Is Viewscan worth it?

[Phil]

Hello

I'm currently using a coolscan 4 ED with really good results from negatives.
I do find however that the colour balance scans from slides is not perfect.
I also have to turn up the gain to get a well exposed scan. I would be
grateful for anyone's opinions on the usefulness of Viewscan in general and
with regard to slides in particular.

Thanks in anticipation

Phil

 

[Don]

I'm currently using a coolscan 4 ED with really good results from negatives.
I do find however that the colour balance scans from slides is not perfect.
I also have to turn up the gain to get a well exposed scan. I would be
grateful for anyone's opinions on the usefulness of Viewscan in general and
with regard to slides in particular.

Turning up analog gain for some dense slides is to be expected. Are
you scanning Kodachromes by chance?

Your other problem is not with scanning but with image editing. Try
setting the gray point correctly and color balance should improve. If
that's not good enough then - better still - scan "raw" and do all
your image editing in a dedicated software instead of within the
scanner software.

Scanner software usually has a very limited subset of tools and you're
working through the preview window "keyhole". After all, scanner's
software main purpose is to scan, not to image edit. VueScan has even
fewer editing tools than NikonScan!

Finally, even though there are some dedicated VueScan users here who
will recommend it, be aware that it's quite buggy and unreliable
especially if you care for quality. However, if you just want a
quick-and-dirty fix it may be OK. Either way, you can download it for
free, try it out and make up your own mind.

Don.

 

[Robert Feinman]

Hello

I'm currently using a coolscan 4 ED with really good results from negatives.
I do find however that the colour balance scans from slides is not perfect.
I also have to turn up the gain to get a well exposed scan. I would be
grateful for anyone's opinions on the usefulness of Viewscan in general and
with regard to slides in particular.

Thanks in anticipation

Phil

You can read some of the scaning discussions in the tips section on my
web site and see if that helps you decide.
In addition you can download Vuescan
and try it without buying and see if it meets your needs.

 

[Kscoinhutch]

VueScan users here who

will recommend it, be aware that it's quite buggy and unreliable
especially if you care for quality.

There's nothing wrong with VueScan so quit lying about it.

 

[Phil]

Thanks Don. Yes it is Kodachrome. Its not always possible to set the grey
point as there is not always a suitable grey tone in the picture. When you
say scan "raw" I assume you mean scan in 16 bits. I do scan in 16 bits, but
still like to get the photo as close as possible in the scanning software.
Are you saying this is unnecessary?

Phil

 

[Steven Kefford]

Thanks Don. Yes it is Kodachrome. Its not always possible to set the grey
point as there is not always a suitable grey tone in the picture. When you
say scan "raw" I assume you mean scan in 16 bits. I do scan in 16 bits, but
still like to get the photo as close as possible in the scanning software.
Are you saying this is unnecessary?

Phil

Phil

Be carefull how much weight you attach to the comments of Don. Just look
at his email address to start with!

I have not been on this forum long, but I have quickly found out that he
is obsessed with putting VueScan down. It is a vendetta.

Whilst he might just ocassionaly have a valid point, I have challenged
him to support the wild accusations that he makes here. Others have done
so to, and he almost always fails to do so.

Anyway, you have been warned.


Steve

PS. A lot of users have his messages filtered out.

 

[Don]

Oh, boy, if it's Kodachrome then "Welcome to my own personal
nightmare!" ;o) I've been wrestling with Kodachromes, first, on an
LS-30 and, now, on an LS-50 for over two years!

While the LS-50 does improve things a lot it still comes up short and
the notorious "blue Kodachrome cast" still needs to be corrected. Like
many others, I've also been looking for a sure-fire, objective way to
set the gray point because, as you discovered, relying on one's eyes
isn't always easy.

In the absence of obvious grays like sidewalks, grays usually hide in
shadows so simply clicking on most shadows will be quite effective.

One "trick" I use (in Photoshop) is to have a go at several images in
a roll (implying, they were taken under similar lighting conditions)
and then "average it all out". I save this as a curve setting and then
apply to all. But like all other tricks it's still a hit and miss...

Another is, that Kodachrome needs red boosted (this works better than
decreasing blue) so try playing with the red curve.

Scanning "raw" is an approach where you only use the hardware settings
of the scanning program and disable all the software settings.
Specifically, it means using the maximum bit depth i.e. 16-bits (or 14
to be exact) and disabling curves and other adjustments. ICE is
in-between because it's part hardware and part software, but since it
can't be done later due to the hardware element, I use ICE as well.
Warning: ICE doesn't work with most Kodachromes! (BTW, VueScan doesn't
have ICE but an inferior "IR cleaning" method which even fans admit
falls way short of ICE.)

The resulting image of scanning raw is your "digital negative". After
that you can do all the editing outside of your scanner without having
to re-scan. If you're not happy with the result, you just start again
with the "digital negative". That's not only faster than re-scanning,
but re-scanning doesn't really bring anything new to the image. And
your scanner will last longer!

Finally, check the archives because there have been quite a few
messages in this group on scanning raw.

Don.

 

[Don]

Whilst he might just ocassionaly have a valid point, I have challenged
him to support the wild accusations that he makes here. Others have done
so to, and he almost always fails to do so.

Below are a few quotes from *VueScan users* themselves to contradict
that - so you'll have to argue among yourselves to sort it all out.

I quoted them to you on 12 and 13 January of this year, after which
you suddenly went silent. (!)

This is how most "rabid VueScan defenders" react when cornered with
undeniable objective facts. Others resort to obscenities.

It's also notable that none of them actually tried to help Phil but
were obsessed, instead, with "defending" VueScan.

A chip on your collective shoulder, perhaps...?

Don.

--- start ---

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. I was taken in by the
nice way you have control over the whole process, once you get to
know the layout. That multi-sampling was only producing completely
useless results, that auto-focussing wasn't working, that a plain
color scan was producing faint bands of varying colors at a right
angle to the scan diredtion

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.


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.

--- end ---

 

[Hecate]

There's nothing wrong with VueScan so quit lying about it.

I take it you've never used it then, if you think there's nothing
wrong with it.

 

[Hecate]

Hello

I'm currently using a coolscan 4 ED with really good results from negatives.
I do find however that the colour balance scans from slides is not perfect.
I also have to turn up the gain to get a well exposed scan. I would be
grateful for anyone's opinions on the usefulness of Viewscan in general and
with regard to slides in particular.

Thanks in anticipation

As far as Vuescan goes, try it. If, like e, you then think it's a
rolling beta that needs a lot of work before you can rely on it, ditch
it. Otherwise use it if you like.

Personally, I wouldn't le it near any serious scanner, but YMMV.

 

[false_dmitrii]

As far as Vuescan goes, try it. If, like e, you then think it's a
rolling beta that needs a lot of work before you can rely on it, ditch
it. Otherwise use it if you like.

<snip>

This is really the best advice in the thread. Some people hate Vuescan
and others use nothing else. Some people have more compatibility
trouble than others despite using the same scanner model. There's also
an ongoing public dispute between Don and several VS users that colors
most discussion. There's no alternative in the price range, so it's a
simple like-it-or-don't choice. Download the demo and see how it
treats you.

I recall Kennedy McEwen posting that he gets consistently superior
results with Nikon Scan but that it took some time to master the Nikon
software...or something along those lines, anyway, with the overall
point being that he saw some merit to VS but was far happier with his
Nikon Scan output.

false_dmitrii

 

[Don]

<snip>

This is really the best advice in the thread. Some people hate Vuescan
and others use nothing else. Some people have more compatibility
trouble than others despite using the same scanner model. There's also
an ongoing public dispute between Don and several VS users that colors
most discussion. There's no alternative in the price range, so it's a
simple like-it-or-don't choice. Download the demo and see how it
treats you.

I myself have repeatedly said exactly the same thing - many times -
but some VueScan devotees just get too overexcited so they
consistently (or perhaps intentionally) miss it.

Don.

 

[Don]

As far as Vuescan goes, try it. If, like e, you then think it's a
rolling beta that needs a lot of work before you can rely on it, ditch
it. Otherwise use it if you like.

Personally, I wouldn't let it near any serious scanner, but YMMV.

Or even near a comical one! ;o)

Don.

 

[Hecate]

This is really the best advice in the thread. Some people hate Vuescan
and others use nothing else. Some people have more compatibility
trouble than others despite using the same scanner model. There's also
an ongoing public dispute between Don and several VS users that colors
most discussion. There's no alternative in the price range, so it's a
simple like-it-or-don't choice. Download the demo and see how it
treats you.

Exactly. That's what I did initially and then couldn't get it off my
computer fast enough <g> But, as I said, YMMV which I think is always
the answer to these sort of things.

What pi**es me off is that if you happen to think, like I do, that
Vuescan is crap, then you get personal attacks from d's devotees, the
Hamrick Glee Club ;-)

I recall Kennedy McEwen posting that he gets consistently superior
results with Nikon Scan but that it took some time to master the Nikon
software...or something along those lines, anyway, with the overall
point being that he saw some merit to VS but was far happier with his
Nikon Scan output.

I actually found I got better results with the Minolta software, but I
am going to try Silverfast at some time.

 

[Ralf R. Radermacher]

I am going to try Silverfast at some time.

By all means do. The sooner the better.

Hell, you ain't seen nothing yet. Just wait to see the *real* rolling
beta where they'll have you pay big time not once but for each and every
little bugfix revision they're selling as another major upgrade. Find
out how the same bugs, some of them years old, are still there.

Fall for their lies and false promises ("full colour-corrected 48 bit
output with Nikon scanners"). Find out how SF is subject to the same
stupid limitations as your scanner's original software because it's only
a glamorous front-end for the same old TWAIN drivers.

Watch them drop essential features like ICE support from the next
revision of your scanner's version of SF. Spend a few years waiting for
promised calls from what must be the most rotten service department on
Earth while they're trying to borrow a scanner to check your problem.
Enjoy the furious messages and phone calls you'll be getting from Mr.
Silverfast President if you dare speak out on a Newsgroup.

Can't wait to read what you'll have to say about that.

Ralf

 

[false_dmitrii]

On 7 Feb 2005 21:40:43 -0800, (e-mail address removed) wrote:

I actually found I got better results with the Minolta software, but I
am going to try Silverfast at some time.

I sure hope you got better results with the Minolta SW instead of Nikon
Scan on your Minolta scanner.

Do you scan negatives? If so, what do you do to avoid clipping? I've
been trying Bart vdW's method of scanning as positive and adjusting
exposure to achieve a white base mask, but this seems to leave a lot of
empty space in the histograms. This leads me to wonder whether I'm
sacrificing more initial dynamic range than necessary, causing greater
grain visibility down the line, etc. Or maybe I'm just getting a step
wrong.

false_dmitrii

 

[false_dmitrii]

By all means do. The sooner the better.

Hell, you ain't seen nothing yet. Just wait to see the *real* rolling
beta where they'll have you pay big time not once but for each and every
little bugfix revision they're selling as another major upgrade. Find
out how the same bugs, some of them years old, are still there.

Fall for their lies and false promises ("full colour-corrected 48 bit
output with Nikon scanners"). Find out how SF is subject to the same
stupid limitations as your scanner's original software because it's only
a glamorous front-end for the same old TWAIN drivers.

Watch them drop essential features like ICE support from the next
revision of your scanner's version of SF. Spend a few years waiting for
promised calls from what must be the most rotten service department on
Earth while they're trying to borrow a scanner to check your problem.
Enjoy the furious messages and phone calls you'll be getting from Mr.
Silverfast President if you dare speak out on a Newsgroup.

Can't wait to read what you'll have to say about that.

Hey, where were you last time I asked about Silverfast? I've seen
the complaints about bad customer service before, and I've so far been
put off by the pricing system, but I haven't seen the technical
complaints yet. The demo versions have given me more reliable
semi-auto color correction for negatives than my own faulty efforts.
What are some of the most significant technical problems you've had
with SF6 (apart from what you wrote)?

false_dmitrii

 

[Bart van der Wolf]

SNIP

Do you scan negatives? If so, what do you do to avoid clipping?
I've been trying Bart vdW's method of scanning as positive and
adjusting exposure to achieve a white base mask, but this
seems to leave a lot of empty space in the histograms.

There probably isn't enough density range in the negative.
Remember that for a dynamic range of 65535:1 you'd need a film's
optical density range of 4.81. Not even slide film offers such a
(Dmax-Dmin) density range, and negatives usually have much lower range
(typically someting like 3.1) and some of the higher slide densities
have poor color accuracy.

Bart

 

[Hecate]

By all means do. The sooner the better.

I shall try it, like Vuescan, and compare it with the software Minolta
provides. When I get the time of course. And If I think it's crap I
shall say so. I don't care who makes it. I'm only interested in
software that works correctly, doesn't promise what it won't do (ala
Vuescan) and doesn't cost what I consider a unreasonable price. If,
as you say, Silverfast doesn't fulfil those criteria then I shall
treat it exactly the same way as I have Vuescan.

 

[Hecate]

Do you scan negatives? If so, what do you do to avoid clipping? I've
been trying Bart vdW's method of scanning as positive and adjusting
exposure to achieve a white base mask, but this seems to leave a lot of
empty space in the histograms. This leads me to wonder whether I'm
sacrificing more initial dynamic range than necessary, causing greater
grain visibility down the line, etc. Or maybe I'm just getting a step
wrong.

Bart's method sounds good and he has explained below what your problem
may be.

I mainly scan transparencies, apart from some B&W negs and, to be
honest, I haven't really had problems. Because my scans are about 10:1
transparencies I've tended to adjust on single image basis whereas I
have several jobs set up for transparencies.