F
Fernando
Sure, but a color space is always a compromise... so it's a nice
feature to have; I used it very rarely, and mainly out of curiosity,
but it's still better having it, than not.
Fernando
Sure, but a color space is always a compromise... so it's a nice
feature to have; I used it very rarely, and mainly out of curiosity,
but it's still better having it, than not.
Fernando
B
Bart van der Wolf
Everything is described in the helpfile, but I admit it must be read
like a legal document ;-) Every word has a meaning in it's context,
and there are not many words wasted ...
It could also be the huge number of features that take some time to
understand, learn and remember, and not everybody uses all of them.
Bart
J
Jumm
I took the trouble to to look at Ralf's photos and I was impressed with
their over all quality, not to mention subject matter and SIZE. I'm
still waiting after a year for Mr. Don the programmer, and moral
conscience of this group, when it comes to Viewscan, that is, to post
some of his expert, wonderful photos that he has been agonizing over so
noisily and self righteously here.
Jim
their over all quality, not to mention subject matter and SIZE. I'm
still waiting after a year for Mr. Don the programmer, and moral
conscience of this group, when it comes to Viewscan, that is, to post
some of his expert, wonderful photos that he has been agonizing over so
noisily and self righteously here.
Jim
B
Bart van der Wolf
SNIP
Yes, I vote for bigger brains ... ;-)
Lots of things to keep in mind!
Yes, I vote for bigger brains ... ;-)
B
Bart van der Wolf
In my experience it does better, especially on darker (denser)
features.
Bart
H
Hecate
No, I just accepted you were telling the truth. Are you not?
Let me make it easier for you to understand: just because you say it
works for you, and assuming that it does as long as you weren't lying
(though the assumption may be that you were as when I agreed your
images were OK - i.e. when I took it on trust - you challenged me
above) that doesn't mean that it works for everyone. For one thing
any electronic product is variable. For another, Vuescan itself is
variable and you never know from one point iteration to the next what
is, ad isn't going to work.
Get a sense of judgment.
K
Kennedy McEwen
Ralf,Ralf R. Radermacher said:
let's start from the premise that Ed Hamrick is no idiot. He
clearly tested Vuescan with a Minolta 5400 before he released support
for it publicly. Being an honest and respectably individual he would
not have released that support if he did not actually believe it worked
at the time.
So your experience with Vuescan and the Minolta is no different from
Ed's original pre-release experience - two successful users.
There is no lack of evidence that many, not all but a very large number,
of Vuescan/Minolta users have complained, and some still do, that the
combination simply does not function adequately. Your experience has no
bearing whatsoever on their experience - or indeed Ed's who has openly
admitted the problems were present and was working on resolving them in
subsequent updates (making you the only user never to have had a
problem!) and has made considerable progress in tackling the issue.
Denying that such issues have ever existed is simply calling *everyone*
who has ever experienced a problem with the Vuescan/Minolta combination
after its release, including Ed himself as well as those who still do,
blatant liars.
Continued adherence of that idiotic position simply reduces your own
credibility to point of non-existence.
Ditto - preferably a better one than the ostrich you are closely
resembling at the moment!
R
Ralf R. Radermacher
Kennedy McEwen said:
Is everyone going bonkers about this now?
If trolls like Don and Hecate talk such nonsense then I don't expect
much else from them but I'm a llittle surprised to see you go off the
deep end as well, Kennedy.
Where have I said that noone has ever had a problem with Vuescan and the
5400? Show me any single message where I say so.
I have simply pointed out the fact that it does work for some people,
including me, as a reaction to Hecates ongoing crusade that it doesn't
work at all, nowhere and for noone.
Besides, isn't it always so that one rather reads from people who have a
particular problem than from the (unknown) number of people happily
scanning away without any such trouble?
My impression ist that the Vuescan/Minolta issue does exist but that it
is much less common than our two resident bashers want to make it look.
Now, what was your point again?
Ditto, Kennedy, ditto.
Ralf
D
Don
Like Ralf, you're confusing your subjective feelings about image
content with objecting evaluation of the software.
You just can't evaluate scanner software from a heavily compressed,
tiny, web image! Like I said, even a cheap digicam could produce an
image with more resolution and color depth. The only size that matters
is what comes off the scanner at optical resolution and maximum bit
depth.
The same goes for printouts which are in a totally different color
gamut which, to boot, is even narrower than the screen gamut!
Not to mention, that the images were heavily post-processed.
Using such images as proof of "quality" is like using earplugs to
prove the THD of a stereo!
These are really most basic fundamental principles. It's also just so
self-evident. You don't even need to know anything about scanning to
realize that in order to evaluate the software you have to have access
to an unadulterated image, not something 2 or 3 times removed.
For a good introduction on scanning here's a good site to get both you
and Ralf started:
http://www.scantips.com/
Don.
P.S. Asking me to wrestle with VueScan again, is a straw dog. You
don't need my images when frustrated VueScan users are reporting bugs
daily! Nevertheless:
Last year, I posted scans for Ed for over a week to illustrate just
some of the many VueScan problems. He kept asking for different
things, and I kept uploading... After he ran out of excuses and
painted himself in a corner he - predictably - became abusive.
Check the archives for the period between 2004.04.22 and 2004.05.07
under the heading: "Problem scanning very dark Kodachrome".
---
content with objecting evaluation of the software.
You just can't evaluate scanner software from a heavily compressed,
tiny, web image! Like I said, even a cheap digicam could produce an
image with more resolution and color depth. The only size that matters
is what comes off the scanner at optical resolution and maximum bit
depth.
The same goes for printouts which are in a totally different color
gamut which, to boot, is even narrower than the screen gamut!
Not to mention, that the images were heavily post-processed.
Using such images as proof of "quality" is like using earplugs to
prove the THD of a stereo!
These are really most basic fundamental principles. It's also just so
self-evident. You don't even need to know anything about scanning to
realize that in order to evaluate the software you have to have access
to an unadulterated image, not something 2 or 3 times removed.
For a good introduction on scanning here's a good site to get both you
and Ralf started:
http://www.scantips.com/
Don.
P.S. Asking me to wrestle with VueScan again, is a straw dog. You
don't need my images when frustrated VueScan users are reporting bugs
daily! Nevertheless:
Last year, I posted scans for Ed for over a week to illustrate just
some of the many VueScan problems. He kept asking for different
things, and I kept uploading... After he ran out of excuses and
painted himself in a corner he - predictably - became abusive.
Check the archives for the period between 2004.04.22 and 2004.05.07
under the heading: "Problem scanning very dark Kodachrome".
---
R
Ralf R. Radermacher
Don said:
What a most brilliant demonstration of the difference between those of
us who enjoy our prints and image files and those wankers who waste
their lives telling us that it can't be done.
Ralf
D
Don
ROTFL! I like your wording!
The problem is how does one explain anything to someone who believes
that a heavily processed image reduced to a fraction of its original
size and posted as a web graphic jpeg or printed using a lossy gamut,
is a definitive "proof" of absence (or, indeed, presence) of single
pixel dark noise lines in the original image?
Don.
J
Jumm
Don,
Straw dog or no I'd still like to see the results of your scanning, not
with Vuescan, but with any scanning software, why don't you post a link
to your website so we may see some results of all this sub pixel stuff,
and get an get an idea of the end results you are working towards. Post
processing is ok by me. If they come out near the quality of Ralfs. (I
still don't understand how you can know how heavily post-processed his
images are) I'll be impressed.
Besides, you are the great "raw scan" guru, surely you don't mean that
once you do a raw scan, no post processing will be necessary. The whole
idea behind the raw scan, is to have an image that can be post processed
to the artists requirements. You can't be possibly suggesting that Ralf
started out with defective scans and some how by post processing was
able to not only HIDE this fact but also come up with great open, sharp,
large, colorful images. Time for you Don, to put your pixels where your
mouth is!
Jim
Straw dog or no I'd still like to see the results of your scanning, not
with Vuescan, but with any scanning software, why don't you post a link
to your website so we may see some results of all this sub pixel stuff,
and get an get an idea of the end results you are working towards. Post
processing is ok by me. If they come out near the quality of Ralfs. (I
still don't understand how you can know how heavily post-processed his
images are) I'll be impressed.
Besides, you are the great "raw scan" guru, surely you don't mean that
once you do a raw scan, no post processing will be necessary. The whole
idea behind the raw scan, is to have an image that can be post processed
to the artists requirements. You can't be possibly suggesting that Ralf
started out with defective scans and some how by post processing was
able to not only HIDE this fact but also come up with great open, sharp,
large, colorful images. Time for you Don, to put your pixels where your
mouth is!
Jim
D
Dierk Haasis
Make that two (2). Not that this is the first time I've spoken out
about it ...
D
Don
That's known as "changing the subject" and "shooting the messenger".
Nice try...
What does that have to do with VueScan's inability to fix dark noise
stripes for *two years* running?
What does that have to do with *any* of the many VueScan bugs?
That's what many of VueScan users (the rabid wing) simply don't get.
Going after anyone daring to point out numerous VueScan failings is
not going to fix those many VueScan bugs!
We are not the subject here - even though you're *desperately* trying
to make us. VueScan bugs are the subject! See above! The Subject line!
It is not we who write daily reports of VueScan bugs. It's the
*frustrated VueScan users themselves*!
Elementary, my dear Watson! By analyzing them. Granted, working from a
tiny, highly compressed jpeg is limiting which, erm... is my point
exactly, why they can't be used as "proof" of VueScan's inability to
fix Minolta's dark noise stripes.
However, looking at the histogram of even such images makes it quite
clear that they have been heavily edited. No scan comes off the
scanner looking like that simply due to the nature of dynamic range of
film, among other things.
But even plain common sense tells you the images are heavily edited.
Given the context of the web page, do you really think Ralf would post
anything but his best efforts?
Desperately trying to change the subject again...
That's a totally different discussion and has absolutely nothing to do
with the subject at hand. A reminder:
1. OP: I get 1px lines when using VueScan on Minolta (Subject line!)
1. Hecate: VueScan doesn't work with Minolta due to dark noise lines
2. Ralf: Oh, look at my tiny jpeg web images, don't they look pretty
3. Jumm: All images must be post-processed
Now then, what does post processing of raw images have to do with the
silly notion that a tiny jpeg image is a proof of absence of dark
noise stripes (the perennial VueScan bug)?
Not only can I suggest that, but that's so self-evident I'm surprised
you're even asking?
Don't you realize that given the massaging that tiny web pic has been
through, you could almost take an interlaced image, *remove one whole
frame*, put it through the same process and you'd be hard pressed to
see the difference?
Try it!
Don.
K
Kennedy McEwen
Your response also contradicted both the OP's question and the responseRalf R. Radermacher said:
I provided them, as well as anything you specifically directed at Hecate
or anyone else.
The OP is experiencing a commonly reported bug and telling them that the
bug is still an issue and (perhaps!) the subject of ongoing effort, on
Ed's part, to resolve is much more accurate and useful than your
statement along the lines of
<AOL>
works for me!!
</AOL>
Where did you actually provide any advice to the OP as to how *you*
might have overcome the problem? Did you ever experience it yourself?
If so, what version of Vuescan finally resolved it in your case?
Based on your "evidence" the OP could have wasted a vast amount of
nugatory effort attempting various solutions over and above those they
have already reported here in attempting to resolve a problem which is
insurmountable by them alone.
The problem exists with Vuescan and should be reported through the
relevant channels to ensure that it is dealt with, providing Ed has not
returned to his earlier position of giving up entirely on it.
For those *still* experiencing the problem it is certainly true that the
combination of the Minolta scanner and Vuescan *is* incompatible.
Whether you experience the problem or not does not change that, although
it may help Ed trace the remaining cause. However, denying its
existence through statements like "what is wrong with these scans from
the combination" is sticking your head in the sand.
That is the nature of reputation, it only takes one little sheep...
But your unqualified
<AOL>
works for me!!
</AOL>
posting suggested otherwise and, frankly, served no purpose whatsoever
in resolving the problem. Hecate's advice did - don't use Vuescan and
the Minolta together, the former cannot reliably drive the latter. By
posting in direct conflict to that statement you imply that it is false
and thus that the problem does not exist at all.
That the problem *still* exists, that the combination *is* incompatible
for those unfortunate enough to encounter it, that "works for me" is no
more relevant than Ed's original, oft rescinded and oft reinstated "Now
supports Minolta SE-5400" claim and that ignoring those who have grounds
for complaint is both demeaning and reputation damaging in itself.
R
Ralf R. Radermacher
Kennedy McEwen said:
Could you be bothered to actually read what people say before replying
to any of it? Or would that interfere too much with your strategy?
This newsgroup has become a total waste of time. You and your friends
Don and Hecate can be mighty proud of that.
Ralf
W
Wilfred
Dierk said:
With me it's different. I used to see scan lines but their occurrence
was gradually reduced until they completely disappeared in VueScan
8.1.12. Haven't seen them since.
That said, I used to have scan lines on my old Minolta Scan Speed too,
both with VueScan and the Minolta software. I had become used to them as
something that had to be dealt with in postprocessing - which was easy
enough, even though it cost me 5 minutes per image.
K
Kennedy McEwen
Ralf R. said:
I read and replied to precisely the point you refuted. If you can't or
won't understand that then that is your problem.
My strategy is to provide the OP with the facts pertaining to his query
- yours appears to be to confuse him with meaningless comparisons, to
claim that both products are perfectly compatible and, hence, imply that
the problem must be caused by the user - without any advice as to what
that cause may be.
The OP's problem was that he cannot get satisfactory results from
Vuescan with the Minolta scanner. That is a fault with Vuescan - indeed
the OP's post indicated that the scanner functioned correctly *WITH*
Vuescan WHEN THE GRAIN DISSOLVER WAS NOT ENGAGED . Perhaps you should
read what you are replying to because telling the OP that there is an
incompatibility between these two products is correct - telling them
that "mine works fine" without any indication of why or how it differs
OR EVEN IF THE SCAN WAS MADE IN THE SAME MODE is of no benefit
whatsoever. Ed clearly thought it has worked fine every time he has
suggested that the problem is now fixed.
NO, the newsgroup would be a waste of time if we all just lied that
there is no incompatibility problem between these two products when it
is clear that there is. From this newsgroup the OP obtained the only
solution currently available to him at present- don't use both together.
To censor that response would make the newsgroup less useful, not more,
even if it would be more pleasant to your delicate eyes.
Whilst I don't subscribe to the generic Vuescan bashing, I refuse to sit
back and watch others lording it high that there is no problem at all
and that their personal results prove that - your results proved nothing
more than the statements from Ed that the Minolta was supported! There
is an incompatibility. Hopefully a resolution is being worked on, but
silencing those who report such problems reduces that likelihood
significantly.
F
Fernando
If I may step in, I did some more tests on all my scanners (Polaroid
SS120, Epson 2450, Minolta SE5400).
At least up to 8.1.25, it seems that ALL of my scanners, when used
with Vuescan, suffer, to some extent, of the same problem (faint
stripes in the shadows).
So, I'm wondering if the problems at the base of such behaviour could
not been inherent of the way Vuescan "calibrates" the scanners
(indeed, "Scanner"->"Calibrate" seems to do nothing with the SS120 and
the 2450).
The problem is more apparent with the 5400, but it's there with those
other scanners as well.
I'd rule out any specific problems with my scanners because they are
in different physical locations, and attached to different computers.
I'm just writing this because in the past, some hypothesys were
formulated about the nature of the problem.
Maybe this can add some data.
Fernando
K
Kennedy McEwen
Fernando said:
Quite possibly, however even the merest suggestion that Vuescan is less
than perfect with any scanner would appear to upset many of its devotees
in this and other forums. I should point out that this is not a problem
that I have noticed with any of the Nikon scanners that I have used
Vuescan with - that doesn't mean it doesn't exist with them either, but
Ed does recommend their product.