Vuescan with the Elite 5400, what is current state?

[Mendel Leisk]

First, I know this subject is well discussed here, sorry for new post.

I just want latest info. I'm considering this scanner for purchase,
and would very much like to use it in conjunction with Vuescan Raw
Files. There are many reports of problems with initialising and
cleaning, using Vuescan. I understand Minolta's "16 bit linear" output
can be sub'd for Vuescan raw, but would prefer to access the scanner
through Vuescan and output Vuescan Raw Files directly.

How is Vuescan with the Elite 5400, now:

1. Is it initialising properly?

2. If no for #1, is the work-around of starting Minolta software first
helping with the initialising?

3. How is Vuescan's cleaning using the infrared channel? Is it
effective? In the right locations?

 

[Alex Stols]

First, I know this subject is well discussed here, sorry for new
post.

I just want latest info. I'm considering this scanner for purchase,
and would very much like to use it in conjunction with Vuescan Raw
Files. There are many reports of problems with initialising and
cleaning, using Vuescan. I understand Minolta's "16 bit linear"
output
can be sub'd for Vuescan raw, but would prefer to access the scanner
through Vuescan and output Vuescan Raw Files directly.

How is Vuescan with the Elite 5400, now:

1. Is it initialising properly?

2. If no for #1, is the work-around of starting Minolta software
first
helping with the initialising?

3. How is Vuescan's cleaning using the infrared channel? Is it
effective? In the right locations?

Good idea - I also want some more data, specifically how well ICE
works with really badly scratched color negatives.
Bart van der Wolf has some examples on a web page, but he doesn't
seem to respond to e-mails directed to the address mentioned there...

Bart?

Regards,
Alex
(alexUNDERSCOREstolsATxs4all.nl)

 

[Bart van der Wolf]

<Alex Stols> wrote in message
SNIP

Bart van der Wolf has some examples on a web page, but he doesn't
seem to respond to e-mails directed to the address mentioned

there...

Alex, sorry for not answering sooner, but I've been busy with a few
other things. I also had to search for a suitably damaged image in my
collection that I could share. I finally took an undamaged, but
underexposed unsharp Provia slide and gave it a "treatment" with
fingerprints, sandpaper, and a knife (believe me, it's good therapy
for a quality freak ;-) ).

I then scanned it with the Minolta software, and with VueScan, using
several settings. I was going to put the results in a webpage, but
I'll share the unfinished results as they are so far:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/temp/MDSE_NoGD_NoICE.jpg
http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/temp/MDSE_GD_NoICE.jpg
http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/temp/MDSE_GD_ICE.jpg
All three with the Minolta Scan Utility, GD=Grain Dissolver, ICE=Image
Correction and Enhancement. If layered in Photoshop, the differences
are even more obvious, but ICE worked well.

The VueScan results are not very good (I will probably post them
tomorrow), but then there are other issues with it in combination with
the DSE-5400. The results on my LS-2000 used to be superior to
NikonScan's, so there is probably still some tweaking needed with the
5400.

Bart

 

[Maris V. Lidaka Sr.]

1. I've never had a problem with initialising.

3. Never really tested it - I've only had mine a month or so, and haven't
scanned more that a dozen or 2 negatives. The IR cleaning (I've only had to
use the 'Light' setting so far) has been good for me.

What's your timetable? If long enough I could do some testing as well (I've
got a 'real' job I have to attend to most of the time).

Maris

 

[Alex Stols]

Alex, sorry for not answering sooner, but I've been busy with a few
other things. I also had to search for a suitably damaged image in my
collection that I could share. I finally took an undamaged, but
underexposed unsharp Provia slide and gave it a "treatment" with
fingerprints, sandpaper, and a knife (believe me, it's good therapy
for a quality freak ;-) ).

I then scanned it with the Minolta software, and with VueScan, using
several settings. I was going to put the results in a webpage, but
I'll share the unfinished results as they are so far:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/temp/MDSE_NoGD_NoICE.jpg
http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/temp/MDSE_GD_NoICE.jpg
http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/temp/MDSE_GD_ICE.jpg
All three with the Minolta Scan Utility, GD=Grain Dissolver,
ICE=Image
Correction and Enhancement. If layered in Photoshop, the differences
are even more obvious, but ICE worked well.

The VueScan results are not very good (I will probably post them
tomorrow), but then there are other issues with it in combination
with
the DSE-5400. The results on my LS-2000 used to be superior to
NikonScan's, so there is probably still some tweaking needed with the
5400.

Hello Bart,

A mighty Thank You! This is great - now I understand how
professionals make those nice clean prints, as one commercial chap
using a $60,000 apparatus showed me. I'm completely convinced: now
just to find a good shop nearby

Is it correct to assume that the possibility to 'repair' scratches is
dependent on the fact that they sit on the surfaces of the film but
not inside the 'image' layer? That must also be the reason that your
really deep knife cut could not be completely repaired. It really is
astonishing...

Thanks again, Bart.


Regards,
Alex
(alexUNDERSCOREstolsATxs4all.nl)

 

[Wilfred]

The VueScan results are not very good (I will probably post them
tomorrow)

I never tried VueScan on such heavily scratched slides as you did, but
my impression is that VueScan neatly handles the 'everyday' defects
(dust and minor scratches). This is only since Ed fixed a problem where
dark areas on Fuji emulsion were mistaken for defects (version
8.0.something). Mind that this probem was related to detecting where the
defects are, not how to repair them.
It's very interesting to see these results from you. This is clearly
about 'how to repair the defects' and I guess that when I really have to
do serious image restoration I will have to rely on the genuine ASF
algorithm in the Minolta software.

but then there are other issues with it in combination with
the DSE-5400.

Did you check if running the Minolta software before VueScan solved the
Dmax problem for you?

 

[Bart van der Wolf]

<Alex Stols> wrote in message
SNIP

Is it correct to assume that the possibility to 'repair'
scratches is dependent on the fact that they sit on the
surfaces of the film but not inside the 'image' layer?

The ICE functionality is based on the difference in absorption (and
refraction) between visual wavelengths and Infrared. Dust is often
more transparent to IR than for visible light, and scratches
refract/diffuse IR light different than visible light. The Dyes used
in film are transparent for IR, so there will be no difference between
the exposures.
Some implementations are also based on a different illumination angle
of the IR lightsource. That will produce a scanned displacement that
is caused by height differences as well, but can also cause alignment
issues, especially if the two scans are made in separate passes.

It therefore requires a scanner that has been equipped to do the
additional IR exposure. If there is a difference between the two
(which adds scanning time) exposures, that difference is used as a
kind of mask, and colors/detail is taken from unaffected surrounding
areas to fill-in the suspect areas.

That must also be the reason that your really deep knife
cut could not be completely repaired.

That was probably caused by the fact that the cuts went through the
emulsion and a bit of the film base. That caused the IR and visible
light to pass through the same amount of light, as if there was no
defect.

It really is astonishing...

Yes, and a real time saver for badly damaged/dirty material, when the
(significant) increase in scan time, is less than the productivity
loss spent on retouching. However, it is no real substitute for
working clean and handling/storing films with care. Nowadays, since I
got myself an (oil and water free) air compressor, I rarely use ICE
anymore. That is also because in the DSE-5400, the Grain Dissolver
will also do well on subtle scratches and small debris.

ICE may create some subtle artifacts itself, when it gets confused by
high contrast film dye features. It will fail on films with (residual)
silver in the emulsion, because silver is opaque for IR, and causes
uncontrollable blurring.

Bart

 

[Alex Stols]

<Alex Stols> wrote in message
SNIP

The ICE functionality is based on the difference in absorption (and
refraction) between visual wavelengths and Infrared. Dust is often
more transparent to IR than for visible light, and scratches
refract/diffuse IR light different than visible light. The Dyes used
in film are transparent for IR, so there will be no difference
between
the exposures.
Some implementations are also based on a different illumination angle
of the IR lightsource. That will produce a scanned displacement that
is caused by height differences as well, but can also cause alignment
issues, especially if the two scans are made in separate passes.

It therefore requires a scanner that has been equipped to do the
additional IR exposure. If there is a difference between the two
(which adds scanning time) exposures, that difference is used as a
kind of mask, and colors/detail is taken from unaffected surrounding
areas to fill-in the suspect areas.


That was probably caused by the fact that the cuts went through the
emulsion and a bit of the film base. That caused the IR and visible
light to pass through the same amount of light, as if there was no
defect.


Yes, and a real time saver for badly damaged/dirty material, when the
(significant) increase in scan time, is less than the productivity
loss spent on retouching. However, it is no real substitute for
working clean and handling/storing films with care. Nowadays, since I
got myself an (oil and water free) air compressor, I rarely use ICE
anymore. That is also because in the DSE-5400, the Grain Dissolver
will also do well on subtle scratches and small debris.

ICE may create some subtle artifacts itself, when it gets confused by
high contrast film dye features. It will fail on films with
(residual)
silver in the emulsion, because silver is opaque for IR, and causes
uncontrollable blurring.

Bart

Many thanks for explaining all this. It's good to have some eloquent
examples - I already understood the function of the IR image in
general terms. but until today I never knew that the 'repair' can be
so effective!

Regards,
Alex
(alexUNDERSCOREstolsATxs4all.nl)

 

[Fernando]

How is Vuescan with the Elite 5400, now:

I tested the latest 8.1.3 version with my DSE5400, and found that:

1. Is it initialising properly?

It initializes, but does not calibrate properly.
Scans done at 5400dpi and properly sharpened shows visible streaks
along slow scanning direction (that is, parallel to the long side).
Moreover, there are dynamic range issues: black point seems to be too
high (too little difference between non-clipped highlights and
non-clipped shadows, to put it simply), and there are casts in the
shadows.

2. If no for #1, is the work-around of starting Minolta software first
helping with the initialising?

No. I tried every possible combination.

3. How is Vuescan's cleaning using the infrared channel? Is it
effective? In the right locations?

I found it to be OK in nearly all of my real-world slides. Just like
the Minolta scan utility. It was not that good, some versions ago, but
8.1.3 performs well for me (Fuji slides, "Light" setting, no GD).

Unfortunately the streaks and the shadow issues keeps it from being
useable, for me.

Fernando

 

[Mendel Leisk]

Last night I tried scanning with Minolta software and outputting 16
bit linear a try, with my Scan Dual II, for use as a Vuescan Raw File.
This was a suggestion from Bart van der Wolfe. I had previously
scanned this sample slide with Vuescan, outputting a Vuescan raw file.

The result was VERY close to the Vuescan Raw File. I then used this 16
bit linear as a raw file for scan-from-disk, again per Bart's
suggestion.

For this exercise, I relegated Vuescan to JUST outputting a very flat
finished gamma file, per my previous workflow using a Vuescan Raw File
of the same slide. My (relevant) Vuescan settings:

Color|Color balance: none
Color|Bright: 1.0
Input|Media type: Image
Crop|Buffer%: 0

Then in Photoshop, ran Levels with AutoColor, .01/.01 bp/wp, and the
neutral midtones ticked.

Followed with a very light (precise, preset) s-curve, and light
sharpening.

Now, this was exactly the same workflow I followed before, with the
Vuescan Raw File of the same slide.

The results can be seen here:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=419706

All the Photoshop histogram stats are within around 1.0 of each other,
and these are two separate scans, with inherent slight crop
differences.

Assuming I could follow a similar workflow with the Scan Elite 5400,
I'm satisfied I will be able to work with this scanner. The only
hitch: not having separate infrared channel, and being forced to use
gd, if using ICE with Minolta software. Anyway, that is good enough
for me, for present.

My "timetable"? Well I think I will just take the plunge. I believe
this scanner's hardware has the potential to make very good scans.
With the workflow I described above, I think have something, a little
convoluted but workable, for now.

 

[Dps]

I then scanned it with the Minolta software, and with VueScan, using

several settings. I was going to put the results in a webpage, but
I'll share the unfinished results as they are so far:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/temp/MDSE_NoGD_NoICE.jpg
http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/temp/MDSE_GD_NoICE.jpg
http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/temp/MDSE_GD_ICE.jpg
All three with the Minolta Scan Utility, GD=Grain Dissolver, ICE=Image
Correction and Enhancement. If layered in Photoshop, the differences
are even more obvious, but ICE worked well.

Did you really put that thing into your 5400? Wow, I wouldn't dare!!!

;-)

 

[Bill Tuthill]

The results can be seen here:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=419706

Are you saying one workflow produces better results than the other?
If so I can't tell which.

Assuming I could follow a similar workflow with the Scan Elite 5400,
I'm satisfied I will be able to work with this scanner. The only
hitch: not having separate infrared channel, and being forced to use
gd, if using ICE with Minolta software. Anyway, that is good enough
for me, for present.

Do you find that, with Minolta software, results from both slides
and negatives are somewhat too red/magenta? Blue and green histograms
fill up available space, but red doesn't reach top or bottom.

That's what I thought anyway, using a friend's 5400.

 

[Mendel Leisk]

Are you saying one workflow produces better results than the other?
If so I can't tell which.

Please note, I went thru this exercise with a Scan Dual II, not a
Minolta Scan Elite 5400. My object was to see if 16 bit linear could
be sub'd. for Vuescan Raws, to circumvent the possible Vuescan
intializing problem with the 5400.

Do you find that, with Minolta software, results from both slides
and negatives are somewhat too red/magenta? Blue and green histograms
fill up available space, but red doesn't reach top or bottom.

That's what I thought anyway, using a friend's 5400.

I'm not sure (just getting started with color, doing mostly black and
white with Scan Dual II), so can't really comment. What little color
I've done has been with Vuescan.

 

[ramona]

Do these problems on the 5400 also show up when using Minolta sw, or do
they only show up with Vuescan? If they are only on Vuescan, why bother?

 

[Don]

Do these problems on the 5400 also show up when using Minolta sw, or do
they only show up with Vuescan?

Only VueScan.

If they are only on Vuescan, why bother?

Bingo!

I could never understand that, either. However, there seem to be a
small number of masochists in here who lash out rabidly at anyone
pointing out this simple fact. Must be that big chip on their
shoulder...

Logically, I'd expect them to be angry at VueScan - especially since
this Minolta soap-opera has been going on for almost a year - but they
seem obsessed with shooting the messenger instead. Go figure...

Don.

 

[Fernando]

Do these problems on the 5400 also show up when using Minolta sw, or do
they only show up with Vuescan?

Only with Vuescan.

If they are only on Vuescan, why bother?

Because Minolta software has other problems.
Poor AF (not apparent at first view, but very apparent with MTF tests
and in large prints) worsened by totally useless MF implementation,
extremely slow performances, inability to separate Grain Dissolver and
ICE functionalities, very limited color management, inefficient
workflow, a tendency to clip shadows and highlights. And sometimes
"freezes" too, expecially after some scans at 5400 dpi with
multisampling on.

Silverfast AI seems to be the best, but at that cost ($200!!) it
crashes a little too often for my tastes.

Fernando

 

[ramona]

Only with Vuescan.


Because Minolta software has other problems.
Poor AF (not apparent at first view, but very apparent with MTF tests
and in large prints) worsened by totally useless MF implementation,

Why do you consider 5400's manual focus useless? Is it because the hw
focus mechanism simply does not work, or is the user interface difficult
to use? Does Vuescan do a better job in either AF or MF, and how so?

extremely slow performances,

Can Vuescan improve the speed, and how?

inability to separate Grain Dissolver and ICE functionalities,

Can Vuescan do better, and how?

very limited color management,

Not sure if you meant color management or color correction. For those
who scan raw and correct in PS, who cares?

inefficient workflow,

Not sure what you meant, and how Vuescan can do better.

a tendency to clip shadows and highlights.

Shouldn't 5400's hw exposure time control fix this? Isn't a hw fix
better than a sw fix?

And sometimes "freezes" too, expecially after some scans at 5400 dpi with
multisampling on.

No comment.

 

[Dierk Haasis]

Can Vuescan improve the speed, and how?

Not "improve", but it is faster.

Can Vuescan do better, and how?

do you even read your questions, this one doesn't make sense: Yes, VS
does better in that it allows you to use GD and ICE independently
(another way to improve speed, BTW).

Not sure what you meant, and how Vuescan can do better.

Work flow is dependent on the user; if you find Minolta's well-suited
to your needs, OK. Many have found that VS offers a better workflow -
easier, faster, more direct.

Just consider the ability to batch scan RAW and afterwards try out
different correction settings in VS. Very handy with a big bunch of
photos to work on. Again this speeds up your work flow as an image is
much faster loaded from HD than through the scanner.

No comment.

Which is a comment.

 

[Don]

do you even read your questions, this one doesn't make sense: Yes, VS
does better in that it allows you to use GD and ICE independently
(another way to improve speed, BTW).

You may wish to follow your own advice and read your answer again
because it doesn't make sense...

VueScan doesn't do ICE!

It may let you use GD separately but since ICE is a proprietary
hardware/software solution (Applied Science Fiction, now part of
Kodak) VueScan lacks the software part. Ergo, no ICE!

That's why VueScan has the vastly inferior and charitably named "IR
cleaning". As can be read in numerous parallel threads, on Minolta
scanners at least this tends to introduce blemishes rather then remove
them (the infamous perennial "VueScan stripes").

Don.

 

[Fernando]

Why do you consider 5400's manual focus useless? Is it because the hw
focus mechanism simply does not work, or is the user interface difficult
to use?

The latter. User interface is hopeless, within Minolta Scan Utility.
The hardware works very well, instead.

Does Vuescan do a better job in either AF or MF, and how so?

Vuescan does a better job both in AF (much faster, and a better
in-focus percentage) and in MF (better user interface, with numeric
values. Still, Silverfast's MF interface is by far the best).

Can Vuescan improve the speed, and how?

By improving AF operations quite a lot, by improving post-scanning
operations (profile application, adjustments, and so on) and by
improving the scanning workflow.

Can Vuescan do better, and how?

By decoupling them. With MSU, you have to turn on GD whenever you use
ICE. GD has drawbacks, the most evident being a substantial increase
in scanning time due to increasing CCD exposure time.

Not sure if you meant color management or color correction. For those
who scan raw and correct in PS, who cares?

I mean color management.
And, being that MSU does not scan RAW, I can't understand your
statement.

Not sure what you meant, and how Vuescan can do better.

Already said. But why don't you try it, instead of having me "tell the
whole story"? It's so easier.

Shouldn't 5400's hw exposure time control fix this? Isn't a hw fix
better than a sw fix?

It is a MSU software issue. It tends to clip the histogram a bit, even
if you don't tell it to do so. It depends on MSU implementation of
color balance (performs sort of per-channel auto-levels).
It's easy to see this by taking densitometer meaurements, against for
example Silverfast.

Fernando