Vuescan and Canon MP730

[Don]

Well, it could be that you are assuming things - like "the language
barrier" that doesn't exist. Although I have a European name, I grew
up from infancy in a English speaking country, and English is the only
language I know.

Fair enough. Point taken.

However - with that in mind - your statement was, then, very inexact
implying that a subjective feeling was objective fact ("I get better
quality").

I attributed that inexactness to the "language barrier" but if it
doesn't exists, then...

You also seem to assume that I'm settling for "quick
and dirty" results. As my end result of most of my scans is an A3
sized print, I'm very critical of any flaw in the images produced.

....you have to define "better quality". What does that mean in this
context? Just saying that you like it better is not an objective fact,
it's a subjective feeling.

The tests wouldn't be valid if I wasn't.

I think there still may be a misunderstanding...

*Any* setting you use in VueScan outside of a raw scan *is* image
editing!

And even if you scan raw there is still an obscure VueScan "condition"
where some of the other settings will still be applied i.e., it's not
a raw scan. Even the author himself was unaware of this until it was
pointed out to him by a user, after which the author acknowledged it.

So, instead of going through all permutations, that's why I ask what
kind of *specific* testing you have done. In other words, we need the
facts before we can objectively evaluate both your testing methodology
and your results.

So your facts are messages from other posters? Out of curiosity, have
you done any empirical testing yourself? For each of the bugs or
faults reported by testers?

When, for example, a number of people keep reporting the same bug over
an extended period of time, I think it's safe to say it's a bug (e.g.
Minolta streaking).

When, for example, someone reports a problem and other VueScan users
reply that it's a known problem which has been around for a while, I
think it's safe to say it's a bug (e.g. Preview different from scan).

Etc... etc...

And, yes, I have tested VueScan extensively about 18 months ago. So, I
do have first hand knowledge as well. Some of my findings were
arrogantly dismissed by the author with "you don't need that", others
totally ignored.

He then publicly challenged me ("in order to get to the bottom of it")
to provide examples - which I have, uploading images for over a week.
After all that (when his challenge backfired and having painted
himself in a corner) he got abusive and refused to provide the setting
he claimed would solve the problem.

Another thing you may not know... Are you aware that early versions of
VueScan didn't even have a Preview window? When people asked for it,
the author's condescending response was - I think you can guess by now
- "you don't need that"... :-/

Saying "there have been reported problems in many aspects of the
software" and saying "it is bug-ridden and unreliable" have very
different contextual meanings in the strength of the negativity
communicated and the attitude of the writer, particularly in a medium
where non-verbal nuances are absent. If you don't want "such
inaccurate and subjective misinterpretation" of your comments, then I'd
suggest you think carefully about how you phrase what you say, and your
objectivity may be more obvious.

It's a two way street... If the reader is predicated to mistrust the
writer then, regardless of what the writer says, they will immediately
assume the worst. And that's exactly what the very few, but
"vociferous", VueScan users here do. If they only read the messages
calmly, and then objectively checked the facts, they would realize
that everything contained within is factual.

Instead, they even totally ignore the fact that I may recommend
VueScan to users who are after a quick-and-dirty scan, even going as
far as to provide the link! And that's in spite of all the abuse and a
torrent of obscenities from the author. I wonder, how many of them
would do the same in similar circumstances?

So, even though it may not sound palatable to them, saying that
VueScan is bug-ridden and unreliable is factually and demonstrably
correct.

Don.

 

[Jumm]

Don, if I had a nickle for every time you justify your vendetta by
mentioning that you recommend Vuescan for those who don't care about
their scans, I could buy a triple cappucino at Peets, repetitious! The
only content I meant to send in my last post was that I see through your
protestations of innocence, I think you understand. I'll amplify it
here, Don, so there's no mistake. You're as phoney as your email
address!
Jim

 

[Steven]

Well, I get better quality scans from VueScan than I do from the native
Canon FilmGet.

This is intriguing. I have an FS4000US and for me FilmGet is annoying
because it is slow as a wet week and also a TWAIN app. So, I was happy
when I discovered VueScan (and bought a licence) but after testing
FilmGet, VueScan, and Sliverfast SE I felt that VS wasn't as good as the
others.

I now know that VS doesn't set up the scanner very well (uses defaults
supplied by Canon) so I am surprised that you think it produces better
results. Can you elaborate ?

VS is a good app if you have 334 different scanners you want to use/test
but I don't think it is a great app for the FS4000US.

-- Steven

 

[Klaas Visser]

I now know that VS doesn't set up the scanner very well (uses defaults
supplied by Canon) so I am surprised that you think it produces better
results. Can you elaborate ?

Not sure what you mean by "defaults supplied by Canon", but in the
Colour tab, I specify the the FS4000 ICC profile for the scanner colour
space (the file is CNS40B.ICC), this gives me better results than using
the VueScan built-in.

My images are nearly always colour positives, and the suject matter is
either landscapes or architecture - a couple of these are my control
images for testing. I like capturing colour and contrasting images in
my compositions.

I can't talk about SilverFast as I've never used it, but images brought
in from FilmGet always need more adjustments in Photoshop than if I
bring them in from VueScan, to get close to the same final product. I
limit as much as possible any processing during the capture (I usually
use VueScan's raw mode, but for comparison tests, I need to match, if I
can, the processing that FilmGet does). VueScan always produces a scan
that resembles the original more closely than FilmGet.

 

[Don]

VS is a good app if you have 334 different scanners you want to use/test
but I don't think it is a great app for the FS4000US.

Judging by numerous complaints about VS, every knowledgeable user of
any one of those 334 scanners thinks the same - once they replace
"FS4000US" with their own model number.

Don.

 

[Jumm]

Another useless snipe from Don.
Cheers,
Jim

Judging by numerous complaints about VS, every knowledgeable user of
any one of those 334 scanners thinks the same - once they replace
"FS4000US" with their own model number.

Don.

 

[Don]

I see you still haven't quite grasped the concept behind the block
filter you claim to use.

A hint: If you don't want to obsess with certain messages you're
supposed to filter them *out*, not in... ;o)

Don.

 

[Jumm]

Obsess? Harrumpf, once again, all one has to do is look at the history
of this group for the last year and find out that you, Don, are truly
obsessed. Obsession is just a nice way of saying vendetta. Oh and thanks
for the advice on how to use my filters, but I'll follow my own whim, in
using them. Give us one more post to close this out, and one more, and
one more, ad infinitum...;o)
Jim

 

[Steven]

Not sure what you mean by "defaults supplied by Canon", but in the
Colour tab, I specify the the FS4000 ICC profile for the scanner colour
space (the file is CNS40B.ICC), this gives me better results than using
the VueScan built-in.

The "defaults" are the analogue gain and exposure duty cycle for each
colour. VueScan retrieves the defaults from the FS4000 (using an
extended inquiry command) and configures the FS4000 using these defaults
before scanning. These defaults are okay for positives but lousy for
negatives.

[snip]

I can't talk about SilverFast as I've never used it, but images brought
in from FilmGet always need more adjustments in Photoshop than if I
bring them in from VueScan, to get close to the same final product. I
limit as much as possible any processing during the capture (I usually
use VueScan's raw mode, but for comparison tests, I need to match, if I
can, the processing that FilmGet does). VueScan always produces a scan
that resembles the original more closely than FilmGet.

FilmGet does seem to sharpen and colour the image and I find it annoying
that this processing can't be disabled. For positives I like the
convenience and quality of VueScan raw mode.

Thanks for your reply.

-- Steven

 

[Golden Lasky]

Obsess? Harrumpf, once again, all one has to do is look at the history
of this group for the last year and find out that you, Don, are truly
obsessed. Obsession is just a nice way of saying vendetta. Oh and thanks
for the advice on how to use my filters, but I'll follow my own whim, in
using them. Give us one more post to close this out, and one more, and
one more, ad infinitum...;o)
Jim

Aw, give it up Jim. He got ya good. You brag about filtering the guy
and then can't stop commenting on his messages. That's really sad.
Golden

 

[Steven Kefford]

Aw, give it up Jim. He got ya good. You brag about filtering the guy
and then can't stop commenting on his messages. That's really sad.
Golden

And for those of us who do filter him, we still get him, when people
reply and quote him!!

Steve

 

[Golden Lasky]

And for those of us who do filter him, we still get him, when people

reply and quote him!!

Steve

Yeah and that's what Jim is doing after bragging about how he filters
him.

I'm new here but this Don guy doesn't call people names or anything so
I don't get what the fuss is all about. He's been cool even though
Jim is picking on him.

Golden

 

[Jumm]

Hi Golden Lasky, or Don or whoever you are. I didn't brag about using a
filter, I leave bragging to Don, he's a pro.
Cheerio ;0)
Jim

 

[Golden Lasky]

Hi Golden Lasky, or Don or whoever you are. I didn't brag about using a
filter, I leave bragging to Don, he's a pro.
Cheerio ;0)
Jim

Jeez man! Cool it! You're not only obsessing but are paranoid too!

All I'm saying is if this Don person is bothering you so much then
don't comment. Anyways I've got better things to do than get sucked
into this. Whatever...

Golden

 

[Jumm]

Too bad you didn't think of that before you posted, then. You sucked
yourself into this, if you don't like it, suck yourself out.
Cheers,
Jim