Best scanning manager program?

[Roger S.]

Don:
"Isn't it only common courtesy to respond when people write to you? "

Don't take it the wrong way but they're not necessarily writing TO you.
It's an open forum, not the "ask Don about Vuescan" forum.
Out-of-date factual statements are not facts, but since you don't use
Vuescan you have no way of knowing which bugs have been fixed and which
ones are still present. This makes your advice of limited use and
mainly of historic interest to people like me who remember each bug
fondly : )

Of course you refuse to step back and let people who use Vuescan
comment on particular aspects of the program, as you are convinced that
everyone else is deluded and can't see the flaws in the program which
you obsessively document and repeately post. This is offensive and
condescending, but you don't seem to realize this and understand why
people react negatively to you. You then question the character of
posters like me if we point out what works in the program as well as
the flaws, which is the definition of a balanced, not biased,
assessment. Please examine your own biases as you selectively cite
"facts" and ask youself how you know what you're writing was and
continues to be true, and beyond that, if it is a fair assessment.
You're certainly entitled to write whatever you want, but that doesn't
mean that you should.

My Current Vuescan experience:
The default refresh delay no longer stops you as you're typing. At
least I no longer have problems, and have not disabled the refresh
feature (which Ed unhelpfully told me to do before). I'm using 8.2.25.
There is now a "refresh fast" check box (I have it checked) and a
refresh delay box which defaults to 1.

IR cleaning also works much better now than in previous versions and I
no longer find that it fails. The medium and heavy settings (as of
8.2.25) still soften the image significantly so I don't recommend using
them if there is fine detail you care about.

IT8 support also works well and I got better (closer to the target
slide and better with other reference slide) results with the Vuescan
IT8 support than with LittleCMS profiler after recent side-by-side
tests.

Scanner used with 8.2.25 is the FS4000US via scsi under WindowsXP with
a hardware calibrated monitor. YMMV.

 

[Don]

Don:
"Isn't it only common courtesy to respond when people write to you? "

Don't take it the wrong way but they're not necessarily writing TO you.
It's an open forum, not the "ask Don about Vuescan" forum.

Roger, I'm not talking it personally. This is evident from the fact
that in this context I do *not* respond to abusive messages only to
civilized posts.

You're also mixing two things:
1. Responses to specific points I raised i.e. an ongoing conversation.
I'm surely entitled to respond to these. They *are* writing to me!
2. False statements which need to be corrected.
Again, I'm surely entitled to respond to these too! That's what
this forum is all about. Helping those who ask for help *and*
correcting misleading statements.

Out-of-date factual statements are not facts, but since you don't use
Vuescan you have no way of knowing which bugs have been fixed and which
ones are still present. This makes your advice of limited use and
mainly of historic interest to people like me who remember each bug
fondly : )

Again, you're missing the point. The premise is: Vuescan is buggy.
Historical evidence is essential in establishing there is an
*uninterrupted* avalanche of Vuescan bugs making this premise true.

Secondly, just because a certain bug - as fond as you are of any one
of them ;o) - is currently "in hiding" is irrelevant. Why? Because
Vuescan has demonstrated *repeatedly* that the same bugs keep coming
back over and over and over again...

Therefore, when it comes to Vuescan no bug is out-of-date, just
temporarily dormant as historical evidence shows. Before you overreact
to that, check the archives! It's a simple and demonstrable fact.

Of course you refuse to step back and let people who use Vuescan
comment on particular aspects of the program

Do you have any evidence of that? Of course, that's completely wrong.

The truth is Vuescan users can't stand to have the bugs pointed out
and would rather live in the fantasy world where Vuescan is perfect.
So they rabidly attack anyone stating that simple objective fact.

Shooting the messenger will *not* fix Vuescan bugs!!!

, as you are convinced that
everyone else is deluded and can't see the flaws in the program which
you obsessively document and repeately post. This is offensive and
condescending,

I'm sorry Roger, but *that* above statement is both condescending and
offensive *without any proof*.

Can you quote a *single* manifestation of this *in context*?

I never make generic, sweeping statement like the one you just made
without any supporting evidence. All my assertions are supported by
objective fact!

but you don't seem to realize this and understand why
people react negatively to you.

I do realize why they react negatively and you've just demonstrated a
few reasons:
1. They ignore facts.
2. They fail to understand I have no agenda but just state facts.
3. They don't like those facts and overreact emotionally.
etc.

You then question the character of
posters like me if we point out what works in the program as well as
the flaws, which is the definition of a balanced, not biased,
assessment.

I do *not* question their character but simply respond to an
unprovoked and *unsubstantiated* attack with simple facts!

People assume things *without* providing *any* evidence whatsoever (as
you just did, two days running, now!) and then go on to ignore - even
complain! (as you are doing) when I present evidence and fact to the
contrary!

Again, damned if I do, damned if I don't! That's hardy logical, let
alone fair!

Please examine your own biases as you selectively cite
"facts" and ask youself how you know what you're writing was and
continues to be true, and beyond that, if it is a fair assessment.

There are no biases. How can stating objective facts be bias? Don't
you think people would provide conflicting evidence if it existed?

How do you explain when people like Bart continue to "defend" Vuescan
but then let it slip they don't use Vuescan because it's too buggy?

How do you explain when people like Ralf who stalked Vuescan critics
with abusive messages for months come clean in the end admitting they
are really very frustrated with Vuescan?

Etc, etc... Those are pertinent facts, Roger, and unless you take them
into account you will never get an objective overview as demonstrated
by your false assertions.

My Current Vuescan experience:
The default refresh delay no longer stops you as you're typing. At
least I no longer have problems, and have not disabled the refresh
feature (which Ed unhelpfully told me to do before). I'm using 8.2.25.
There is now a "refresh fast" check box (I have it checked) and a
refresh delay box which defaults to 1.

Great! Enjoy!

IR cleaning also works much better now than in previous versions and I
no longer find that it fails. The medium and heavy settings (as of
8.2.25) still soften the image significantly so I don't recommend using
them if there is fine detail you care about.

Again, more power to you!

IT8 support also works well and I got better (closer to the target
slide and better with other reference slide) results with the Vuescan
IT8 support than with LittleCMS profiler after recent side-by-side
tests.

Fantastic and I'm happy for you!

But none of that has *anything* to do with the subject matter. I
myself have *repeatedly* stated that there are happy Vuescan users.
Speaking of bias, how come you never notice that?

What you're failing to grasp is that *subjective* statements like
yours have absolutely no relevance, nor do they negate the simple
*objective fact* that Vuescan is notoriously buggy and unreliable.

Just because you (or anyone else for that matter) found a path through
the Vuescan bug labyrinth and is satisfied with Vuescan results only
tells how low and uncritical your requirements are. Why? Because they
are based on subjective feelings and without providing any objective
evidence.

Saying "I like IR cleaning results" is *not* objective!!! It's a
matter of *taste*, not fact!

Don.

 

[John]

My Current Vuescan experience:

IR cleaning also works much better now than in previous versions and I
no longer find that it fails. The medium and heavy settings (as of
8.2.25) still soften the image significantly so I don't recommend using
them if there is fine detail you care about.

I'll second that - with the Nikon Coolscan 4000 and V8.2.35. My own
experience. Fact.

 

[Don]

I'll second that - with the Nikon Coolscan 4000 and V8.2.35. My own
experience. Fact.

It's also miles behind ICE. Another fact.

It's also after months of bungling. Another fact.

And last but not least, just wait a while and it will be broken again
in a version or two. Another fact.

But you know that already:

--- cut ---

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!

--- cut ---

I'll be looking forward to a similar message in regard to broken IR
cleaning! ;o)

Don.

 

[John]

It's also miles behind ICE. Another fact.

It's not, actually, but you wouldn't know, since you don't use it. Works
with Kodachrome too - ICE doesn't.

It's also after months of bungling. Another fact.

You say bungling, I say development.

And last but not least, just wait a while and it will be broken again
in a version or two. Another fact.

But you know that already:

--- cut ---

--- cut ---

I'll be looking forward to a similar message in regard to broken IR
cleaning! ;o)

Don't hold your breath. This version has everything I need, so I shall be
following my excellent advice above which you seem so keen on quoting of
late. Shame you don't quote it in context, but I guess in the absence of any
actual *recent* experience of your own, you have to resort to regurgitating
other people's comments, out of context and out of date.

 

[Roger S.]

Don, you may have a software engineering background but I have an
academic background. You clearly don't understand the concept of
objectivity, which is really one of balance. Reviewing software is a
qualitative, not quantitative process, and this is where you fall down.
There is a wealth of facts about scanners and scanning programs out
there. Which facts you choose to report and which facts you choose to
leave out is a *subjective*, qualitative judgement. Which facts are
recent, which facts are correct? Which facts come from reliable
sources? Which facts truly evaluate the program? Which facts are
cherry-picked and simply confirm the reviewer's biases?

You can attempt to design an objective review process, but the even the
design parameters of the review process are qualitative judgements. Do
you care more about focus, IR, interface, usability, color scheme,
exposure, etc? At the end of the day, the question is "am I being
fair?" and not just selectively picking facts which reaffirm your point
of view instead of going where the evidence leads. It's up to others
to be the judge of this and this is where I think you fail and your
comments are biased to the point of being unhelpful.

On IR:
I can say that Vuescan's IR cleaning works in that it dramatically
reduces the visibility of dirt and scratches compared to a reference
slide. It also has minimal artifacts. I don't compare it to ICE
because Canon scanners don't use ICE, they use FARE. If the question
is which system of cleaning yields better results, the clear answer for
me is FARE because it works essentially flawlessly with no degradation
and no dust remaining, compared to a reference slide in my 4000dpi
tests. VS's results leave a slight softening, but are acceptable for
my purposes, and I make up to 8x12 enlargements of cropped 4000dpi
files.

Ultimately I'm the one who decides if the scan quality is acceptable
and it's a subjective judgement. I'd rather have a perfectly exposed
file with minimal dirt to start from, and VS gives me this. You seem
to think that only you can judge if a print is good or not, and the
rest of us are happy with whatever crap our scanners produce. This is
arrogant, insulting, and patently false, and has no objective basis
because you've never compared our print or image viewing skills.

The world is a qualitative place full of people who don't like to be
insulted, please learn how to live in it.

 

[HvdV]

Don wrote:

Both of those are *technical* applications from a totally different
paradigm. So, they would be most difficult to integrate into a
completely "alien" environment, and yet it's done flawlessly.

So, if it's possible to port such difficult technical tools, a plain
vanilla user application would certainly be elementary by comparison.

Of course there are many fabulous cross platform packages in the GNU family
(incl. the Gimp) and on sourceforge, though with a bias towards Linux/Unix.
Typing this with mozilla...
However, there are not so much cross platform packages dealing successfully
with a plethora of hardware devices *and* which are < $100. In part that has
nothing to do with the ability of (freeware) programmers, but with lack of
cooperation from hardware manufacturers. Give Vuescan the credits for at
least strugling with that!

Oh well, I guess it's time to post it again... NOTE: All the people
quoted below are dedicated *Vuescan fans*, not some "bashers".

Are those statistics solid enough? And that's only a *small* sample!!!

(Snipping the list below to preserve bandwith)
Ok, you made a point here. Time for the Vuescan author to provide other
statistics.

All that is beside the point. Whether it's a one-man-show or a huge
multinational a *commercial* application lives and dies by what it
does or doesn't do. That's all there is to it.

If it were freeware or GNU licence or similar, then we can cut it a
lot of slack, but once you pay for something it's a different story
altogether and all those excuses don't count anymore.

Personally I'm prepared to live with a couple of bugs in a $50 program...
IMO the price is a key issue. Apparently the revenues are too low to hire
people who can maintain or improve quality. Lowering the price probably
doesn't get him more customers, raising is not possible due to competition
from bundled software and Silverfast. The introduction of new cheap scanners
might help, but at the same time it's likely that the scanner market will
dwindle. No wonder the guy is grumpy.

Do you actually mean scanning or editing as well? Scanning and color correction.

Just out of curiosity, what does Mac offer that your main system
doesn't? I mean, it must be something big to force you to leave your
main system just for this one usage, and I'm just curious what it is.

I use a number of different systems for different tasks, I'm used to
switching around a bit. The mac offers convenient support for the scanner +
some OT reasons like having an interesting compiler installed (IBM xlc).

What's also ironic is that after Apple went bankrupt and the evil
Steve came crawling back, he had to eat his words and take back
everything he said against Microsoft. Why? Because Microsoft saved
Apple by giving it ~300 million dollars.

Also ironic is that after all the blabla about having the first 64bit 'PC'
and the G5 being the fastest chip it is now likely they'll turn to Intel.

So, right now, Apple is basically a minor division of Microsoft in
charge of monopoly alibi.

I think Microsoft sees them as necessary 'excuse' competition so to dilute
the pain of the Microsoft monopoly, open source software being the real threat.

Don.

--- arbitrary start ---

--- no end... ---

-- Hans

 

[Don]

Of course there are many fabulous cross platform packages in the GNU family
(incl. the Gimp) and on sourceforge, though with a bias towards Linux/Unix.
Typing this with mozilla...
However, there are not so much cross platform packages dealing successfully
with a plethora of hardware devices *and* which are < $100.

A plethora of hardware devices is beside the point. As far as the
program *core* is concerned they are all the same because of a common
interface. Even if the devices have different command sets, that's
incredibly elementary to handle e.g. by storing them in tables.

It's like saying, give a drawing program a break because it must be
able to handle a plethora of screen sizes or monitors or graphic
cards. If a program is *inflexible* so as to be affected negatively by
different screen sizes then it's the program's fault!

In part that has
nothing to do with the ability of (freeware) programmers, but with lack of
cooperation from hardware manufacturers.

It has absolutely nothing to do with manufacturers! That's a straw man
the Vuescan author invented after being unable to fix a bug for *two
years* - which a regular contributor here fixed in *5 minutes*!!!

It's clearly massive programming incompetence failing to integrate
different devices to communicate with the program core.

"Blaming the manufacturer" is just the latest attempt by the Vuescan's
author to avoid facing his own bugs and incompetence.

Give Vuescan the credits for at
least strugling with that!

But it's Vuescan's own fault!!! The author made a conscious decision
to *bypass* the standard interface (TWAIN) which eliminates all the
need for low level *proprietary* drivers.

Now - as an assembler programmer - I find that very attractive and
indeed I have said so here.

But in order to do that you have to be *competent*! And Vuescan author
has repeatedly demonstrated he isn't. For goodness sake, he can't even
program a simple cropping in the *8th* major version!

That's why, I suspect, Minolta refused to supply him with the
developer kit. Manufacturers do *not* give developer kits to just
anyone! They don't want to bring their product in disrepute because
some incompetent programmer messes things up and then blames Minolta
for the programmer's own massive incompetence!

I had no problems getting a developer kit from Nikon and they're
supposed to be particularly picky (being the leader) and requiring all
sorts of proof of track record, previous work, intentions, etc.

(Snipping the list below to preserve bandwith)
Ok, you made a point here. Time for the Vuescan author to provide other
statistics.

He can't!!! That's the point! After two years of being dogged by
Minolta users complaining about bugs he exploded with obscenities and
theatrically left blaming Minolta users! (Quote available on request.)

Actually, he never did leave. Instead, he religiously reads this group
and sends threatening emails to users who publicly expose Vuescan
bugs! (Again, quote available on request.)

Personally I'm prepared to live with a couple of bugs in a $50 program...

And that's perfectly fine! As long as you're aware of and accept those
bugs.

The problem is there are some "rabid" Vuescan users here who
themselves can't (!) use the program because of bugs but still
"defend" it vigorously and assault anyone daring to say otherwise.

IMO the price is a key issue. Apparently the revenues are too low to hire
people who can maintain or improve quality. Lowering the price probably
doesn't get him more customers, raising is not possible due to competition
from bundled software and Silverfast. The introduction of new cheap scanners
might help, but at the same time it's likely that the scanner market will
dwindle. No wonder the guy is grumpy.

No, the grumpiness came first. His standard response to everything
while he openly wrote here was always to snarl "You don't need that!".

And how do you explain him stalking users who complain about bugs by
sending them emails telling them they've been "blacklisted" - whatever
that means!? That's just ridiculous!

Not exactly a trait one expects in a programmer. All his programming
problems are caused by the fact that he's so grumpy and sloppy. In a
word, incompetent.

....

Also ironic is that after all the blabla about having the first 64bit 'PC'
and the G5 being the fastest chip it is now likely they'll turn to Intel.

Well spotted! That's also very true.

I remember when Apple formed the Power PC "triumvirate" with IBM and
Motorola. The ink wasn't dry on the contracts before Apple started
sabotaging the agreement by going their own way.

Apple seems very similar to the Vuescan's author. ;o)

I think Microsoft sees them as necessary 'excuse' competition so to dilute
the pain of the Microsoft monopoly, open source software being the real threat.

Exactly, it's very useful to Microsoft to have harmless Apple they can
always bring up as an example of "competition" when Microsoft is
accused of monopoly abuse.

Don.

 

[Don]

It's not, actually, but you wouldn't know, since you don't use it.

The common consensus here (according to Vuescan users themselves!) is
that Vuescan's IR cleaning is vastly inferior to ICE. (Quotes
available on request.)

Since you now apparently differ, the onus is on you to prove all those
Vuescan users wrong and provide some *verifiable* supporting evidence
or at the very least a plausible explanation for your assertion.

NOTE: "IR kinda, sorta looks good to me." is *not* objective evidence!

Works with Kodachrome too - ICE doesn't.

If you knew the internal workings of both you would understand what's
going on. ICE is based on a complex heuristics algorithm analyzing
image content. Vuescan takes the easy way and just simply applies a
threshold to the IR channel and then just blurs everything
indiscriminately regardless of image content.

And, just as above, your definition of "works" is quite different from
everybody else's. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but let's have
some *verifiable* evidence.

You say bungling, I say development.

In the *8th* major program version!? After at least 4 years? That's
way past development.

Don't hold your breath.

Well, at least back then you were still objective and willing to
acknowledge fact. Sorry to hear you decided to stop doing that.

Shame you don't quote it in context, but I guess in the absence of any
actual *recent* experience of your own, you have to resort to regurgitating
other people's comments, out of context and out of date.

Now that you gushed with feeling and got that off your chest, would
you care to actually provide some evidence?

Let's have some of that alleged "missing context"!

Don.

 

[Don]

Don, you may have a software engineering background but I have an
academic background. You clearly don't understand the concept of
objectivity, which is really one of balance.

I'm sorry, Roger, but that *unsubstantiated* assertion is demonstrably
wrong!

I support each statement with objective evidence for scrutiny. You
have ignored *all of them* and come back with a *generic* statement
offering *no* supporting evidence whatsoever!

If anything, I have bent over backwards, to be objective. Indeed, in
the discussion regarding AG I have even uploaded examples where
Vuescan did work and individual AG was not required!!!

So, to make such a sweeping statement as you just did is not only
factually wrong but unfair.

Reviewing software is a
qualitative, not quantitative process, and this is where you fall down.

No, reviewing software include the *track record* because past
performance matters.

Are you saying if the software has been *demonstrably* notoriously
buggy and unreliable for *years*, just because you (subjectively!)
found a version which addresses your *subjective* requirements, we
should forget everything else?

That's neither objective nor qualitative!

There is a wealth of facts about scanners and scanning programs out
there. Which facts you choose to report and which facts you choose to
leave out is a *subjective*, qualitative judgement. Which facts are
recent, which facts are correct? Which facts come from reliable
sources? Which facts truly evaluate the program? Which facts are
cherry-picked and simply confirm the reviewer's biases?

No, I pick *RELEVANT* facts you would rather suppress.

If the assertion is that Vuescan is notoriously buggy and unreliable,
one way to evaluate that is to *count the bugs* and follow them!!!

You can attempt to design an objective review process, but the even the
design parameters of the review process are qualitative judgements.

The facts themselves are *not* a judgment! It's mere tabulation.

The problem is that *some* Vuescan "fans" just refuse to acknowledge
these facts which are clear to everyone else. This even includes
*regular* Vuescan users who say "sure, Vuescan is buggy, but I don't
care because it caters to my (inferior) requirements". Contrast that
to *rabid* Vuescan "fans" who say: "I myself can *not* use Vuescan
because it's buggy, but I'll attack anyone else who says it is"!

Do
you care more about focus, IR, interface, usability, color scheme,
exposure, etc? At the end of the day, the question is "am I being
fair?" and not just selectively picking facts which reaffirm your point
of view instead of going where the evidence leads. It's up to others
to be the judge of this

....

And I have always said that!!! REPEATEDLY!!! Please READ the
archives!!!!

I said it to you just last time: If you're happy with Vuescan: Great!
Enjoy!

But that has *nothing* to do with objective fact that Vuescan is
notoriously buggy and unreliable. You may not care about the bugs, but
it doesn't change that fact.

On IR:
I can say that Vuescan's IR cleaning works in that it dramatically
reduces the visibility of dirt and scratches compared to a reference
slide. It also has minimal artifacts. I don't compare it to ICE
because Canon scanners don't use ICE, they use FARE.

And that's fine. But we are *not* talking about personal preference
here.

We are talking abut the fact that neither ICE nor FARE went through
the excruciating incompetence Vuescan's IR has demonstrated.

Ultimately I'm the one who decides if the scan quality is acceptable
and it's a subjective judgement.

Bingo! And more power to you!

But please don't try to translate this *subjective*, *personal*
preference into *objective* fact.

Look, Roger, the following two statements are *NOT* mutually
exclusive!!!

1. Vuescan is notoriously buggy and unreliable.

2. Roger (or <insert name here>) likes Vuescan.

They are also *NOT* contradictory and that's what you're failing to
grasp.

Vuescan can be (actually *is* ;o)) the worst program in the Universe
but a person (or persons) may still like it because it addresses their
requirements. There's nothing incongruent here!

You immediately jump to an *irrational* "conclusion" that I somehow
pass judgment on those users. I do not!!! I'm just stating a fact
without passing any judgment.

That's what you don't get because you rush to emotional "conclusions".

I'd rather have a perfectly exposed
file with minimal dirt to start from, and VS gives me this. You seem
to think that only you can judge if a print is good or not, and the
rest of us are happy with whatever crap our scanners produce. This is
arrogant, insulting, and patently false, and has no objective basis
because you've never compared our print or image viewing skills.

I'm sorry Roger, but to say that after I have provided all the
*objective*, *factual* evidence is just silly.

You keep *repeatedly ignoring* all fact and just stating generalities
without any evidence whatsoever.

The world is a qualitative place full of people who don't like to be
insulted, please learn how to live in it.

Well, Roger, the only thing insulting is that statement itself
considering you haven't provided *any evidence* and consistently
ignore all the evidence I have provided.

Don.

 

[John]

The common consensus here (according to Vuescan users themselves!) is
that Vuescan's IR cleaning is vastly inferior to ICE. (Quotes
available on request.)

Since you now apparently differ, the onus is on you to prove all those
Vuescan users wrong and provide some *verifiable* supporting evidence
or at the very least a plausible explanation for your assertion.

NOTE: "IR kinda, sorta looks good to me." is *not* objective evidence!


If you knew the internal workings of both you would understand what's
going on. ICE is based on a complex heuristics algorithm analyzing
image content. Vuescan takes the easy way and just simply applies a
threshold to the IR channel and then just blurs everything
indiscriminately regardless of image content.

And, just as above, your definition of "works" is quite different from
everybody else's. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but let's have
some *verifiable* evidence.


In the *8th* major program version!? After at least 4 years? That's
way past development.


Well, at least back then you were still objective and willing to
acknowledge fact. Sorry to hear you decided to stop doing that.


Now that you gushed with feeling and got that off your chest, would
you care to actually provide some evidence?

Let's have some of that alleged "missing context"!

Don.

Don,

All these points have been made before and argued to death. I have not the
desire nor the energy to enter into yet another protracted, pointless,
circular discussion with you. Those who care can trawl through the archives
and find the 'facts' for themselves. I believe that reasonable people will
trust the word of those who have relevant and recent experience of a product
over those who, for whatever reason, choose to trash a product relentlessly.

If all this antagonism gives you a buzz then fine, but frankly, it does
nothing for me. I have better things to do.

I wish you well.

 

[Roger S.]

Don wrote:

"Look, Roger, the following two statements are *NOT* mutually
exclusive!!!
1. Vuescan is notoriously buggy and unreliable.
2. Roger (or <insert name here>) likes Vuescan.
They are also *NOT* contradictory and that's what you're failing to
grasp."

Actually, I was going to make a post exactly along these lines because
this isn't what we disagree about. While the statement that Vuescan is
"buggy and unreliable" is overly broad (it depends on version and
scanners used), it is an opinion easily supportable with facts and one
with which I happen to agree with. Track record is important for the
"reliable" half of that statement, even if "buggy" depends on version.

Do I like Vuescan? Well, it's a good program with a somewhat flawed
execution. It's a tool and I like it when it works.

You seem very literal-minded, ignoring the subtext of your comments and
naively denying that listing facts is a subjective, qualitative
process. The facts you list support your conclusion that Vuescan is
flawed and the results are poor. Nothing can change your opinion
because you dismiss any statement that is not critical of Vuescan as
being the work of blind Vuescan apologists and you don't use the
program yourself, so you will never get first-hand counter-evidence of
it working well.
This is purely subjective, so stop deluding yourself that you are
somehow objective and detached. There is no such thing. Facts are
simply evidence that people are unlikely to disagree with at the
present time, and the ways they are used and interpreted are 100%
subjective. This is the difference between historians and Holocost
deniers, scientists and global warming skeptics. There are "facts" on
all sides but the quality and quantity differ. By refusing to examine
your biases I think you're on the low quality side of things.

Even engineers have to play in the subjective world with the rest of
us. Evidence simply informs and supports argument- it doesn't conclude
anything- that's up to the writer. Tabulation IS judgment when you
are using it to prove your point, and I think you are a biased and
misleading guide to the status of Vuescan. Others may agree or
disagree.

Don wrote:
"This even includes *regular* Vuescan users who say "sure, Vuescan is
buggy, but I don't care because it caters to my (inferior)
requirements". "
and then:
"You immediately jump to an *irrational* "conclusion" that I somehow
pass judgment on those users. I do not!!! I'm just stating a fact
without passing any judgment."

Well, let's look at the evidence just from your last post. The word
"inferior" is a value judgment and a relative statement. The
implication of this statement is that there are superior, knowledgable
scan operators and then Vuescan users with "inferior" requirements.
This is not an objective observation and you have provided no evidence
to support your assertion other than your own claims that you are more
concerned than most about image quality (unverifiable- I have read your
posts on kodachrome exposure control, but how do I know your
requirements are more stringent than other experienced users- I don't,
and based on posts here and on photo.net, I don't think it's true), and
that others like Bart who also seem knowledgable don't or no longer use
Vuescan because of image quality. I can find you counter-examples on
who post on Photo.net digital darkroom who use Vuescan and are
meticulous about scan quality.

In my experience scanner hardware is the deciding factor with almost no
picture quality difference from Vuescan compared with Filmget (Vuescan
IR worse, slide exposure and color balance much better). Vuescan's
advantages are about workflow first and foremost for me, as picture
quality is a wash, based on my own testing.

"That's what you don't get because you rush to emotional "conclusions".


All humans are emotional beings, so why try to belittle others by
implying that their emotions are stronger than their reason? Again,
this is an insulting judgment you made from your own values with divide
people into "objective, rational" and "emotional, irrational." This
distinction is ridiculous and once again, insulting. Don, do you
interact with people outside of internet forums and do you treat them
this way?

 

[HvdV]

A plethora of hardware devices is beside the point. As far as the
program *core* is concerned they are all the same because of a common
interface. Even if the devices have different command sets, that's
incredibly elementary to handle e.g. by storing them in tables.

There are device types which you can handle in this style, like tape drives,
and there are those that even with some formal standards you cannot solve
this way due to all kinds of special tricks, timing problems and undocumented
features. I don't know in which class the scanners fall but I suspect it is a
lot of work to keep up, test with new models, and test with new OSes.

Of course the scanner controlling is unrelated to the image processing part
of the software which can be maintained in a more controlled fashion.

It's like saying, give a drawing program a break because it must be
able to handle a plethora of screen sizes or monitors or graphic
cards. If a program is *inflexible* so as to be affected negatively by
different screen sizes then it's the program's fault!'

Screen size handling is largely trivial, but try OpenGl drivers for graphic
cards.

"Blaming the manufacturer" is just the latest attempt by the Vuescan's
author to avoid facing his own bugs and incompetence.

Manufacturers are known to protect their market by not supplying interface
information, or not fully, even though that is illegal now -- at least in the
EC. It's a very old game and it is played all the time.

But it's Vuescan's own fault!!! The author made a conscious decision
to *bypass* the standard interface (TWAIN) which eliminates all the
need for low level *proprietary* drivers.

That sounds indeed like a case of the 'not invented here' syndrome, but there
might be a reason.

I had no problems getting a developer kit from Nikon and they're
supposed to be particularly picky (being the leader) and requiring all
sorts of proof of track record, previous work, intentions, etc.

So you wrote a scanner controller? Public domain? Just curious.

He can't!!! That's the point! After two years of being dogged by
Minolta users complaining about bugs he exploded with obscenities and
theatrically left blaming Minolta users! (Quote available on request.)

Actually, he never did leave. Instead, he religiously reads this group

That's good news. I can then recommend Bugzilla to keep track of bugs.

and sends threatening emails to users who publicly expose Vuescan
bugs! (Again, quote available on request.) Naw, spare me the details




And that's perfectly fine! As long as you're aware of and accept those
bugs.

Instead I'm trying to live with the Silverfast bugs...

No, the grumpiness came first. His standard response to everything
while he openly wrote here was always to snarl "You don't need that!".

Best regard that as scanner folklore.

I remember when Apple formed the Power PC "triumvirate" with IBM and
Motorola. The ink wasn't dry on the contracts before Apple started
sabotaging the agreement by going their own way.

That kind of thing happens often in this industry, nothing too special. I
know IBM was much later happy with the G5 (a clone of the IBM Power4), but it
seems they are ditched now for Intel. Rumor has it that this was because IBM
didn't make a low power G5 for laptops.

Apple seems very similar to the Vuescan's author. ;o)

If I read your post Apple seems holy..

Exactly, it's very useful to Microsoft to have harmless Apple they can
always bring up as an example of "competition" when Microsoft is
accused of monopoly abuse.

Yep.

-- hans

 

[Neil Gould]

Don, do you
interact with people outside of internet forums and do you treat them
this way?

ROTFLMAO!

I'd think it unlikely, as he'd probably have to gum his meals by now!

Neil

 

[Neil Gould]

But in order to do that you have to be *competent*! And Vuescan author
has repeatedly demonstrated he isn't. For goodness sake, he can't even
program a simple cropping in the *8th* major version!

How do you know that the cropping algorithm is simple? And, how do you
know that it a universal problem, rather than limited to a few scanners?

That's why, I suspect, Minolta refused to supply him with the
developer kit. Manufacturers do *not* give developer kits to just
anyone! They don't want to bring their product in disrepute because
some incompetent programmer messes things up and then blames Minolta
for the programmer's own massive incompetence!

I had no problems getting a developer kit from Nikon and they're
supposed to be particularly picky (being the leader) and requiring all
sorts of proof of track record, previous work, intentions, etc.

Have you gotten a developer kit from Minolta? If not, your example is a
non-sequiter, and would counter your suspicions about why Ed doesn't have
one. FWIW, not every manufacturer offers a developer's kit.

And that's perfectly fine! As long as you're aware of and accept those
bugs.

Actually, I've not acquired a piece of complex software without bugs at
*any* price. Is there a bug-free scanning application?

What I find interesting is that, in spite of your rants, Minolta owners
continue to buy and use VueScan. Does that mean that VueScan is better, at
least in some way, than Minolta's own software? If not, why would they
bother? If so, why do you feel a need to rant about this so much?

Neil

 

[Don]

There are device types which you can handle in this style, like tape drives,
and there are those that even with some formal standards you cannot solve
this way due to all kinds of special tricks, timing problems and undocumented
features. I don't know in which class the scanners fall but I suspect it is a
lot of work to keep up, test with new models, and test with new OSes.

Yes, but that was only the case when each device used a different
custom interface, usually something based on the bidirectional
parallel port. All scanners these days communicate through the
standard interface usually USB, sometimes FireWire. So that low level
communications layer is abstracted and applications don't have to
worry about that. That takes care of the most difficult part, the
"how".

What's left is the "what" i.e. the command set unique to each device,
actually it's only a subset, the device specific codes. And that's
elementary to implement.

Manufacturers are known to protect their market by not supplying interface
information, or not fully, even though that is illegal now -- at least in the
EC. It's a very old game and it is played all the time.

Yes, but that's not the case here. Besides, as I say the interface is
well know (i.e. USB). What's left is the manufacturer specific codes.

Even if Minolta refused to supply this information because of
Vuescan's abysmal record, any even moderately competent programmer can
figure this out. There are even tools to do that e.g. USBSnoopy.

So in this case it's clearly a case of an incompetent programmer, the
Vuescan author, blaming everything and everybody for his own
shortcomings. It's not the first time, either...

So you wrote a scanner controller? Public domain? Just curious.

No, just for me. It would be of no use to most people because its
focus is to scan "raw" i.e. without any bells and whistles. All that I
do later in Photoshop. All I want a scanner program to do is *scan*.
The whole point (together with my "merge" TwinScan program) is to
extend the dynamic range of dense Kodachromes which my LS-50 doesn't
penetrate. So I scan each image twice, once normal exposure and once
overexposed (+4 AG) to get the shadows. Then I align the images,
color/exposure adjust and merge using a *hard* border (no feathering).

Naw, spare me the details

I know! ;o) That's why I didn't include it.

Instead I'm trying to live with the Silverfast bugs...

How bad is it? I tried SilverFast very briefly but its concept is
completely opposite of what I want to do. SilverFast puts a lot of
effort on user-friendliness and "auto everything". I, on the other
hand and as mentioned above, want to scan as raw as possible. Even
after turning everything off in SilverFast it still did a lot of
processing and I never managed to get a raw scan out if. But I didn't
try very hard, I must add...

That kind of thing happens often in this industry, nothing too special.

Yes, but the whole point of the PowerPC Alliance (or whatever they
were called) was to brake Intel's monopoly. So to sabotage it right
from the start because of Apple's greedy self-interest is just mind
boggling. It's self-defeating? Like that story of the scorpion and the
frog...

Now, if the Power PC won and Apple *then* broke away, I could
understand that, but to break away before they achieved anything is a
case of "sawing the branch you're sitting on"...

Don.

 

[Don]

How do you know that the cropping algorithm is simple?

Because I've written tons of them!
All my statements are based on similar fact.

Now, to keep things in perspective: What do you base all your
challenges on, besides sophistry? You haven't provided any factual
basis for all your argumentative challenges.

And, how do you
know that it a universal problem, rather than limited to a few scanners?

Because it was reported by all.

Also, if it were limited to only a few scanners, that would be even
*worse*, not better!

Have you gotten a developer kit from Minolta?

Nope, don't have a Minolta.

If not, your example is a
non-sequiter, and would counter your suspicions about why Ed doesn't have
one.

No, it's *not* a non-sequitur. It's extremely pertinent! Especially
since Nikon is the market leader. Minolta is trying to catch up, so
they have a huge incentive to hand out developer kits like candy to
attract programmers. Nikon does not and can afford be aloof.

So when Minolta (by his own words) is "uncooperative" that tells
volumes about Vuescan author's competence and his program.

FWIW, not every manufacturer offers a developer's kit.

Correct.

However, SilverFast has *no* problems with Minolta!

Again, in case you missed it: SilveFast runs just fine with Minolta!

From that we can conclude that, either:

1. Minolta does offer a developer kit (to *qualified* developers!)
or
2. SilverFast figured out a way to program the Minolta correctly on
their own (it's very unlikely a company of that type would do that).

But all that is a straw man...

The problem with Minolta was the Vuescan programmer's incompetence and
had nothing to do with Minolta. Why?

Because a regular contributor here solved the "problem" in 5 minutes.
He doesn't even have a Minolta!!! It was an *elementary* image
acquisition principle which Vuescan's author apparently didn't know.

After the solution was publicly posted here, it was forwarded to the
Vuescan author by a user, and "miraculously" no more Minolta stripes!

So, you can wiggle all you want, but it's clearly a case of massive
incompetence by the Vuescan's programmer who was unable to fix this
*elementary* bug for TWO YEARS running! How do you explain that?

Actually, I've not acquired a piece of complex software without bugs at
*any* price. Is there a bug-free scanning application?

Programs can be made bug-free within a narrowly defined context (there
are methodologies to do that). But in a free-for-all context with no
limitations there may be bugs, only because of their rare occurrence
they may never manifest.

Again, all that is beside the point. Vuescan is *riddled* with bugs.
This has nothing to do with some abstract, absolute and theoretical
platitude that "all program's have bugs". Vuescan is in a category of
its own. It's a question of *scale*!

What I find interesting is that, in spite of your rants

I'm not going to respond to that because, unlike you, I'm not
interested in name calling.

Minolta owners
continue to buy and use VueScan.

Let me paraphrase your first question above: How do you know that?

All the Minolta user's posts here are from old users who have
struggled with Vuescan for years. The Vuescan's author ran away from
here chased by those very (and furious!) Minolta owners after being
unable to fix Vuescan for over two years. Have you forgotten that?

Don.

 

[Don]

While the statement that Vuescan is
"buggy and unreliable" is overly broad

Of course, it's broad! It takes the *full* context into account, not
any one single version in isolation. It says "Vuescan", not "Vuescan
version xxx"!

(it depends on version and
scanners used), it is an opinion easily supportable with facts and one
with which I happen to agree with. Track record is important for the
"reliable" half of that statement, even if "buggy" depends on version.

The bugs depend on the version but your gist is all I'm saying! Glad
we're finally "on the same page" as the saying goes!

Do I like Vuescan? Well, it's a good program with a somewhat flawed
execution. It's a tool and I like it when it works.

Which is why I actually recommended Vuescan to some people (including
a reference to the web site!) *if* and when Vuescan's limited
capabilities satisfy their specific requirements.

We should stop agreeing like this! ;o)

You seem very literal-minded, ignoring the subtext of your comments and
naively denying that listing facts is a subjective, qualitative
process. The facts you list support your conclusion that Vuescan is
flawed and the results are poor. Nothing can change your opinion
because you dismiss any statement that is not critical of Vuescan as
being the work of blind Vuescan apologists and you don't use the
program yourself, so you will never get first-hand counter-evidence of
it working well.

Oh well, the agreement was too good to last... :-(

No, Roger, that is your *misinterpretation* without any basis in fact.
You are unilaterally *assigning* me an opinion where none exist!!! And
then go off on a tangent based on this incorrect assumption.

I'm just stating objective facts and drawing a *consequential*
conclusion from them. That has *nothing* to do with opinion!

The trouble is (some) Vuescan "fans" *misinterpret* this fact as an
"attack" and then spiral into a self-induced frenzy. Why do I say
that? Because they offer no evidence but base a whole hierarchy of
superimposed "logic" on top of a faulty initial premise!

This is purely subjective, so stop deluding yourself that you are
somehow objective and detached. There is no such thing. Facts are
simply evidence that people are unlikely to disagree with at the
present time, and the ways they are used and interpreted are 100%
subjective. This is the difference between historians and Holocost
deniers, scientists and global warming skeptics. There are "facts" on
all sides but the quality and quantity differ.

You're getting at something completely different here. We're *not*
talking about *shades* of opinion based on *inconclusive* data. We are
talking about *measurable* and *substantial* evidence.

If program A has 5 bugs and program B has 6 bugs, to call program A
"buggy and unreliable" would be over the top and uncalled for.

However, if program A has 500 bugs and program B has 6, then to call
program A "buggy and unreliable" is a simple demonstrable fact.

If someone then overreacts to that simple, demonstrable fact and
rabidly attacks the person stating this, we would call them "touchy"
or "having a chip on their shoulder" or some such. Don't you agree?

By refusing to examine
your biases I think you're on the low quality side of things.

And this is where your argument brakes down. Show me *one* example of
this alleged "bias" *in context*!!!

And please don't just make a statement and then spiral into a web of
"conclusions" based on that incorrect statement! One thing at a time,
please! That's the perennial trouble here. Some Vuescan fans
immediately race ahead and spiral into a "feedback loop".

Show me *one* example *in context* and we'll take it from there.

Don wrote:
"This even includes *regular* Vuescan users who say "sure, Vuescan is
buggy, but I don't care because it caters to my (inferior)
requirements". "
and then:
"You immediately jump to an *irrational* "conclusion" that I somehow
pass judgment on those users. I do not!!! I'm just stating a fact
without passing any judgment."

Well, let's look at the evidence just from your last post. The word
"inferior" is a value judgment and a relative statement.

Based of fact which immediately proceeded it!!! I presented the fact,
and then drew the *only* possible conclusion *within the context*!

Notably, you have not provided *any* fact or evidence but started this
whole thread with your personal opinion (to paraphrase: "I like my
current Vuescan version"). Nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't
address any of what I'm talking about.

The
implication of this statement is that there are superior, knowledgable
scan operators and then Vuescan users with "inferior" requirements.

NO!!! And again: NO!!!

That's your *misinterpretation* and the main cause for your
misunderstanding in spite of my explicit and repeated explanations!

If someone only scans in low resolution for the Web, that requirement
is *NOT* inferior! (Well, it may be in absolute terms, but that's not
my concern nor do I address that in any way.) In the *given context*
it's merely an *appropriate* requirement for them. That's all! And to
state that is not a qualitative determination of any kind whatsoever!

"That's what you don't get because you rush to emotional "conclusions".

All humans are emotional beings, so why try to belittle others by
implying that their emotions are stronger than their reason?

It is *not* belittling!!! It's an explanation because they provide no
fact! (see below)

Again,
this is an insulting judgment you made from your own values with divide
people into "objective, rational" and "emotional, irrational."

That is your misinterpretation and the main problem (see below).

I am not dividing people, just explaining why they overreact! If
people would only look at the facts *without overreacting* we would
get much farther, much more quickly - as was the case at the start of
this very message!!

This
distinction is ridiculous and once again, insulting. Don, do you
interact with people outside of internet forums and do you treat them
this way?

This (and two immediate preceding paragraphs) are a prime example of
what I'm talking about. You're racing ahead with your "conclusions" by
even throwing aspersions outside of Internet forums without any basis
is fact.

That's what I mean when I say "Vuescan fans enter a self-perpetuated
feedback loop". Please, slow down, take one thing at a time and
support each by fact, instead of just racing ahead uncontrollably like
that. We'd get much more done, much more quickly, and with far less
"excitement" on *all* sides.

Don.

 

[Don]

Don,

All these points have been made before and argued to death. I have not the
desire nor the energy to enter into yet another protracted, pointless,
circular discussion with you.

Which then, of course, begs the question: Why start one?

.... inflammatory paragraph omitted ...

I have better things to do.

As do I. However, I do have the common courtesy of responding when
challenged, as long as the discussion remains civil and civilized.

I wish you well.

You too.

Actually, John, it was quite refreshing when you joined because - even
though you are a Vuescan user - you were quite relaxed and willing to
"disagree agreeably" without inflammatory personal attacks.

Don.

 

[Neil Gould]

Because I've written tons of them!
All my statements are based on similar fact.

And, you've written "tons of them" that are equally functional across a
wide range of devices... say 400 or so?

Now, to keep things in perspective: What do you base all your
challenges on, besides sophistry?

Excuse me? I asked you a question about your knowledge, and YOU responded
with a sophistic reply. To make it clear, your response is based on a
presumption about Hamrick's algorithm, not on knowledge about it. So,
while your "experience" may lead one to think your conclusion is
plausible, lacking specific knowledge and fact, it is not, and therefore
it is misleading, and therefore sophistry.

You haven't provided any factual
basis for all your argumentative challenges.

What "all" are you referring to?

Because it was reported by all.

What "all" are you referring to?

Also, if it were limited to only a few scanners, that would be even
*worse*, not better!

And, I'd see it as not surprising, especially for a reversed-engineered
product that directly addresses the hardware.

Nope, don't have a Minolta.

Why am I not surprised?

No, it's *not* a non-sequitur. It's extremely pertinent! Especially
since Nikon is the market leader. Minolta is trying to catch up, so
they have a huge incentive to hand out developer kits like candy to
attract programmers. Nikon does not and can afford be aloof.

That doesn't mean that Minolta *does* hand out developer's kits. Whether
or not to support 3rd party developers is determined entirely by company
policies, and not on your notions of what they should or should not do. In
fact, the ONLY evidence that you have is to the contrary.

So when Minolta (by his own words) is "uncooperative" that tells
volumes about Vuescan author's competence and his program.


Correct.

However, SilverFast has *no* problems with Minolta!

First, I'd be surprised, as I have found bugs in Silverfast Ai 6 for my
scanner, and even some UI problems that would affect all scanners.
Secondly, how do you know that Lasersoft didn't reverse-engineer their
driver for Minolta, as they did for the LeafScan 45 for which they also
could not get a developer's kit (information directly from Lasersoft, btw,
easily verifiable by reading the LeafScan users list)?

Again, in case you missed it: SilveFast runs just fine with Minolta!

How do you know, as you don't have a Minolta? How do you know that it
isn't a case that Silverfast/Minolta users just have more realistic
expectations than you do?

From that we can conclude that, either:

1. Minolta does offer a developer kit (to *qualified* developers!)
or
2. SilverFast figured out a way to program the Minolta correctly on
their own (it's very unlikely a company of that type would do that).

Both of your conclusions are erroneous, as you have no evidence that
Minolta has offered anyone a developers' kit (and you have admitted that
you don't have one, either) and since you don't have a Minolta, again by
your own admission, you have no way of knowing that Silverfast is bug-free
with that scanner.

I'm not going to respond to that because, unlike you, I'm not
interested in name calling.

Then, what should one make of your above statement, "What do you base all
your challenges on, besides sophistry?" Not only is this statement "name
calling", it's an outright lie.

Let me paraphrase your first question above: How do you know that?

All the Minolta user's posts here are from old users who have
struggled with Vuescan for years. The Vuescan's author ran away from
here chased by those very (and furious!) Minolta owners after being
unable to fix Vuescan for over two years. Have you forgotten that?

Nor have I forgotten those that reported that (at least some of) their
problems have been addressed. They couldn't know that unless they
continued to use the product. As you like to say ad nauseum, check the
archives.

Neil