PC Review


Reply
Thread Tools Rate Thread

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

 
 
Ralf R. Radermacher
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      27th Jul 2005
Neil Gould <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> 2) Your opinion about its reliability differs from the experience of many,


Neil,

You should have followed this bugger long enough to know that he's a
troll and that he isn't here to discuss anything. He goes on and on like
a broken record and you're only giving him the attention he's feeding
on.

Simply put him in your killfile and help us make this newsgroup the
friendly place it used to be. Thank you.

Ralf

P.S.: I would have preferred to send you this as an email but it appears
you're using a faked address.

--
Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany
private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de
manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005
Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Neil Gould
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      27th Jul 2005
Recently, Ralf R. Radermacher <(E-Mail Removed)> posted:

> Neil Gould <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> 2) Your opinion about its reliability differs from the experience of
>> many,

>
> Neil,
>
> You should have followed this bugger long enough to know that he's a
> troll and that he isn't here to discuss anything. He goes on and on
> like a broken record and you're only giving him the attention he's
> feeding on.
>

I understand your perspective, but wouldn't go so far as to say that Don
is a troll. His perspective toward Vuescan is a bit puzzling and annoying,
to be sure. If nothing occasionally counters misinformation and hyperbole,
it may be mistaken for fact by some innocent inquirer.

> Simply put him in your killfile and help us make this newsgroup the
> friendly place it used to be. Thank you.
>

I don't do killfiles...no one is always wrong about everything. ;-)

I found Don's exchange with Kennedy McEwen (Minolta 5400 or Coolscan V) to
be enlightening, and it would have been hard to follow that thread from
reading only Kennedy's posts.

> P.S.: I would have preferred to send you this as an email but it
> appears you're using a faked address.
>

Sorry... it's a drastic move to keep spam at manageable levels.

Regards,

--
Neil Gould
--------------------------------------
Terra Tu - www.terratu.com
Technical Graphics & Media





 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Ralf R. Radermacher
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      27th Jul 2005
Neil Gould <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> If nothing occasionally counters misinformation and hyperbole,
> it may be mistaken for fact by some innocent inquirer.


If noone would reply to his pointless provocation he'd be gone in a
matter of days.

Ralf

--
Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany
private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de
manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005
Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses
 
Reply With Quote
 
Hecate
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      27th Jul 2005
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 11:40:45 GMT, "Neil Gould"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Recently, Evo2Me <(E-Mail Removed)> posted:
>
>> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 23:09:58 +0100, Hecate <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> Then, of course, it would about the same price as Silverfast - and
>>> guess what? - Silverfast works.

>>

>[...]
>>
>> Yes, I cannot imagine Vuescan's price going up to compete directly
>> with Lasersoft's application; still, while Silverfast would run with
>> one scanner for this price, Vuescan would be working with lots of
>> older and new devices.
>>

>I really don't understand why Don and others don't get this point.
>

It's quite simple - if I was purchasing software, I'd rather purchase
software that works correctly pout of box and is tied to one type of
scanner, than buy software which doesn't work correctly on *any*
scanner.

--

Hecate - The Real One
(E-Mail Removed)
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
 
Reply With Quote
 
Neil Gould
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      28th Jul 2005
Recently, Hecate <(E-Mail Removed)> posted:

> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 11:40:45 GMT, "Neil Gould"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> I really don't understand why Don and others don't get this point.
>> (that different software is aimed at different markets of users)
>>

> It's quite simple - if I was purchasing software, I'd rather purchase
> software that works correctly pout of box and is tied to one type of
> scanner, than buy software which doesn't work correctly on *any*
> scanner.
>

So... I take it you've found scanning software without bugs? I've not seen
such an application in over 20 years of scanning, so perhaps that has
shaped my expectations differently. ;-)

Regards,

--
Neil Gould
--------------------------------------
Terra Tu - www.terratu.com
Technical Graphics & Media


 
Reply With Quote
 
Ralf R. Radermacher
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      28th Jul 2005
Neil Gould <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> I found Don's exchange with Kennedy McEwen (Minolta 5400 or Coolscan V) to
> be enlightening...


Just think of all the far more enlightening exchanges you're missing
because these idiots have driven dozens of valuable contributors out of
this forum.

Ralf

--
Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany
private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de
manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005
Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses
 
Reply With Quote
 
Neil Gould
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      28th Jul 2005
Recently, Ralf R. Radermacher <(E-Mail Removed)> posted:

> Neil Gould <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> I found Don's exchange with Kennedy McEwen (Minolta 5400 or Coolscan
>> V) to be enlightening...

>
> Just think of all the far more enlightening exchanges you're missing
> because these idiots have driven dozens of valuable contributors out
> of this forum.
>

Then, I suppose the question becomes how to best reclaim the territory?
Running off doesn't work. Ignoring the irritating posts doesn't work.
What's left other than confronting misinformation and raising the issue
within the forum?

Neil


 
Reply With Quote
 
Ralf R. Radermacher
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      28th Jul 2005
Neil Gould <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Ignoring the irritating posts doesn't work.


Sure does. Trolls go away if noone feeds them.

Keep responding to them and you become part of the problem.

Ralf

--
Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany
private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de
manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005
Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses
 
Reply With Quote
 
Don
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      28th Jul 2005
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 17:19:23 GMT, "Neil Gould"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>> What does any of the above have to do with the avalanche of Vuescan
>> bugs or its notorious lack of reliability?
>>

>1) Even though I'd call "the avalanche of... bugs" hyperbole, the bottom
>line is that the bugs don't affect everyone's usage.


But they do! The vast portion of (recurring) Vuescan bugs affect all
users. When Vuescan just stops scanning, or gets "double vision" or
the cropping stops working, etc. it affects everyone. (For "avalanche"
see appendix...)

Occasionally, there is also a scanner specific bug (the *2-year*
Minolta saga comes to mind) but the overwhelming number of Vuescan
bugs are indiscriminate and, perhaps even more importantly, recurring!

>2) Your opinion about its reliability differs from the experience of many,
>including myself. I don't find that it fails any more often than
>Silverfast or ScanWizard Pro with my scanners.


First of all, it's not an opinion but fact. As I keep repeating:
Please check the archives! I've been in the software business longer
than I care to remember but I have never seen a program this buggy and
exhibiting such amateur incompetence.

Again: Please check the archives! I'm not talking about some casual
bug, but about really *elementary* bugs which any other software irons
out before the program is even released. Vuescan is in major version
8! To add insult to injury, Vuescan then has a habit of bringing the
same bugs back, over and over again. Please check the archives!

>> Please check the archives! You'd be surprised to learn I have even
>> recommended Vuescan to people who don't care for quality and just want
>> a quick-and-dirty web scan.
>>

>Your opinion on this differs from many others, so perhaps a grain or two
>of salt is appropriate. Such a global statement only exposes your bias,
>Don.


There is neither opinion nor bias, Neil, just fact. Note: It is the
*Vuescan users* themselves who post unending, repeated and specific
reports of (often same) bugs over and over again. How can simply
referring to that indisputable fact be either opinion or bias!?

Here... I checked the archives for you, and that's only the tip of the
iceberg!!! If you actually do even a semi-thorough search - as I keep
suggesting - you'll come up with many, many, many, many... more!

You may actually like and be happy with Vuescan, and to that I say:
Great! All the power to you! But to jump from that personal feeling to
denying that Vuescan is a totally unreliable piece of... software ;o)
hopelessly riddled with bugs is just *factually* incorrect.

Don.

--- arbitrary start ---

On 2 Apr 2004 15:24:58 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) (Elisabeth
Schmitz) wrote:

>I had a similarly negative experience with VueScan:
>I tried VueScan with the Minolta Dimage Scan MultiPRO and found it
>unusable because of severe banding problems.


On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 21:07:15 +0200, "Bart van der Wolf"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>> 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...


On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 14:47:01 +0200, "Bart van der Wolf"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Yes that'll be one of the effects the VueScan D-max bug will cause.


On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 14:48:48 -0500, Alex Stols <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>But: being a novice in the
>trade I could not determine for myself that what was claimed: Vuescan
>supports Minolta Scan Dual IV, wasn't true.


On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 14:51:50 -0500, "Matthew Dranchak"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>> Go under the "Filter" tab and deactivate "IR Cleaning"

>
>Tried that. It doesn't help.
>I tried all the avenues that Vuescan allowed and no combination of features
>provided a good scan. Your suggestion even made things worse.


On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 04:39:56 -0600, Alex Stols <Alex Stols> wrote:

>"Brian Colwell" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>><Alex Stols> wrote in message
>>news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> (E-Mail Removed) (Mike M. Miskulin) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>I was hopeful when I saw version 8.1.11 which lists 'improved epson
>>>>4870 IR cleaning'. Yeah right. Now I have complete crap. If my
>>>>tone is poor its because of the hours I've wasted on this program.


On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 09:58:09 +0200, "Jouko Vierumäki"
>>><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>

>>Same problem here. VueScan 8.1.15 & Minolta Multi Pro. When trying to scan
>>from disk, VueScan sees the raw file as 1x1 pixels, 200dpi and 0MB, although
>>the file actually is over 200MB and I can read it with other programs.

>
>So this bug has survived through two subsequent versions to 8.1.13,
>rendering Vuescan more-or-less useless, if you use scan-from-disk
>workflow.


On 4 Jan 2005 18:25:16 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:

>ICE manages to clean my problematic slides very well, doing a much more
>complete job, and much more "seamlessly". Vuescan leaves so much, and
>leaves obviously softened areas.
>
>I'm really getting tired of even
>trying new releases, it's a time consuming waste of time.


On 17 Jan 2005 18:44:05 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:

>Somewhere around recent version .20 "something bad happened" to Vuescan
>speed. Since then, several new version descriptions have promised
>greatly improved speed etc. Atleast as of .23, my personal experience
>is it's still very pokey.


On 18 Feb 2005 18:00:06 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:

>About a couple of weeks ago I bought Vuescan to use with my brand new
>Minolta. I was worried about reports of lines but was told that has
>been fixed. IT HASN'T!! The damn lines are everywhere! Vuescan is total
>CRAP! I wrote two emails but got no reply and I'm really fed up and
>****ed off! I WANT MY MONEY BACK! What a ripoff! It's Vue-SCAM! That's
>what it is!


On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 19:37:58 -0800, Andrey Tarasevich
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>I'm using VueScan with Canon FS4000US over SCSI connection. Just
>upgraded from 8.1.32 to 8.1.36 and noticed a problem with "Preview"
>command. In version 36 it takes forever, compared to version 32.
>Apparently, version 36 does preview at full resolution (4000dpi) even
>though the "Input | Preview resolution" is manually set to mere 500dpi.


On 4 Apr 2005 15:03:19 -0700, "pahtspix" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>I just updated to 8.2.03, and I'm getting "double" images side by side
>of the SAME scans in the preview OR scan window..
>
>Eddie Wiseman


On Tue, 03 May 2005 22:05:15 -0700, Andrey Tarasevich
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>...After I disabled batch mode and pressed
>'Scan', VueScan went on to scanning all six frames in batch mode,
>despite that fact that I explicitly asked it to scan only one frame.
>
>What's going on with VueScan? Apparently, nobody is even trying to do
>even the most basic testing of the new version before the release.


On Wed, 4 May 2005 19:59:50 +0100, "John" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

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


--- no end... ---
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ralf R. Radermacher
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      28th Jul 2005
Evo2Me <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Yes, I cannot imagine Vuescan's price going up to compete directly
> with Lasersoft's application...


The really funny thing here is that the price of Silverfast has nothing
to do with ICE and related licensing fees.

Silverfast is nothing but a fancy front-end for the same old TWAIN (or
MAID) drivers provided by the scanner manufacturers.

These plug-ins include the ICE code and it's the manufacturers who pay
for it - not Lasersoft.

In those rare instances where they don't use the original plug-ins (e.g.
older Nikon SCSI-scanners under OS X) ICE has magically disappeared.

Ed Hamrick, OTOH, woud have to license ICE because he uses his own
driver code.

Ralf

--
Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany
private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de
manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005
Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
vuescan and canon 9900f - infrared cleaning not working Kaarel Scanners 2 15th Dec 2004 03:12 AM
Waht is 'Improved color correction' in Vuescan .73 and .75 Erik Krause Scanners 1 29th Jan 2004 06:15 AM
Vuescan 7.6.73: "Improved calibration on Minolta 5400" Christian Tsotras Scanners 1 21st Jan 2004 05:50 PM
Infrared Device Does Not Work on Armada M300 infrared with Windows 2000 Leo Microsoft Windows 2000 Upgrade 0 9th Nov 2003 05:49 AM
Infrared Device Does Not Work on Armada M300 infrared with Windows 2000 Leo Microsoft Windows 2000 Hardware 0 9th Nov 2003 05:13 AM


Features
 

Advertising
 

Newsgroups
 


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:43 AM.