Vuescan new scanners support

[Joe Cash]

Two new scanners should retain the attention of those looking for an
affordable mf scanner, the Epson F3200 and the Canon 9950F.

From Ed Hamrick's site, there's a long list of unsupported Canon
scanners and the reasons they are not supported. Will it be different
for the 9950F?

Will Ed Hamrick's Vuescan support these two scanners ?

 

[Ed Hamrick]

Two new scanners should retain the attention of those looking for an
affordable mf scanner, the Epson F3200 and the Canon 9950F.

From Ed Hamrick's site, there's a long list of unsupported Canon scanners
and the reasons they are not supported. Will it be different for the
9950F?

I'm pretty sure I'll be able to support the Epson F3200, and
I may be able to add support for the 9950F (or at least the 9900F)
some time in the next month.

Regards,
Ed Hamrick

 

[Wilfred van der Vegte]

I may be able to add support for the 9950F (or at least the 9900F)
some time in the next month.

Hmm, it seems I'll have to postpone my decision about which scanner to
buy for medium format ...

 

[Paul Simons]

Hmm, it seems I'll have to postpone my decision about which scanner to
buy for medium format ...

Why not buy the Epson 4870? It works with Vuescan and, from the specs I
read, it's as good as the 9950F.

Paul

 

[Joe Cash]

Why not buy the Epson 4870? It works with Vuescan and, from the specs I
read, it's as good as the 9950F.

Paul

It's time we have a significant increase in scanned image quality. The
Epson 4870's real resolution is much, much lower than it's stated
resolution. And, I would'nt buy a scanner based on specs. No way!!!

So, we'll see if it's different with the new Epson F3200 or the Canon
9950F scanner. But I'm not holding my breath!

 

[Roy G. Biv]

That would be excellent! IMHO the Canon software for the 9900F is just plain
awful.
Sorry due to spam I shall not provide a valid e-mail address. Please reply
to group.

 

[Bart van der Wolf]

SNIP

It's time we have a significant increase in scanned image quality.
The Epson 4870's real resolution is much, much lower than it's
stated resolution. And, I would'nt buy a scanner based on
specs. No way!!!

I don't know of desktop scanner manufacturers specifying any
resolution...
A common misconception is that the native sampling density (in ppi),
is synonymous with resolution, it isn't.

The resolution is determined by both the optical design
(lens/mirrors/prisms/whatever) AND the sampling density and chip
design together. Most flatbed scanners also have a glass plate between
the optics and the film/paper which further reduces contrast and
effective resolution, and the lens is most often of a fixed focus
design. Flatbed scanners are limited in resolution by design, but not
on purpose. There are just too many negative factors influencing the
real resolution than can be read from the sampling density alone.

Bart.

 

[Wilfred]

It's time we have a significant increase in scanned image quality. The
Epson 4870's real resolution is much, much lower than it's stated
resolution. And, I would'nt buy a scanner based on specs. No way!!!

So, we'll see if it's different with the new Epson F3200 or the Canon
9950F scanner. But I'm not holding my breath!

Exactly. According to a German review I read, where they used the new
ISO standard for resolution (or image detail or whatever you want to
call it), the value for the Epson 4870 turned out to be 1400 ppi (1700
according to another German review); for the Canon 9900F the figure was
2400 ppi. They also argued that the Canon software was lousy
(auto-everything) and thus, the Epson was the better scanner anyway.
This might change if VueScan would support the 9900F (I know that
SilverFast already does but I already have VueScan) or even the 9950F if
it's any better.

 

[Erik Krause]

Exactly. According to a German review I read, where they used the new
ISO standard for resolution (or image detail or whatever you want to
call it), the value for the Epson 4870 turned out to be 1400 ppi (1700
according to another German review);

For one of those german reviews the test images can be found here:
http://www.heise.de/ct/ftp/testbilder/scanner_0412/
No need to understand german for that...

 

[Paul Simons]

I'm not sure about that. I used the Epson 3200 and I had the impression it
should be rated at about 1600 (I acknowledge this is not hard data). I can't
imagine the 4870 performing even worse. Apart from that, what causes a
standardized ISO-test to result in two very different values (1400 and
1700)?

Paul

 

[Bart van der Wolf]

I'm not sure about that. I used the Epson 3200 and I had the
impression it should be rated at about 1600 (I acknowledge this
is not hard data). I can't imagine the 4870 performing even worse.
Apart from that, what causes a standardized ISO-test to result in
two very different values (1400 and 1700)?

The USAF target is not suited for imaging/sampling systems that employ
CCDs. It was okay for totally analog systems with random sampling
sensors (aka lens+film), but (mis)alignment with the sampling grid
will influence the apparent limiting resolution.

Testing the resolution, or better the MTF (Modulation Transfer
Function), of a sampling system requires different test targets;
sinusoidal gratings, a random (white) noise target, or a slanted edge
target.

Bart

 

[Bernhard Ess]

Testing the resolution, or better the MTF (Modulation Transfer
Function), of a sampling system requires different test targets;
sinusoidal gratings, a random (white) noise target, or a slanted edge
target.

I dont understand the technical side of it, but I am surprised because the
USAF targets are widely used for testing scanner and camera resolution. Can
you say how resolution numbers based on sinusoidal/ noise targets will
typically behave compared to current resolution tests? Can they be compared
directly? Will they tend to indicate more or less resolution?

Regards, Bernie

 

[Bart van der Wolf]

I dont understand the technical side of it, but I am surprised
because the USAF targets are widely used for testing scanner
and camera resolution.

It's a bit like newspapers. Just because they are widely distributed,
doesn't make the information necessarily true or unambiguous.

Can you say how resolution numbers based on sinusoidal/ noise
targets will typically behave compared to current resolution
tests? Can they be compared directly? Will they tend to indicate
more or less resolution?

Several things make a direct comparison difficult or even impossible.

First, imagine one of those very fine (bi-tonal) line patterns to have
exactly the same spacing as the sampling density of the CCD sensors.
It is then theoretically possible to have an exact alignment and the
target will be accurately resolved, but when the same target is
displaced by half a pixel the result is uniform gray (totally not
resolved). So target alignment (even more complicated by slight
rotation) will have significant effect on the observed/apparent
resolution, especially if the scanner optics are good.

Second, the sharp edges of the bi-tonal bar patterns will cause
aliasing artifacts. That will cause lower spatial frequency patterns
(seemingly wider bars) to mix with the real pattern. That can make it
more difficult to get to the real resolution. It can result in local
seemingly higher (or lower contrast) which has nothing to do with real
resolution.

Third, those bi-tonal bar patterns have a certain light/dark contrast.
Higher (or more importantly lower) contrast will result in different
outcomes for resolution. It is impossible to estimate the influence of
contrast on observed resolution with such a target.

The MTF measurement methods on the other hand, take care of all those
uncertainties. It is now even very simple to establish those MTF
results in a uniform procedure, with the public release of "Imatest"
(http://www.imatest.com) which uses the "slanted edge" method.

Bart