Vuescan and Canon MP730

[Bruce]

I have downloaded the latest version of Vuescan and, despite the fact
that the documentation states that it supports the Canon MP730 I cannot
get it to function correctly.

It recognises the presence of the MP730 and the 'In Use' light on the
scanner lights up at the start of the preview process. However it goes
off at the point at which Vuescan claims it is scanning and there is no
sign of the scanner being activated. The scan process proceeds only to
produce a blank output.

Photoshop can use the scanner to import pictures quite happily.

I unloaded the drivers, removed Vuescan, downloaded and reinstalled the
latest Canon drivers and reinstalled Vuescan. All to no avail - its
behaviour is as before.

Does anyone have any suggestions about where I start to debug this
problem?

Thanks

 

[Paul Simons]

According to the Vuescan web site, you need to have a Windows OS and
Scangear software installed. Do you have these?

Paul

 

[Bruce]

Scangear doesnt come as an identifable stand alone package with either
the MP730 distro or the Canon website. However I assume it is installed
along with the drivers as Photoshop uses it to import scans quite
successfully.

Although I have read good reviews of Vuescan I am glad I tried the demo
version before latying out any money - a program which does not work
out of the box and for which there appears to be no support is a bit of
a worry.

 

[Klaas Visser]

Although I have read good reviews of Vuescan I am glad I tried the
demo version before latying out any money - a program which does not
work out of the box and for which there appears to be no support is a
bit of a worry.

I don't know where you got the idea there is no support for VueScan.
Have you looked at the support section on the webpage and sent a
problem report through?

VueScan has always worked out of the box through the many versions I've
run, and I've never had any problems I couldn't resolve by either
resetting to defaults, and reconfiguring, or by having a read through
this group.

I hope you get it working, VueScan is a great piece of software.

 

[Bruce]

Thanks - I am persisting given the good reviews and my intention to
scan a large set of slides and negatives (not on the MP730 but that is
a starting point). However I am getting nowhere fast and hoping that
someon can give me a pointer in the rigth direction.

I have indeed looked at the support section on their web site and have
emailed emailed the support web address but have yet to get a response.
The website states that they are unable to provide responses to other
than simple problems that can be answered in a single sentence or two
and refers user to this group so it is not lear whether or not I will
get a response. I searched this group for possible clues before posting
my query.

At this point I can scan with Photoshop and Acrobat (both of which use
Scangear to conduct the scan) but am unable to find even a pointer as
to where to start looking with Vuescan. It clearly knows the scanner is
there (it triggers the 'In Use' light on the front panel but this goes
out at the stage where Vuescan startes reporting it is scanning but the
scanner mechanism is not activated).

I have demonstrated that removing and reloading Canon's drivers and
removing and reinstalling Vuescan does not work, nor does resetting to
defaults. I remain hopeful that someone can give me a pointer in the
right direction.

 

[Don]

Although I have read good reviews of Vuescan I am glad I tried the demo
version before latying out any money - a program which does not work
out of the box and for which there appears to be no support is a bit of
a worry.

VueScan is actually quite buggy and unreliable. Just stick around for
a few days and you'll see lots of messages with problems and users
scrambling for older versions where "this or that" still pretended to
work.

As to support, it's a one-man show so don't expect much. Even bug
reports are generally ignored by the author and I hear there's a
special pedantic format you have to follow. Even then - unless you
explicitly ask for a confirmation - it usually goes unanswered,
apparently.

Many people have been (mis)using this group for support and there are
quite a few knowledgeable users who are very willing to help with your
VueScan problems (you'll need it!) but even they can't fix the bugs.

Nevertheless, if you're after a quick-and-dirty job and don't care
much for quality VueScan may just be the ticket.

VueScan's biggest claim to fame was that it worked on multiple
scanners/OSes and was a stand-alone program (no need for TWAIN).
However, apparently this has been seriously dented with all these new
conditions regarding original software DLLs.

The key question is: What's wrong with your original scanner software?

People looking for other software usually don't need a scanner
software but *image editing* software because any native scanner
program will get the image out. The problem is usually what you do
with it afterwards. If that's indeed the case, you'd be much better
off investing in a decent image editing program.

Don.

 

[Carsten Schurig]

...

[cut, because same old vuescan flamewar as anytime]

Please Don, stop responding to vuescan threads! We all know now that you
don't like vuescan at all...

Carsten

 

[Don]

Please Don, stop responding to vuescan threads! We all know now that you
don't like vuescan at all...

That makes as much (actually, as little) sense as:

Please Carsten, stop responding to vuescan threads! We all know now
that you like vuescan very much...

Don't you think the person asking is entitled to hear the whole story?

Especially when important information you chose to leave out deals
with objective facts and not with subjective likes and dislikes you're
focusing on.

Don.

 

[Klaas Visser]

VueScan is actually quite buggy and unreliable.

In the interests of balance, I've never reliability issues with
VueScan, and I almost religiously upgrade as each version comes out. I
run a Canon FS4000US via the USB port, and after every upgrade rebuild
the .ini file. My workload is fairly light, as photography and image
editing is a hobby for me, so that may or may not make a difference.

Nevertheless, if you're after a quick-and-dirty job and don't care
much for quality VueScan may just be the ticket.

The key question is: What's wrong with your original scanner software?

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

However, I won't let my observed facts get in the way of your belief
that VueScan is not up to scratch.

 

[Klaas Visser]

Thanks - I am persisting given the good reviews and my intention to
scan a large set of slides and negatives (not on the MP730 but that is
a starting point). However I am getting nowhere fast and hoping that
someon can give me a pointer in the rigth direction.

Bruce,

In your original post, you mentioned you had downloaded the latest
version - exactly what version number are you running.

I note on the VueScan release notes page*, that an unspecified problem
with the Canon MP series was fixed in version 8.1.21 so if you have an
older version, you might want to try the current one (which is 8.1.23).

* ref http://www.hamrick.com/vuescan/vuescan.htm#changes

 

[Don]

In the interests of balance, I've never reliability issues with
VueScan, and I almost religiously upgrade as each version comes out. I
run a Canon FS4000US via the USB port, and after every upgrade rebuild
the .ini file. My workload is fairly light, as photography and image
editing is a hobby for me, so that may or may not make a difference.

It certainly does! Like I said in the original message which you
conveniently quoted:

So it does make a lot of difference if your use is only casual.

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

You should've read the rest... Scanning and image editing are two
totally separate things.

Your confusion stems from judging "scan quality" based on VueScan's
image editing. In reality, due to numerous VueScan bugs that processed
image you prefer is seriously corrupt i.e., very low quality.

Now, be that as it may, if you in your *casual* use are happy with
such low quality that's fine.

What is certainly not fine is to make totally false and misleading
statements, implying that your subjective opinion has any relation to
objective fact.

It's like saying: "A fast food burger is much better nutritional
quality (for all) than a health food soya burger, because fast food
tastes better (to me)".

However, I won't let my observed facts get in the way of your belief
that VueScan is not up to scratch.

Of course, like all subjective observations by VueScan devotees that
has no basis in fact. And, as is usual in such cases, I will simply
quote to you your own contradictory message back so you can argue with
yourself:

--- start ---

I note on the VueScan release notes page*, that an unspecified problem
with the Canon MP series was fixed in version 8.1.21 so if you have an
older version, you might want to try the current one (which is 8.1.23).

* ref http://www.hamrick.com/vuescan/vuescan.htm#changes

--- end ---

So, as you yourself clearly demonstrated, it's not my "belief" but a
*fact* that VueScan is very buggy and unreliable.

Which is where we came in...

Don.

 

[Steven Kefford]

Don wrote:
....

--- end ---

So, as you yourself clearly demonstrated, it's not my "belief" but a
*fact* that VueScan is very buggy and unreliable.

....
Don,

This does _not_ demonstrate that Vuescan is "very buggy and unreliable".
I doubt if there is any sw of any significance that does not have
one bug, at least in the eyes of at least one user.

I am fairly new to this list, but it is obvious in this short time that
you are running a vendetta against Ed Hamrick/Vuescan. Do you have a
list of all these bugs to support this position?

Steve

 

[Klaas Visser]

Don wrote:

You should've read the rest... Scanning and image editing are two
totally separate things.

Your confusion stems from judging "scan quality" based on VueScan's
image editing. In reality, due to numerous VueScan bugs that processed
image you prefer is seriously corrupt i.e., very low quality.

I'm well aware of the difference between scanning and image editing.

I have no confusion because I do no image editing in VueScan. I simply
bring in the image to Photoshop at the same point I would from the
native software. Everytime I get a new version of VueScan, I repeat
the comparison tests of FilmGet vs old version of VueScan vs new
version of VueScan. At all times, I can see a measureably better scan
result using VueScan over FilmGet.

What is certainly not fine is to make totally false and misleading
statements, implying that your subjective opinion has any relation to
objective fact.

Of course, like all subjective observations by VueScan devotees that
has no basis in fact.

I'm sorry, running comparison tests on a control image under a
reasonably controlled and repeatable set of conditions is not
objective? What process would be objective?

You continue to state that VueScan is a piece of garbage, and that it
is all but useless. My response is that in my experience and usage, it
is not a piece of garbage, and therefore not totally useless as you
seem to want to keep stressing.

Yes, it has bugs - there is very little software that hasn't - but that
is not reason enough to continually denigrate the product as
vociferously as you do.

 

[Don]

Don wrote:
...
...
Don,

This does _not_ demonstrate that Vuescan is "very buggy and unreliable".
I doubt if there is any sw of any significance that does not have
one bug, at least in the eyes of at least one user.

I am fairly new to this list, but it is obvious in this short time that
you are running a vendetta against Ed Hamrick/Vuescan. Do you have a
list of all these bugs to support this position?

Hi Steve,

While it is true that all software has some bug or other VueScan is in
a category of its own.

Once you've been here a while you'll notice that there is an
uninterrupted flood of messages reporting these bugs (usually, but not
necessarily, coinciding with each new release). What is also quite
unique is that, often, it's the same bugs over and over again. They
may disappear in one release but then re-appear later. For example,
search the archives for "Minolta streaks" and you'll find that for
over a year the author has been shamelessly claiming that VueScan
works fine (false advertising) but many users begged to differ.

See (1) below.

And last but not least, some bugs are very elementary, such as recent
inability to scan at all, or current complaints about how markedly
slower the scans have become. This shows a total absence of even the
most basic quality control.

See (2) below.

So as you can see, I don't run a vendetta, and if you check the
archives you'll see that I only reply when challenged or to correct a
subjective opinion with objective facts.

Also, please note that it is not I who reports these bugs virtually
daily; it's the VueScan users themselves. However, instead of
expressing their frustration to the author they misdirect it at other
people i.e., shoot the messenger, so to speak.

I'm perfectly happy with people using VueScan and, indeed, have
recommended it myself many times (again, check the archives). However,
this newsgroup is supposed to help people so when challenged with
falsehoods or facing patent untruths, I reserve the right to respond
with objective facts without any animosity or getting personal - as
you can see. Sadly, that can't be said for the "other side", again, as
you can clearly see with all the abuse - which, I may add, I never
return.

Indeed, I have recommended they filter my messages but they apparently
just can't help themselves and are constantly posting flame baits and
personal attacks. However, as a matter of course, I simply ignore all
such content-free message.

Don.

(1)

 

[Don]

I'm well aware of the difference between scanning and image editing.

That was not clear from your message as the implication was that you
were basing your quality judgement on a subjective way the image
looked to you rather than on objective analysis (could be the language
barrier).

I have no confusion because I do no image editing in VueScan. I simply
bring in the image to Photoshop at the same point I would from the
native software. Everytime I get a new version of VueScan, I repeat
the comparison tests of FilmGet vs old version of VueScan vs new
version of VueScan. At all times, I can see a measureably better scan
result using VueScan over FilmGet.

I'm not familiar with FilmGet so I can't comment other than to ask
what sort of scan are you doing? Are you raw scanning? If not, are you
doing the same type of scan in both programs?

Also, are you aware that VueScan has/had a serious color management
problem? I remember a message from an irate German graphics studio
over a year ago who complained about a considerable amount of time and
money wasted because they had to rescan a number of images.

That's an example of a "hidden" but persistent VueScan problem which
is the most damaging and which makes the program unreliable. However,
to a casual user, such problems are unimportant and invisible.
Usually, they are not even aware of it.

You continue to state that VueScan is a piece of garbage, and that it
is all but useless. My response is that in my experience and usage, it
is not a piece of garbage, and therefore not totally useless as you
seem to want to keep stressing.

No, that is not what I'm saying. That's a (mistaken) subjective
misinterpretation of what I'm saying. I'm saying (when challenged)
that VueScan is bug ridden and unreliable. And then support that
statement with facts - usually messages from VueScan users themselves.

Now, for some people those bugs may not be relevant, if all they want
to do is a quick-and-dirty scan. And I have absolutely no problem with
that. I do have a problem, when they mislead other people presenting
this subjective feeling based on their low level threshold as
objective fact and absolute truth.

*** Also, are you aware that I have frequently recommend VueScan in my
replies if all people wanted was a quick-and-dirty job and weren't
really concerned with quality? Please, check the archives.

Yes, it has bugs - there is very little software that hasn't - but that
is not reason enough to continually denigrate the product as
vociferously as you do.

See my message to Steve regarding bugs.

I do not denigrate VueScan. I just state the (objective) facts. If
those facts are uncomplimentary or uncomfortable that has nothing to
do with me.

For example, "VueScan claimed for over a year there was no problem
with Minolta while many users reported there was - and some asked for
their money back, but never got it". That's an objective and provable
fact. To some biased VueScan fundamentalists, however, that's - as you
put it - "vociferous denigration". I'm sorry, but how I can I be
blamed for such inaccurate and subjective misinterpretation?

Don.

 

[Jumm]

"However, as a matter of course, I simply ignore all

such content-free message"

What bull, Don. Vendetta is too soft a word to describe your actions.
I've been reading this group for a year now, and every time I clear out
my block filter you are here proclaiming your innocense. You "protest
too much". While your posts may not qualify as contentless, they
certainly are repetitious, to the nth degree. Butter wouldn't melt in
your "humble" mouth.
Jim

 

[Steven Kefford]

Don wrote:
....

Hi Steve,

While it is true that all software has some bug or other VueScan is in
a category of its own.

Once you've been here a while you'll notice that there is an
uninterrupted flood of messages reporting these bugs (usually, but not
necessarily, coinciding with each new release). What is also quite
unique is that, often, it's the same bugs over and over again. They
may disappear in one release but then re-appear later. For example,
search the archives for "Minolta streaks" and you'll find that for
over a year the author has been shamelessly claiming that VueScan
works fine (false advertising) but many users begged to differ.

As anybody who knows anything about sw development knows, a user
reporting a bug does not imply that there is a bug. The ratio between
reported bugs, and actual bugs does vary a lot, but is almost always
significantly less than one. And some bugs take longer to track down
that others, for a variety of reasons, such as unique configurations.
This is especially so for apps that are communicating with a large
number of diverse items of hw. Are you suggesting that Vuescan is the
only sw that has had an outstanding bug for 12 months?

And last but not least, some bugs are very elementary, such as recent
inability to scan at all, or current complaints about how markedly
slower the scans have become. This shows a total absence of even the
most basic quality control.

Whilst you might think that a bug is elementary, until the cause has
been determined, it is not possible to know if it is elementary or not.
Maybee it is elementary, but you are not in a position to know that, but
that is your subjective opinion (again). Your point about absence of
quality control is totally unfounded.

So as you can see, I don't run a vendetta, and if you check the
archives you'll see that I only reply when challenged or to correct a
subjective opinion with objective facts.

Sorry, but it is a vendetta. You do not provide objective facts, but
what you do do is provide false conclusions. In my post asked if you
have a list of all these bugs. I asked for objective facts. Assuming
that the few mentioned in your reply is not this list, you have failed
to provide these objective facts, so I conclude that your contribution
is a subjective opinion. On the other hand, if it is the list, then I
would conclude that Vuescan is a high quality piece of sw.

Also, please note that it is not I who reports these bugs virtually
daily; it's the VueScan users themselves. However, instead of
expressing their frustration to the author they misdirect it at other
people i.e., shoot the messenger, so to speak.

Why are you the messenger? What is your message then?



Steve

 

[Klaas Visser]

That was not clear from your message as the implication was that you
were basing your quality judgement on a subjective way the image
looked to you rather than on objective analysis (could be the language
barrier).

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. 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.

If not, are you doing the same type of scan in both programs?

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

No, that is not what I'm saying. That's a (mistaken) subjective
misinterpretation of what I'm saying. I'm saying (when challenged)
that VueScan is bug ridden and unreliable. And then support that
statement with facts - usually messages from VueScan users themselves.

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?

I do not denigrate VueScan. I just state the (objective) facts. If
those facts are uncomplimentary or uncomfortable that has nothing to
do with me.
For example, "VueScan claimed for over a year there was no problem
with Minolta while many users reported there was - and some asked for
their money back, but never got it". That's an objective and provable
fact. To some biased VueScan fundamentalists, however, that's - as you
put it - "vociferous denigration". I'm sorry, but how I can I be
blamed for such inaccurate and subjective misinterpretation?

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.

 

[Don]

What bull, Don. Vendetta is too soft a word to describe your actions.
I've been reading this group for a year now, and every time I clear out
my block filter you are here proclaiming your innocense. You "protest
too much". While your posts may not qualify as contentless, they
certainly are repetitious, to the nth degree. Butter wouldn't melt in
your "humble" mouth.

Let me get this straight... According to you, then:

If I don't back up my statements with facts, that's a vendetta.
If I do back up my statements with facts, I "protest too much".

When VueScan is subjectively praised, that's not repetitious.
When I respond to that with objective facts, that's repetitious.

A-ha... Right... O... K... That's very interesting "logic"!

Well, all I can say is, thank you for providing a prime example of a
content-free message I refer to above! ;o)

Don.

 

[Don]

As anybody who knows anything about sw development knows, a user
reporting a bug does not imply that there is a bug. The ratio between
reported bugs, and actual bugs does vary a lot, but is almost always
significantly less than one. And some bugs take longer to track down
that others, for a variety of reasons, such as unique configurations.
This is especially so for apps that are communicating with a large
number of diverse items of hw. Are you suggesting that Vuescan is the
only sw that has had an outstanding bug for 12 months?

With over 20 years of IT experience (from assembly programming to
project management) I think I probably know a thing or two about
software development...

When multiple people report the same bug and when this bug is
persistent for over a year during which time countless versions of the
program are released all falsely claiming to have fixed it, I think we
can safely assume it's a bug.

And that's only one example. If you stick around you'll observe many
more.

Do note also that I do not base my conclusions on a mere (single)
report of a bug, but on a whole thread whereby several people confirm
it, collectively scrambling for a solution - usually desperate to get
an older version.

No, VueScan is not the only sw that had an outstanding bug for over a
year, but it's one of the very few to stubbornly maintain throughout
that period that the sw "supports" that particular scanner. To, then,
refuse to even reply to people complaining about it, let alone
reimburse them, borders on fraudulent.

Whilst you might think that a bug is elementary, until the cause has
been determined, it is not possible to know if it is elementary or not.
Maybee it is elementary, but you are not in a position to know that, but
that is your subjective opinion (again). Your point about absence of
quality control is totally unfounded.

No it's not. If the author doesn't even bother to try the program
before releasing it that's a total absence of quality control.

The "elementary" above does not refer to the bug cause, but to the bug
*manifestation*. It does not take complicated testing to realize when
a program all of a sudden stops scanning. That is *the* most
elementary quality control test. Releasing such a program is just
plain sloppy and irresponsible.

I fear you'll ignore it, but I'll append a quote at the end anyway.
This time it's two people confirming the bug to preempt your "single
source" complaint:

See (1) below.

Sorry, but it is a vendetta. You do not provide objective facts, but
what you do do is provide false conclusions. In my post asked if you
have a list of all these bugs. I asked for objective facts. Assuming
that the few mentioned in your reply is not this list, you have failed
to provide these objective facts, so I conclude that your contribution
is a subjective opinion. On the other hand, if it is the list, then I
would conclude that Vuescan is a high quality piece of sw.

I'm sorry, but that's a biased view. I have provided multiple 3rd
party (i.e. objective) confirmations but you refuse to truly
acknowledge them. I have also invited you to check the archives (and
make up your own list) but you refuse to do that too. I'm not a
VueScan user and I don't "collect" VueScan bugs. The only reason I
notice them is because of the neverending and incessant flood of
VueScan bugs repeatedly reported by users.

Both those actions (or the lack thereof) combined with your attempts
above trying to minimize VueScan's many serious problems, seem to
imply that no matter what I write it will not convince you because
you, apparently, made up your mind already.

Why are you the messenger?

Why are you responding to my message?
Why is anybody writing here?

What is your message then?

When I see another unsuspecting innocent being taken down a garden
path with a rosy picture of VueScan, all I may do is draw attention to
what is *not* being said. If I were the unsuspecting innocent, I would
certainly appreciate an objective view of a second opinion.

My "message" then is, literally, to (check the archives if you don't
believe me): Download the software and - bearing in mind what everyone
said - try it out for themselves.

!=> As I wrote last time - and you conveniently ignored because it
doesn't fit your, apparently, skewed view - I even recommend VueScan
to users who don't care about quality but just want a quick-and-dirty
scan, even going as far as to provide the web site link.

Some vendetta...

Don.

(1)