VueScan 8.2.11 and exposure lock

[Andrey Tarasevich]

Hello

I just installed 8.2.11 and noticed that this version no longer makes
the IR pass during preview on my FS4000. Now, when I'm using the
advanced workflow (Preview - Lock exposure - Preview - Lock film base
color sequence) I get the same value in 'RGB exposure' and 'Infrared
exposure' windows. This is not surprising, since now VueScan does not
make the IR pass and, therefore, does not have any data to derive the IR
exposure from.

The older versions (I don't know when exactly this change occurred) did
make an IR pass during preview and the locked exposure value for IR pass
was significantly different than locked RGB exposure value (much higher).

Does anyone know what's the idea behind this change? How is it supposed
to work now?

 

[Andrey Tarasevich]

I just installed 8.2.11 and noticed that this version no longer makes
the IR pass during preview on my FS4000. Now, when I'm using the
advanced workflow (Preview - Lock exposure - Preview - Lock film base
color sequence) I get the same value in 'RGB exposure' and 'Infrared
exposure' windows. This is not surprising, since now VueScan does not
make the IR pass and, therefore, does not have any data to derive the IR
exposure from.

The older versions (I don't know when exactly this change occurred) did
make an IR pass during preview and the locked exposure value for IR pass
was significantly different than locked RGB exposure value (much higher).

Does anyone know what's the idea behind this change? How is it supposed
to work now?
...

I played with it a little more and I have to conclude that this version
is completely broken and useless.

For example, it ignores the crop frame. I set the crop box manually
after preview and then press 'Scan' and it scans some completely
unrelated portion of the image. Moreover, just setting the crop box on
the preview, switching to some other frame and then returning to the
original one makes that crop box to jump to some apparently random location.

Another problem is the batch setting. I often do preview in batch mode
(six frames) and then disable batch mode and scan it frame-by-frame. I
tried to do it in this version. After I disabled batch mode and pressed
'Scan', VueScan went on to scanning all six frames in batch mode,
despite that fact that I explicitly asked it to scan only one frame.

What's going on with VueScan? Apparently, nobody is even trying to do
even the most basic testing of the new version before the release.

 

[John]

I played with it a little more and I have to conclude that this version
is completely broken and useless.

For example, it ignores the crop frame. I set the crop box manually
after preview and then press 'Scan' and it scans some completely
unrelated portion of the image. Moreover, just setting the crop box on
the preview, switching to some other frame and then returning to the
original one makes that crop box to jump to some apparently random location.

Another problem is the batch setting. I often do preview in batch mode
(six frames) and then disable batch mode and scan it frame-by-frame. I
tried to do it in this version. After I disabled batch mode and pressed
'Scan', VueScan went on to scanning all six frames in batch mode,
despite that fact that I explicitly asked it to scan only one frame.

What's going on with VueScan? Apparently, nobody is even trying to do
even the most basic testing of the new version before the release.

That all sounds pretty hairy! I assume that you have done the usual stuff of
deleting the vuescan.ini file?

I tend to upgrade on a 'needs only' basis these days so I haven't tried this
version. I like to let the dust settle first!

 

[John]

I played with it a little more and I have to conclude that this version
is completely broken and useless.

For example, it ignores the crop frame. I set the crop box manually
after preview and then press 'Scan' and it scans some completely
unrelated portion of the image. Moreover, just setting the crop box on
the preview, switching to some other frame and then returning to the
original one makes that crop box to jump to some apparently random location.

Another problem is the batch setting. I often do preview in batch mode
(six frames) and then disable batch mode and scan it frame-by-frame. I
tried to do it in this version. After I disabled batch mode and pressed
'Scan', VueScan went on to scanning all six frames in batch mode,
despite that fact that I explicitly asked it to scan only one frame.

What's going on with VueScan? Apparently, nobody is even trying to do
even the most basic testing of the new version before the release.

That all sounds pretty hairy! I assume that you have done the usual stuff of
deleting the vuescan.ini file?

I tend to upgrade on a 'needs only' basis these days so I haven't tried this
version. I like to let the dust settle first!

 

[Don]

I played with it a little more and I have to conclude that this version
is completely broken and useless. ....
What's going on with VueScan? Apparently, nobody is even trying to do
even the most basic testing of the new version before the release.

That's nothing new. VueScan has always been like that.
It's where the "VueScan is rolling Beta" phrase comes from.

When a program in major version 8 exhibits such elementary bugs it
should sound all sorts of alarm bells for anyone who cares about
reliability and quality. I mean, the first though that comes to mind
is what other more subtle horrors are lurking in there?

Don.

 

[John]

I played with it a little more and I have to conclude that this version
is completely broken and useless.

For example, it ignores the crop frame. I set the crop box manually
after preview and then press 'Scan' and it scans some completely
unrelated portion of the image. Moreover, just setting the crop box on
the preview, switching to some other frame and then returning to the
original one makes that crop box to jump to some apparently random location.

Another problem is the batch setting. I often do preview in batch mode
(six frames) and then disable batch mode and scan it frame-by-frame. I
tried to do it in this version. After I disabled batch mode and pressed
'Scan', VueScan went on to scanning all six frames in batch mode,
despite that fact that I explicitly asked it to scan only one frame.

What's going on with VueScan? Apparently, nobody is even trying to do
even the most basic testing of the new version before the release.

Just as an update, out of curiosity and against my better judgement, I tried
version 8.2.11. I use a Nikon Coolscan 4000, so I cannot help with the
infra-red issue - the Nikon does the lot in a single pass. However, I did
look into the cropping. I didn't get quite the same as you, but something
equally wacky. I previewed a strip of 4 negs, then for each frame I
arbitrarily adjusted the cropping. I could then go to each in turn (preview
I mean) and the cropping boxes stayed put. However, when I scanned one of
the frames, it scanned the correct portion, but then corrupted the preview
display so I could only see the section that I had scanned. The cropping box
was now overhanging the edge. Zoom Out did not bring things back. All other
frames previewed normally until they were scanned - then the same thing
happened.

I rolled back to version 8.2.08 - all works fine.

So it looks like a serious bug with the cropping system, as you suggest. Don
will say "told you so" -well, he did! Stick to your working version.
Upgrade at your peril!

 

[Andrey Tarasevich]

Just as an update, out of curiosity and against my better judgement, I tried
version 8.2.11. I use a Nikon Coolscan 4000, so I cannot help with the
infra-red issue - the Nikon does the lot in a single pass. However, I did
look into the cropping. I didn't get quite the same as you, but something
equally wacky. I previewed a strip of 4 negs, then for each frame I
arbitrarily adjusted the cropping. I could then go to each in turn (preview
I mean) and the cropping boxes stayed put. However, when I scanned one of
the frames, it scanned the correct portion, but then corrupted the preview
display so I could only see the section that I had scanned. The cropping box
was now overhanging the edge. Zoom Out did not bring things back. All other
frames previewed normally until they were scanned - then the same thing
happened.

I rolled back to version 8.2.08 - all works fine.

So it looks like a serious bug with the cropping system, as you suggest. Don
will say "told you so" -well, he did! Stick to your working version.
Upgrade at your peril!
...

Well, in my case the cropping problem turned out to be something from
the "first run glitch" category. After restarting VueScan several times
and forcing crop boxes to where I want them to be, I managed to make
them to stay in place and scan properly. The unrequested batch scan
problem also went away, as it seems.

However, another problem still persists: rotation setting does not work.
Normally, I'd preview a batch of 6 frames, set individual rotation for
each frame if necessary and then scan. In 8.2.11 the rotation setting is
ignored. Regardless of what I set, the final TIFF files are saved in the
original (non-rotated) orientation.

Interestingly enough, in 8.2.11 the raw display during scan is now
oriented in accordance with the chosen rotation setting (the older
versions I used always displayed raw data vertically). This indicated
that Ed did indeed make some rotation-related UI improvements.
Apparently, while introducing this purely visual improvement he managed
to destroy the actual functionality.

Also, for reasons I can't explain, preview display seems to be heavily
de-focused. I use either 500 or 1000 dpi for previews and in older
versions the previews looked pretty much as expected for a low-res scan.
In this version they look much softer, as if they were intentionally
blurred. The Auto-Focus setting is set to 'Always'.

 

[Roger]

I emailed Ed about the rotation problem with 8.2.09 and he told me
8.2.11 should fix it and if not to submit a bug report. Andrey, can
you enable log file and send a bug report to Ed? I know he is trying
to fix this file.

As for the preview blur, when filter is set to anything but none there
is blur. I'm still using 8.2.09 on my FS4000US so I can't say if
things ahve gotten worse recently.

You should ask Ed about the IR issue. I remember it used to be RGB
around 2 and IR at 18. Ed told me that setting the IR exposure too
high was causing problems and that it should actually be much lower-
usually lower than the RGB exposure time.

 

[Andrey Tarasevich]

...
You should ask Ed about the IR issue. I remember it used to be RGB
around 2 and IR at 18. Ed told me that setting the IR exposure too
high was causing problems and that it should actually be much lower-
usually lower than the RGB exposure time.
...

Interesting. About 2 for RGB and about 18 for IR is exactly what I was
getting before. Can't say that this was causing any problems.

 

[Steven]

Interesting. About 2 for RGB and about 18 for IR is exactly what I was
getting before. Can't say that this was causing any problems.

I tested Vuescan with my FS4000 a while ago because I noticed there was
no difference with an exposure of 2 and 2.99. It turns out that the
valid range of values is from 1 to 6 and any fraction is discarded. The
value is multiplied by 2 (by VS) and then loaded into the FS4000. I
think VS ensures the value is from 2 to 12 before configuring the FS4000
but if it doesn't then the configure will be rejected so the speed
divisor (loaded by this value) will be whatever it was before (probably
the RGB value).

In 8.0.?? VS I found that the IR exposure value was close to the RGB
value. I haven't tested with 8.1 or 8.2. If VS is using 2 and 18 for
the exposure values this would mean that the the RGB divisor will be 4
(2 * 2) and the IR divisor will be 12 (18 * 2, then reduced to max
allowed value). If your IR pass takes about the same time as the RGB
pass I'd suspect that the value is out of range. If it takes about
three times longer it probably is being limited correctly.

-- Steven

 

[Bruce Graham]

I tested Vuescan with my FS4000 a while ago because I noticed there was
no difference with an exposure of 2 and 2.99. It turns out that the
valid range of values is from 1 to 6 and any fraction is discarded. The
value is multiplied by 2 (by VS) and then loaded into the FS4000. I
think VS ensures the value is from 2 to 12 before configuring the FS4000
but if it doesn't then the configure will be rejected so the speed
divisor (loaded by this value) will be whatever it was before (probably
the RGB value).

In 8.0.?? VS I found that the IR exposure value was close to the RGB
value. I haven't tested with 8.1 or 8.2. If VS is using 2 and 18 for
the exposure values this would mean that the the RGB divisor will be 4
(2 * 2) and the IR divisor will be 12 (18 * 2, then reduced to max
allowed value). If your IR pass takes about the same time as the RGB
pass I'd suspect that the value is out of range. If it takes about
three times longer it probably is being limited correctly.

-- Steven

Not so fast, Ed *may* have improved this. I think I remember that the
Canon Filmget used much lower IR exposures and still got the scratches
removed (with different and eventually larger problems than Vuescan as
Vuescan evolved). I'm not using my FS4000 much just now so can't offer
any real data.

Bruce

 

[Don]

So it looks like a serious bug with the cropping system, as you suggest. Don
will say "told you so" -well, he did!

LOL! ;o)

Let Don make a prediction (applies to all VueScan bugs): The bug may
be hidden in the next version, but will undoubtedly resurface a few
versions later.

Stick to your working version.

Don said that as well.

Upgrade at your peril!

Don would put it more generally: Use VueScan at your peril!

Don.

P.S. It's also notable how rabid VueScan defenders have suddenly gone
quiet! It's nice, though...

 

[John]

LOL! ;o)

Let Don make a prediction (applies to all VueScan bugs): The bug may
be hidden in the next version, but will undoubtedly resurface a few
versions later.

Maybe this is already a reincarnation of the recent double image cropping
bug in a slightly different guise?

Don said that as well.


Don would put it more generally: Use VueScan at your peril!

I'm getting increasingly nervous.

Don.

P.S. It's also notable how rabid VueScan defenders have suddenly gone
quiet! It's nice, though...

LOL

 

[Ralf R. Radermacher]

P.S. It's also notable how rabid VueScan defenders have suddenly gone
quiet!

Have they? There's a bug in 8.2.11. So what. Sh*t happens. You're the
best example for this theory.

Ralf

 

[Roger]

Don, your comments aren't helpful.

With my scanner the choice is horrible TWAIN Filmget or Vuescan.
Filmget is incapable of scanning dark slides, does color correction at
8 bit precision, auto-sharpens everything and will only batch scan
until you run out of RAM. Vuescan's the only game in town, bugs and
all. You can tell me how awful Vuescan is, but how does that help me?
Write a better scanning program for the FS4000 and I'll try it.

 

[Steven]

With my scanner the choice is horrible TWAIN Filmget or Vuescan.
Filmget is incapable of scanning dark slides, does color correction at
8 bit precision, auto-sharpens everything and will only batch scan
until you run out of RAM. Vuescan's the only game in town, bugs and
all. You can tell me how awful Vuescan is, but how does that help me?
Write a better scanning program for the FS4000 and I'll try it.

The best thing about my Vuescan licence key is that it works with
Vueprint. I find Vueprint an excellent viewer and proof that Ed can
write good software.

Vuescan is a welcome relief after Filmget. Filmget is a pain with its
TWAIN interface and auto-sharpening but it does produce better images
than Vuescan (especially negatives). It does set the scanner properly
so I am surprised that you think Vuescan is better here.

If you want to try other software, Michel (www.wildestdreams.nl) has
recently released his program. It only scans slides but does have IR
cleaning. Or you can try my program (users.tpg.com.au/hys143) which
does positives and negs but doesn't have cleaning.

-- Steven

 

[Steven]

Not so fast, Ed *may* have improved this. I think I remember that the
Canon Filmget used much lower IR exposures and still got the scratches
removed (with different and eventually larger problems than Vuescan as
Vuescan evolved). I'm not using my FS4000 much just now so can't offer
any real data.

Yes, you could be right. But the value 18 seems odd given that the max
the FS4000 will accept is 12. This is why I asked if the IR pass was
done at the RGB pass speed or much slower. One could look at the VS log
but it is hard going as some of the command names are incorrect.

-- Steven

 

[John]

Have they? There's a bug in 8.2.11. So what. Sh*t happens. You're the
best example for this theory.

Ralf

--

I think however, it would be better for all of us if Ed Hamrick tightened up
on his releases to stop some of these annoyances getting through. Whilst
bugs such as this can be circumvented, it does shake my confidence somewhat
when such a fundamental thing slips through the net. Of course, Ed Hamrick
is doing himself no favours either. Any potential new customer downloading
this version as a demo, on finding such bugs will probably steer well clear
of Vuescan. And, of course, he is giving Don ammunition on a plate

As I have hinted in a recent post, I believe Vuescan is in danger of
becomming unsupportable, given the level of new 'features' (and in my view,
pointless ones) being added to it. I would be interested to know if anyone
in this group requested the addition of PDF output and OCR to Vuescan and
why. To maintain Vuescan as it was, given the number of scanners it
supports, is a daunting task in itself. Also, given that large companies
write dedicated programs to do only *one* of these two things, ask yourself
this: "How can one man possibly support single-handedly a program that
contains so many disparate features (and be knowledgeable in all of them)?
And how to make it work properly with 400 scanners (not to mention camera
RAW formats)? And sell it so relatively cheaply?" It stands to reason that
even for Superman, this is not possible. At best, the additional features
can be only simplistic and therefore not add significant value.

I suspect that Ed Hamrick now has his eyes on a diferent market, so I doubt
that there will be any significant improvements to Vuescan for users who are
primarily interested in scanning film, e.g. the likes of infra-red cleaning.
Of course, I could be wrong .....

 

[Ralf R. Radermacher]

I think however, it would be better for all of us if Ed Hamrick tightened up
on his releases to stop some of these annoyances getting through.

Amen, brother.

As I have hinted in a recent post, I believe Vuescan is in danger of
becomming unsupportable, given the level of new 'features' (and in my view,
pointless ones) being added to it.

Couldn't have said it any better but haven't commented on it the first
time you stated this because I didn't want to feed the resident troll.

I would be interested to know if anyone
in this group requested the addition of PDF output and OCR to Vuescan and
why.

I've been one of those asking... well.. rather begging for a decent
'curves' tool for years, only to be told that Vuescan is a program meant
for the sole purpose of creating scanned data and that there's plenty of
other software to do the rest.

I'm more than a little surprised to see the latest development. May I
suggest a module to generate some music during the actual scanning
process. NO! HOLD IT, ED. I WAS ONLY JOKING...

To maintain Vuescan as it was, given the number of scanners it
supports, is a daunting task in itself. Also, given that large companies
write dedicated programs to do only *one* of these two things, ask yourself
this: "How can one man possibly support single-handedly a program that
contains so many disparate features (and be knowledgeable in all of them)?

From my own painful experience with Silverfast, Ed is doing quite nicely
in this domain. Over the years I've seen more bugs in the SF for Nikon
version alone than I care to remember. Many of them were present through
a succession of several expensive 'upgrades'.

But I take your point and I see the danger.

I suspect that Ed Hamrick now has his eyes on a diferent market, so I doubt
that there will be any significant improvements to Vuescan for users who are
primarily interested in scanning film, e.g. the likes of infra-red cleaning.
Of course, I could be wrong .....

I think he's taken a wrong turn in his declared policy to favour
additions that are simple to implement and will generate a maximum of
new registrations. In my view, he'd be well advised to see the sales
promotion value of recommandations made by his existing customers.

Ralf

 

[John]

Amen, brother.


Couldn't have said it any better but haven't commented on it the first
time you stated this because I didn't want to feed the resident troll.


I've been one of those asking... well.. rather begging for a decent
'curves' tool for years, only to be told that Vuescan is a program meant
for the sole purpose of creating scanned data and that there's plenty of
other software to do the rest.

I'm more than a little surprised to see the latest development. May I
suggest a module to generate some music during the actual scanning
process. NO! HOLD IT, ED. I WAS ONLY JOKING...

LOL! Mind you, the 'DisplayRaw Scan' feature, annoyingly enabled by
default, comes close as 'visual music' (I genuinely can't see any other
benefit although others may disagree.)

them)?

From my own painful experience with Silverfast, Ed is doing quite nicely
in this domain. Over the years I've seen more bugs in the SF for Nikon
version alone than I care to remember. Many of them were present through
a succession of several expensive 'upgrades'.

I have never considered Silverfast more than fleetingly for one simple
reason - cost. Even though I scan as part of my business, I cannot justify
it. And, judging from what you and others have said, it leaves plenty to be
desired technically. My only experience of Silverfast is the SE version that
was bundled with one of my Epson scanners - my conclusion was that all the
useful features normally associated with Silverfast were removed to the
point where I could see no benefit over EpsonScan. (In fact, it is worse.)
Why do Epson bother to bundle this? Perhaps to associate themselves with the
name Silverfast?

But I take your point and I see the danger.


I think he's taken a wrong turn in his declared policy to favour
additions that are simple to implement and will generate a maximum of
new registrations. In my view, he'd be well advised to see the sales
promotion value of recommandations made by his existing customers.

Ralf

I wholeheartedly agree! I get the feeling that Ed Hamrick is not always a
good listener, but it's always a mistake not to listen to your customers.