (after editing both in Photoshop). I'd like to understand why this is but can't say that I do. Color negs are beautiful with Vuescan -- the image structure itself is considerably better than what comes out of Nikonscan, and no complaints about the color. Dave - Original Message - From: Julian Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 23, 2001 10:51 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Vuescan question I am one of those who has not found the problems that others report with Nikonscan; I have found it to do what it should do, quickly and with great control. I bought Vuescan after reading how much better it was, but have not found it to be either better or worse, just different and much more difficult to use - for me (who has not spent much time on learning how to cope with its non-G UI). The histogram in Nikonscan I find invaluable: I always feel as though I am flying blind with Vuescan even though the results are usually not bad. Last time I tried Vuescan's IR dust removal I found it didn't work as well for me as ICE, but this may have improved since then, or at least I should say it definitely has improved going by what I have read here. The bottom line for me is that I have both, and I actually use Nikonscan. There are plenty of others for whom the opposite will apply. I will say that for most people there is nothing wrong with Nikonscan, and it is one of the most powerful OEM scanning softwares around. I suggest the obvious - try Nikonscan (which you have) and try Vuescan (try-before-you-buy version) and compare. Then tell us what you discover. Julian PS if it is the learning curve that is worrying you about Nikonscan, I think it is not too bad, and you will learn much about your scanner features and capabilities that would be useful anyway, even if you end up using Vuescan. The Vuescan interface means that you can remain unaware of scanner features for a long time! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Steve Woolfenden Sent: Monday, July 23, 2001 5:27 PM To: FILMSCANNERS Subject: filmscanners: Vuescan question I'm a little apprehensive asking this question considering the present debate , but , I'm a total novice to scanning and you've got to start somewhere I've just bought a Nikon 4000 scanner , which came with the Nikon Scan3 software . I've not even used it enough to form an opinion about it , but am wondering whether I should be going straight over to vuescan - others have told me its better. Is this the case and what does it do that the supplied stuff wont? Thanks , Steve p.s. I see a few familiar names from the Contax list here - Hi guys! Julian Robinson in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia
RE: filmscanners: Vuescan question
At 12:51 PM 7/24/01 +1000, Julian wrote: Last time I tried Vuescan's IR dust removal I found it didn't work as well for me as ICE, but this may have improved since then, or at least I should say it definitely has improved going by what I have read here. The bottom line for me is that I have both, and I actually use Nikonscan. There are plenty of others for whom the opposite will apply. I will say that for most people there is nothing wrong with Nikonscan, and it is one of the most powerful OEM scanning softwares around. I suggest the obvious - try Nikonscan (which you have) and try Vuescan (try-before-you-buy version) and compare. Then tell us what you discover. I'm with you, Julian. I own Vuescan, and have tried it on my 1640 (and on my SS 35, unless I'm imagining that part) and found it not compatible with my way of working. NikonScan 3.1 is one of the better vendor- supplied drivers I've worked with. rafe b.
Re: filmscanners: Vuescan question
Thanks for the alternative view Julian! I suppose I really should try both and see - ultimately I suspect that I might go for the easiest option in the shortterm as I'm also trying to find my way round Photoshop and a new printer all at the same time ! Steve I am one of those who has not found the problems that others report with Nikonscan; I have found it to do what it should do, quickly and with great control. I bought Vuescan after reading how much better it was, but have not found it to be either better or worse, just different and much more difficult to use - for me (who has not spent much time on learning how to cope with its non-G UI). The histogram in Nikonscan I find invaluable: I always feel as though I am flying blind with Vuescan even though the results are usually not bad. Last time I tried Vuescan's IR dust removal I found it didn't work as well for me as ICE, but this may have improved since then, or at least I should say it definitely has improved going by what I have read here. The bottom line for me is that I have both, and I actually use Nikonscan. There are plenty of others for whom the opposite will apply. I will say that for most people there is nothing wrong with Nikonscan, and it is one of the most powerful OEM scanning softwares around. I suggest the obvious - try Nikonscan (which you have) and try Vuescan (try-before-you-buy version) and compare. Then tell us what you discover. Julian PS if it is the learning curve that is worrying you about Nikonscan, I think it is not too bad, and you will learn much about your scanner features and capabilities that would be useful anyway, even if you end up using Vuescan. The Vuescan interface means that you can remain unaware of scanner features for a long time! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Steve Woolfenden Sent: Monday, July 23, 2001 5:27 PM To: FILMSCANNERS Subject: filmscanners: Vuescan question I'm a little apprehensive asking this question considering the present debate , but , I'm a total novice to scanning and you've got to start somewhere I've just bought a Nikon 4000 scanner , which came with the Nikon Scan3 software . I've not even used it enough to form an opinion about it , but am wondering whether I should be going straight over to vuescan - others have told me its better. Is this the case and what does it do that the supplied stuff wont? Thanks , Steve p.s. I see a few familiar names from the Contax list here - Hi guys! Julian Robinson in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia
RE: filmscanners: Vuescan question
I think so. Go directly to hamrick.com, do not past go :-) I use an LS-40 and am very happy with Vuescan. Occasionally, I will do comparisons between NS3 and Vuescan. Vuescan always is the winner. Marc -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Steve WoolfendenSent: Monday, July 23, 2001 5:27 PMTo: FILMSCANNERSSubject: filmscanners: Vuescan question I'm a little apprehensive asking this question considering the present debate , but , I'm a total novice to scanning and you've got to start somewhere I've just bought a Nikon 4000 scanner , which came with the Nikon Scan3 software .I've not even used it enough to form an opinion about it , but am wondering whether I should be going straight over to vuescan - others have told me its "better". Is this the case and what does it do that the supplied stuff wont? Thanks , Steve p.s. I see a few familiar names from the Contax list here - Hi guys!
RE: filmscanners: Vuescan question
I am one of those who has not found the problems that others report with Nikonscan; I have found it to do what it should do, quickly and with great control. I bought Vuescan after reading how much better it was, but have not found it to be either better or worse, just different and much more difficult to use - for me (who has not spent much time on learning how to cope with its non-G UI). The histogram in Nikonscan I find invaluable: I always feel as though I am flying blind with Vuescan even though the results are usually not bad. Last time I tried Vuescan's IR dust removal I found it didn't work as well for me as ICE, but this may have improved since then, or at least I should say it definitely has improved going by what I have read here. The bottom line for me is that I have both, and I actually use Nikonscan. There are plenty of others for whom the opposite will apply. I will say that for most people there is nothing wrong with Nikonscan, and it is one of the most powerful OEM scanning softwares around. I suggest the obvious - try Nikonscan (which you have) and try Vuescan (try-before-you-buy version) and compare. Then tell us what you discover. Julian PS if it is the learning curve that is worrying you about Nikonscan, I think it is not too bad, and you will learn much about your scanner features and capabilities that would be useful anyway, even if you end up using Vuescan. The Vuescan interface means that you can remain unaware of scanner features for a long time! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Steve Woolfenden Sent: Monday, July 23, 2001 5:27 PM To: FILMSCANNERS Subject: filmscanners: Vuescan question I'm a little apprehensive asking this question considering the present debate , but , I'm a total novice to scanning and you've got to start somewhere I've just bought a Nikon 4000 scanner , which came with the Nikon Scan3 software . I've not even used it enough to form an opinion about it , but am wondering whether I should be going straight over to vuescan - others have told me its better. Is this the case and what does it do that the supplied stuff wont? Thanks , Steve p.s. I see a few familiar names from the Contax list here - Hi guys! Julian Robinson in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia
Re: filmscanners: VueScan Question
In a message dated 6/5/2001 5:28:40 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Can you perhaps post an example of what the infrared scan looks like of a typical image? You can do this yourself by setting Files|TIFF file type to 16 bit Infrared. Regards, Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: VueScan Question
Well, I could if I had a scanner which did IR scans, but I don't ;-) Could someone please send me an IR scan of an image (slide or neg, just tell me which it is) to look at? I'd like to see what IR sees Perhaps that might help me to better understand this whole process. Art [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 6/5/2001 5:28:40 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Can you perhaps post an example of what the infrared scan looks like of a typical image? You can do this yourself by setting Files|TIFF file type to 16 bit Infrared. Regards, Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: VueScan Question
In a message dated 6/5/2001 11:11:38 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I noticed a deep scratch in one of my negs, so I turned on Light Clean in the Filter tab and scanned from Disk again. The scratch disappeared. Yes, this is what should happen. So I suppose my question is: if Clean is None on the Filter tab, is there any IR channel information in the raw scan? or did Vuescan remove the scratch via its internal algorithims? This is controlled by the Device|Bits per pixel setting. If you can with it set to 64 bit RGBI (the default), there will be an infrared channel in the raw scan file. Regards, Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: VueScan Question
On Wed, 6 Jun 2001 02:29:20 EDT, you wrote: This is controlled by the Device|Bits per pixel setting. If you can with it set to 64 bit RGBI (the default), there will be an infrared channel in the raw scan file. Great, thanks: that answered my question perfectly.
Re: filmscanners: VueScan Question
In a message dated 6/4/2001 10:38:06 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm guessing, but I would be surprised that the infrared light scan would have very much noise artifacting in it. The exact same CCD and A/D converter is used to scan the image in infrared and visible light. The only difference between the two scan passes is which lamp is turned on. Regards, Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: VueScan Question
Hi Ed, Again, not to be argumentative, but, I do understand it is the same CCD. That isn't the issue. We know that, for instance, typically the blue scan is noisier than the green or red, right? I have no idea what type of response the infrared sensitivity of the CCD is, but I'm (guessing) that the infrared scan looks nothing like the visible light spectrum scan, and isn't influences at all in the same way to shadow density of the visible light scan. Have you tried my suggestion just to see if it makes any visible difference? (perhaps just doing a compare of the IR scans in Photoshop might give a clue). Can you perhaps post an example of what the infrared scan looks like of a typical image? If you are stating that the CCD has the same response to IR light as to visible light, then I am guessing the dICE system is adding a certain amount of random noise to the scan, in fact, it is, in effect doubling it in a one scan situation, since each scan introduces a different set of noise and the they are subtracted from one another. And again, the question I asked last time begs to be answered: If the visible light scan introduces erroneous random noise artifacting in the shadow area data, and then the dICE infrared scan does the same thing, (capturing different noise and random errors) wouldn't that introduce a second level of errors, since the dICE scan would have different random pixel data (noise) than that of the visible light scan, and when the subtraction formula occurs, some data would either be subtracted that should not have been, or not subtracted that should have been? I think it may be time to ask our friend from ASF for some comments about how CCD's respond to IR, etc. Art [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 6/4/2001 10:38:06 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm guessing, but I would be surprised that the infrared light scan would have very much noise artifacting in it. The exact same CCD and A/D converter is used to scan the image in infrared and visible light. The only difference between the two scan passes is which lamp is turned on. Regards, Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: VueScan Question
On Tue, 5 Jun 2001 05:11:56 EDT, you wrote: The exact same CCD and A/D converter is used to scan the image in infrared and visible light. The only difference between the two scan passes is which lamp is turned on. I've just purchased an LS-2000 and am clambering up the learning curve. My workflow currently is 1. Make index file, turning on raw scans as well, filter off. 2. Select negs to scan, preview from Disk, 3. crop then scan from Disk. I noticed a deep scratch in one of my negs, so I turned on Light Clean in the Filter tab and scanned from Disk again. The scratch disappeared. So I suppose my question is: if Clean is None on the Filter tab, is there any IR channel information in the raw scan? or did Vuescan remove the scratch via its internal algorithims? Yuri.
Re: filmscanners: VueScan Question
In a message dated 6/3/2001 10:55:46 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Unlike Nikons, doesn't this scanner insist the IR channel scan separately from the RGB scan ... ie, a 2nd pass. I thought the original post was stating, if he wanted 16x RGB passes, it also scanned the IR 16x. There would indeed be no need for this. There's no point to increasing the bit depth of the RGB data if the IR data doesn't have the bit depth similarly increased. The two are combined when doing dust removal. This is why there are the same number of passes for the RGB data as the infrared data. Regards, Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: VueScan Question
I don't mean to question your authority on this, since I don't own a 2740 and you probably have worked with one, however, I am trying to understand the mechanism of this situation. I understand that dICE works by doing a comparison of the infrared image and the visible image and does some sort of subtractive process, to assume that stuff that is on the one and not the other is likely dust, dirt, fingerprints, scratches, etc. I also understand that the concept of multipass is to average out the random noise a CCD produces in the visible spectrum, by basically assuming any pixel which alters value through a number of scans is likely an artifact of noise rather than real data. What I'm not clear on is this... Does the infrared scan tend to have similar amounts af shadow noise during its data acquisition? In other words, is it really necessary to do 4 or 8 or 16 infrared scans of an image to get a more accurate infrared scan of the image? If so, wouldn't that mean that dICE actually adds a certain amount of random noise (or random artifacting) to the scan when doing a since pass scan. After all, if the visible light scan makes an image and during that, the shadow area data contains a certain amount of erronious random noise artifacting, and then the dICE infrared scan does the same thing, wouldn't that introduce a second level of errors, since the dICE scan would have different random pixel data (noise) than that of the visible light scan, and when the subtraction formula occurs, some data would either be subtracted that should not have been, or not subtracted that should have been? Again, I'm guessing, but I would be surprised that the infrared light scan would have very much noise artifacting in it. I'm therefore also guessing that taking one infrared scan and then simply using it as the subtractive model for all the multi-visible light scans would make little difference in the final result. Ed, if you have access to an Acer 2740 and can write you software to do this (take one infrared scan, and then average all the visible light scans and then do the subtractive process once) you will find almost no difference in the final result, and probably no meaningful difference. Coming from this with no way of documenting it, but using gut science ;-) only, I very interested if such a test could be carried out. This would tremendously help any 2740 owners when doing multi-scans with dICE. Art [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 6/3/2001 10:55:46 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Unlike Nikons, doesn't this scanner insist the IR channel scan separately from the RGB scan ... ie, a 2nd pass. I thought the original post was stating, if he wanted 16x RGB passes, it also scanned the IR 16x. There would indeed be no need for this. There's no point to increasing the bit depth of the RGB data if the IR data doesn't have the bit depth similarly increased. The two are combined when doing dust removal. This is why there are the same number of passes for the RGB data as the infrared data. Regards, Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: VueScan Question
Walter Bushell wrote: Dear Mr. Hamrick: Is it necessary to rescan with infrared every time, IOW, when doing multiple scans of the same film is it necessary to do an IR scan every time? With my ScanWit 2740 scanner it takes about 35 minutes to do a 16 pass scan (including the 16 IR scans), with a 666* Pentium III and 128 MB ram. With 48 bit scanning and heavy cleanup it does a great job on my problem film, but for a 4 fram shot its go take a walk time. * Dell says 667, but we really know what's happening. How dare Dell take such liberties with their rounding off of processor speeds. Off with their heads ;-) You raise a good point about the 2740 Acer. Unlike the other dICE scanners (which have an Infrared channel) which do the IR scan at the same time as the color scans, Acer requires a separate IR scan. It does seem a bit unnecessary to do 16 IR scans, one would think. Art
Re: filmscanners: VueScan Question
Rob writes ... Walter Bushell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is it necessary to rescan with infrared every time, IOW, when doing multiple scans of the same film is it necessary to do an IR scan every time? If you want to have the cleaning features in Vuescan work, you need the IR channel. Bu there's no need to rescan a frame. Scan it once, produce a raw file then crop from the raw file. Unlike Nikons, doesn't this scanner insist the IR channel scan separately from the RGB scan ... ie, a 2nd pass. I thought the original post was stating, if he wanted 16x RGB passes, it also scanned the IR 16x. There would indeed be no need for this. shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: VueScan Question
Walter Bushell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is it necessary to rescan with infrared every time, IOW, when doing multiple scans of the same film is it necessary to do an IR scan every time? If you want to have the cleaning features in Vuescan work, you need the IR channel. Bu there's no need to rescan a frame. Scan it once, produce a raw file then crop from the raw file. Rob
Re: filmscanners: VueScan Question
Or use the Scan memory button instead of Scan (as long as it's still the most recent scan you've made and you haven't closed down the program to release the memory) - Vuescan will hold the most recent scan in raw form in memory for this purpose. Maris - Original Message - From: Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2001 10:48 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: VueScan Question | Walter Bushell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Is it necessary to rescan with infrared every time, IOW, when doing | multiple scans of the same film is it necessary to do an IR scan every | time? | | If you want to have the cleaning features in Vuescan work, you need | the IR channel. Bu there's no need to rescan a frame. Scan it once, | produce a raw file then crop from the raw file. | | Rob | |
