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

Discussion in 'Scanners' started by Mendel Leisk, Jul 25, 2005.

  1. Mendel Leisk

    Mendel Leisk Guest

    Just to save others the exercise, my "slide from hell", which cleans up
    quite nicely with ICE, looks about the same as usual with this latest
    version of Vuescan. In short, not very clean.
     
    Mendel Leisk, Jul 25, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Mendel Leisk

    Hecate Guest

    On 24 Jul 2005 21:28:20 -0700, "Mendel Leisk"
    <> wrote:

    >Just to save others the exercise, my "slide from hell", which cleans up
    >quite nicely with ICE, looks about the same as usual with this latest
    >version of Vuescan. In short, not very clean.


    I take it you're not surprised? :)

    --

    Hecate - The Real One

    Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
    you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
     
    Hecate, Jul 26, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Mendel Leisk

    Mendel Leisk Guest

    Well, I live in hope :) I suppose unless there is some breakthrough,
    say Ed adding ICE, it's not gonna happen.
     
    Mendel Leisk, Jul 26, 2005
    #3
  4. Mendel Leisk

    Evo2Me Guest

    On 25 Jul 2005 19:39:20 -0700, "Mendel Leisk"
    <> wrote:

    >say Ed adding ICE, it's not gonna happen.


    Very unlikely, since ICE is not an OpenSource software or common
    public algorithm but a complete technology from Applied Science
    Fiction, who are now part of Kodak.

    If every user of Vuescan would be alright paying up for it, though ...
     
    Evo2Me, Jul 26, 2005
    #4
  5. Mendel Leisk

    Fernando Guest

    Any luck with 8.2.25?
    Reports "Improved infrared cleaning" again...

    Fernando
     
    Fernando, Jul 26, 2005
    #5
  6. Mendel Leisk

    Mendel Leisk Guest

    Evo2Me wrote:
    > On 25 Jul 2005 19:39:20 -0700, "Mendel Leisk"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >say Ed adding ICE, it's not gonna happen.

    >
    > Very unlikely, since ICE is not an OpenSource software or common
    > public algorithm but a complete technology from Applied Science
    > Fiction, who are now part of Kodak.
    >
    > If every user of Vuescan would be alright paying up for it, though ...


    I would, within reason.
     
    Mendel Leisk, Jul 26, 2005
    #6
  7. Mendel Leisk

    Don Guest

    On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 07:44:34 +0200, Evo2Me <> wrote:

    >On 25 Jul 2005 19:39:20 -0700, "Mendel Leisk"
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >>say Ed adding ICE, it's not gonna happen.

    >
    >Very unlikely, since ICE is not an OpenSource software or common
    >public algorithm but a complete technology from Applied Science
    >Fiction, who are now part of Kodak.


    Careful, you'll be accused of Vuescan "bashing" next because the above
    seems to imply that Vuescan only incorporates features stolen from
    Open Source or ripped off from publicly available algorithms.

    That's not the case, of course, because if it were then at least those
    stolen portions of Vuescan may actually work (sometimes); assuming the
    author didn't bungle the copy too much which is a big assumption...

    It's all academic, anyway, because I can't imagine Kodak bringing its
    products in disrepute by allowing something as unreliable and buggy as
    Vuescan to mutilate them.

    Don.
     
    Don, Jul 26, 2005
    #7
  8. Mendel Leisk

    Don Guest

    On 26 Jul 2005 05:41:36 -0700, "Fernando" <>
    wrote:

    >Any luck with 8.2.25?
    >Reports "Improved infrared cleaning" again...


    Which is as credible as reports of flying pigs!

    Don.

    P.S. To be fair, a pig-shaped UFO may actually land one day... ;o)
     
    Don, Jul 26, 2005
    #8
  9. Mendel Leisk

    Mendel Leisk Guest

    Take turns?
     
    Mendel Leisk, Jul 26, 2005
    #9
  10. Mendel Leisk

    Hecate Guest

    On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 07:44:34 +0200, Evo2Me <> wrote:

    >On 25 Jul 2005 19:39:20 -0700, "Mendel Leisk"
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >>say Ed adding ICE, it's not gonna happen.

    >
    >Very unlikely, since ICE is not an OpenSource software or common
    >public algorithm but a complete technology from Applied Science
    >Fiction, who are now part of Kodak.
    >
    >If every user of Vuescan would be alright paying up for it, though ...


    Then, of course, it would about the same price as Silverfast - and
    guess what? - Silverfast works.

    --

    Hecate - The Real One

    Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
    you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
     
    Hecate, Jul 26, 2005
    #10
  11. Mendel Leisk

    Mendel Leisk Guest

    I'm meant to say take turns in reponse to report of improved cleaning
    (not "significantly") in .25. It's around an hour's exercise upgrading
    and testing.
     
    Mendel Leisk, Jul 27, 2005
    #11
  12. Mendel Leisk

    Roger S. Guest

    Just the facts, eh Don?
    "I can't imagine Kodak bringing its products in disrepute by allowing
    something as unreliable and buggy as Vuescan to mutilate them"

    I found that IR cleaning significantly improved from 8.2.23 to 8.2.25
    because it didn't work with batch scans until now. Now I'm just
    waiting for the cropping to work right again so it doesn't cut off 10%
    of one side of the image and give me a nice black bar on the other side.
     
    Roger S., Jul 27, 2005
    #12
  13. Mendel Leisk

    Evo2Me Guest

    On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 23:09:58 +0100, Hecate <> wrote:


    >Then, of course, it would about the same price as Silverfast - and
    >guess what? - Silverfast works.


    I wouldn't have dreamed that it's actually one of the Terrible Twins
    (Don and Hecate) seeing my argument, even if somehow spun to their own
    limited weltanschauung.

    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.

    As for your spin, doctor, Vuescan does work, too, it works good, too.
    Just because certain aspects don't work nice doesn't mean VS doesn't
    work at all. Or should I say Silverfast is crap just because my
    legally bought copy doesn't work with my Epson Perfection 2480 or my
    Minolta SE 5400?*





    *Just so nobody gets this wrong: My Silverfast was bought in
    conjunction with a Microtek x6 SCSI scanner years ago.
     
    Evo2Me, Jul 27, 2005
    #13
  14. Mendel Leisk

    Fernando Guest

    Roger S. wrote:

    > because it didn't work with batch scans until now. Now I'm just
    > waiting for the cropping to work right again so it doesn't cut off 10%
    > of one side of the image and give me a nice black bar on the other side.


    Whoa! I'm still with 8.2.20, just wondering if it would make sense to
    jump to .25
    This crop bug is annoying. :(
    Plus I can't seem to have the preview matching the final scan in
    brightness.

    Fernando
     
    Fernando, Jul 27, 2005
    #14
  15. Mendel Leisk

    Neil Gould Guest

    Recently, Evo2Me <> posted:

    > On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 23:09:58 +0100, Hecate <> 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.

    > As for your spin, doctor, Vuescan does work, too, it works good, too.
    > Just because certain aspects don't work nice doesn't mean VS doesn't
    > work at all. Or should I say Silverfast is crap just because my
    > legally bought copy doesn't work with my Epson Perfection 2480 or my
    > Minolta SE 5400?*
    >

    I'll go you one better: I have two ArtixScan scanners on one system; a
    120tf and an 1100. SilverFast for the 120tf _won't even load_ if I have
    the 120tf connected via FireWire because it only sees the 1100 on SCSI
    (unless it is turned off) and there is no provision for selecting the
    other scanner! That is a really elementary problem that should have been
    worked out prior to releasing the software. OTOH, Vuescan has no such
    problem seeing both scanners regardless of how they're connected.

    While I prefer the UI of ScanWizard Pro to either Silverfast or Vuescan,
    ScanWizard for the 120tf is buggy and, so far, has been beyond the ability
    of Microtek tech support to sort out. The point is, no software is
    perfect, and IMO should be evaluated based on its intended use. If one
    needs higher-end features, they should simply buy the application that
    delivers those features -- if such an application for their scanner
    exists.

    Neil
     
    Neil Gould, Jul 27, 2005
    #15
  16. Neil Gould <> wrote:

    > I'll go you one better: I have two ArtixScan scanners on one system; a
    > 120tf and an 1100. SilverFast for the 120tf _won't even load_ if I have
    > the 120tf connected via FireWire because it only sees the 1100 on SCSI


    Sounds familiar. It also can't cope with a Minolta 5400 and an Epson
    Perfection 3200 connected through Firewire to the same Mac. I need to
    switch off one in order to use Silfverfast with the other.

    > The point is, no software is perfect...


    Quite so.

    I've been using the Minolta scan software, Nikon Scan, Epson Scan,
    Silverfast Ai for various scanners and Vuescan and there's no way
    around this: Vuescan still delivers the best results. It simply extracts
    more information from the same negative, especially in shadows and
    highlights. And that's the only thing that counts.

    This doesn't mean it's perfect. Far from it. The user interface is a
    mess, it's buggy and Ed has an incredible talent for knocking over with
    his butt what he's just built up with his hands.

    Still, the scans look definitely better, require less work in Photoshop,
    and it's way faster, especially in batch mode. Has anyone ever compared
    the speed of the Minolta 5400 under Vuescan and the same scanner with
    the other two drivers? Without Vuescan, I'd have to give up the 5400.

    My ideal would be the results from Vuescan with the user interface of
    Silverfast.

    Now, if only Vuescan weren't produced by someone who's apparently more
    concerned with yet another 400 different scanner models instead of
    getting it to work right with the first 400. :-/

    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
     
    Ralf R. Radermacher, Jul 27, 2005
    #16
  17. Mendel Leisk

    Fernando Guest

    Ralf R. Radermacher wrote:

    > and it's way faster, especially in batch mode. Has anyone ever compared
    > the speed of the Minolta 5400 under Vuescan and the same scanner with
    > the other two drivers? Without Vuescan, I'd have to give up the 5400.


    My thoughts, too.
    With the other softwares, I'm forced to scan at 2700dpi, which is only
    fine for relatively small prints.

    > Now, if only Vuescan weren't produced by someone who's apparently more
    > concerned with yet another 400 different scanner models instead of
    > getting it to work right with the first 400. :-/


    Yup. I must confess that I always upgrade Vuescan with fingers crossed
    (which renders typing quite difficult). :)
    Presently I'm stuck with 8.2.20, and I mostly have problems in
    profiling and IR cleaning. I'm not extremely happy with shadow
    rendition... seems like something weirdly non-linear happens in the
    shadows of dense originals, like Velvia slides; I mean, something
    *more* weird than that family of slide film already does on its own.
    But the Minolta software is as slow as molasses, and I just can't get
    accurate profiling for it, too. Plus, it does a poor job on BW negative
    film.
    Silverfast demo kept crashing my PC anytime I was at 5400 dpi *and* 4x
    multisampling. :(
    Sometimes I'm tempted to write my own scanning software, but I doubt it
    would be an easy job. :)

    Fernando
     
    Fernando, Jul 27, 2005
    #17
  18. Mendel Leisk

    Don Guest

    On 26 Jul 2005 19:05:04 -0700, "Roger S." <> wrote:

    >Just the facts, eh Don?


    Absolutely!

    >"I can't imagine Kodak bringing its products in disrepute by allowing
    >something as unreliable and buggy as Vuescan to mutilate them"


    Do you really think Kodak would have any patience for a flood of angry
    Vuescan users complaining about ICE while all along it's just another
    Vuescan bug? I may be wrong, of course, but it seems very unlikely.

    For example, that's why (in general) companies don't hand out software
    developer kits to just anyone because incompetent programmers may
    bring their own products in disrepute by association. Instead, they
    require a track record, a description of planned software, etc.

    >I found that IR cleaning significantly improved from 8.2.23 to 8.2.25
    >because it didn't work with batch scans until now. Now I'm just
    >waiting for the cropping to work right again so it doesn't cut off 10%
    >of one side of the image and give me a nice black bar on the other side.


    If history teaches <insert Vuescan bug here> will be return in a
    subsequent version. I may be wrong, of course, but the odds are I'm
    not. Again, please check the archives. All the facts are there, I'm
    afraid, reported by frustrated Vuescan users themselves.

    Don.
     
    Don, Jul 27, 2005
    #18
  19. Mendel Leisk

    Don Guest

    On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 11:40:45 GMT, "Neil Gould"
    <> wrote:

    >> 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.


    Because there is nothing to get!

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

    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.

    Don.
     
    Don, Jul 27, 2005
    #19
  20. Mendel Leisk

    Neil Gould Guest

    Recently, Don <> posted:

    > On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 11:40:45 GMT, "Neil Gould"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>> 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.

    >
    > Because there is nothing to get!
    >
    > 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.

    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.

    > 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. Vuescan may not be the best application for _all_ scanners, but for
    many it's the best option available. And, for some people, it apparently
    gives better results with pro-sumer scanners as well. For an under $100
    scanning app, it's a pretty good option. To expect it to best a $300+ app
    dedicated to a particular make and model of scanner is pretty
    unreasonable, IMO.

    Neil
     
    Neil Gould, Jul 27, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Christian Tsotras
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    809
    Ed Hamrick
    Jan 21, 2004
  2. Erik Krause
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    571
    Mendel Leisk
    Jan 29, 2004
  3. Erik Krause

    Vuescan 8.0.8 "Improved color correction"?

    Erik Krause, Jul 6, 2004, in forum: Scanners
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    251
    Erik Krause
    Jul 12, 2004
  4. Kaarel
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    645
    seraphsf
    Dec 15, 2004
  5. Mendel Leisk
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    401
    Roger S.
    Mar 29, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page