New Vuescan version

[Bart van der Wolf]

SNIP

I just bought VS a few hours before I read your posts and this
appeared quite surprising, because the scans seem to be ok.
Of course I did no extensive testing, it is just my impression.

I have done extensive testing, and have been using VueScan for almost
5 years. I am using it to drive a number of scanner brands and models,
and since the interface is the same for all these scanners there is no
learning curve. VueScan uses a type of dynamic checklist if you change
from guided to advanced mode, then just make the appropriate choices
per parameter, one-by-one, from top left to bottom right..

VueScan's author has to reverse engineer the command set for every
scanner, but after some time and user feedback he apparently manages
to master the specific functionality each scanner has to offer.
Because VueScan allows to save Raw data files (including IR data), it
is possible to re-use the data without ever touching the film again.
When new versions of software become available, e.g. with improved
IR-cleaning, you can just re-use the data.

SNIP

... I connected my scanner recently to a Linux box and that's why
I needed a new software. I found this newsgroup by chance a
couple of weeks ago and find some of the discussions here "quite
interesting". ;-)

If you want to learn a bit more about scanning and some specifics
about the Nikon scanners and VueScan, make sure you google for some of
the historical posts. Searching for posts including both 'VueScan' and
'Nkon' will narrow the list a bit, and you'll soon pick-up some more
buzz-words for even more to-the-point results. Especially the Nikon
scanners are very well supported by VueScan.

Bart

 

[Bart van der Wolf]

Roger S. wrote: SNIP

Well, this is Usenet and nobody owns the group nor its norms, but
things indeed used to be more empathic/informative before some of the
regulars were driven away. I've always enjoyed sharing my specific
knowledge as a professional photographer, because (= reciprocity!)
I've also learned a lot here about scanning specifics from people like
Ed Hamrick (knows a *lot* about specific scanner model's hardware from
reverse engineering scanner command sets) and Kennedy McEwen (for his
detailed CCD engineering knowledge), to just name a couple, but the
list is longer.

Even trying myself to answer/explain, somewhat more coherent because
in a foreign language (Dutch is (also) my native tongue), some of the
relative newbie questions by supplying objective/neutral 'evidence'
(e.g. from the ISO) supporting my claims has led me to discover
wonderful info on the internet, which I then used to share in this
group for the benefit of all. Even some of the 'high testosterone'
exchanges used to be fact/knowledge/experience, rather than demagogy,
driven shoot-outs.

Although that isn't necessarily a given, there indeed seems to be a
common dislike by some of the more 'seasoned' contributors, the ones
that are left that is.

Anyway, I like your images (http://www.hsdejong.nl/) more than some of
the 'contributions' of 'some' others ;-)

Bart

 

[Don]

Robert ....
has a total of
17 posts that have something to do with VueScan, Don has 148 posts that
deal with VueScan.

If Don posted numbers like that he would be accused of being a sad
creature with nothing better to do than count messages. The beauty of
double standards... :-/

Nevertheless, from that we can conclude Robert only comes out of
lurking occasionally to post spam while Don is an active member of the
community who sacrifices his free time to contribute constructive and
helpful messages.

Silly "conclusion"? Of course, it is. Just as you provocative
insinuation is silly.

Numbers without context are meaningless!

The rest is just garden variety emotional gushing with no basis in
fact. If you disagree, then I'm looking forward to actual quotes *in
context* to support your feelings. With your new found love for
archives that should be easy, no? BTW, did I mention *in context*?

Don.

 

[Don]

Hi Don,

Hi Oliver!

Or should I say: "Hallo! Wie geht's?" ;o)

(Forgive my bad German grammar and misspelling.)

The first posts I read were of this sort:

| But I was referring to structural problems. The program is pretty bad
| with really fundamental and elementary bugs. Many bugs also never seem
| to go away but keep reappearing, etc. It just gives an impression of a
| house of cards just waiting to fall over."

| If anything, VueScan (due to all the bugs)
| often corrupts this data and then tries to mask it by doing all the
| "editing". So, at first blush (a cursory glance) that may look
| "better" even though in reality (after closer examination) it's
| actually really much worse.

I don't remember everthing (and can't find it now), but these seemed
quite unspecific to me. I just bought VS a few hours before I read your
posts and this appeared quite surprising, because the scans seem to be
ok. Of course I did no extensive testing, it is just my impression.

Yes, that's exactly my point. "Look OK" is not the same as being OK.
I'll give you a silly example to illustrate what I mean. Take a rusty
car and splash some paint all over it. It will look OK but it isn't.

So, all of the above statements are supportable by fact and I have
done that many times. You just happen to be reading the trailing end.
If you search the archives you'll find many examples.

Now, and this is important, all that is *theory*. If you like the
results I'll be the first one to say: Great! Enjoy. But if you say: I
like this car, it's great quality - without scratching the paint to
see the rust, then I will say: You may like the car, but the fact is
it's rusty underneath. You may still like it but that's not quality.
At this point (some) Vuescan users' heads explode! ;o)

But seriously, I hope you know what I mean. There's a difference
between personal (subjective) feeling and impersonal (objective) fact.
That's all I'm saying. The trouble is that some people fail to see
this difference and misinterpret a simple statement of objective fact
as a subjective judgment.

Well, I did some scans in the past with NikonScan, but I connected my
scanner recently to a Linux box and that's why I needed a new software.
I found this newsgroup by chance a couple of weeks ago and find some of
the discussions here "quite interesting". ;-)

That's good! ;o)

BTW, have you looked at SANE? Also, there are a few other Linux users
here. Dances With Crows <[email protected] is one of
them who's been around for a long time so may want to talk to him.

I started scanning my archive (most of them are negatives, some slides)
and don't use raws right now, but I also think it would be the better
choice. But let me start a new thread for this and discuss why I'm not
sure. Maybe we'll also find out why you don't like VS and how the
"traps" can be avoided. I appreciate your help anyway.

No problem. BTW, it's not a case of "liking" or "not liking" Vuescan,
I just post the fact. The trouble is some people get very upset by
these facts. As you see I don't pay attention to that and prefer
constructive messages like this one.

Anyway, Willkommen! Viel Spaß! ;o)

Don.

P.S. In case you're wondering, I used to live in a country to the
north of you ;o) where I picked up some German.

 

[Don]

I have done extensive testing, and have been using VueScan for almost
5 years.

--- start ---

Unfortunately, to date VueScan is not capable of scanning
the Raw data with a linear gamma... ....
There is IMHO an issue with the specific combination of
VueScan and the DSE-5400, only noticable by the more critical

--- end ---

Don.

 

[Scott W]

If Don posted numbers like that he would be accused of being a sad
creature with nothing better to do than count messages. The beauty of
double standards... :-/

Nevertheless, from that we can conclude Robert only comes out of
lurking occasionally to post spam while Don is an active member of the
community who sacrifices his free time to contribute constructive and
helpful messages.

Yeah, that Robert sure fills the news group with a lot of spam doesn't
he?

Come on Don, I have not seen any spam from Robert ever and I have not
seen anthing that would say he is not just another user of Veuscan.

Scott

 

[Oliver Vecernik]

Hi Don!

Or should I say: "Hallo! Wie geht's?" ;o)

(Forgive my bad German grammar and misspelling.)

It's perfectly OK!

Now, and this is important, all that is *theory*. If you like the
results I'll be the first one to say: Great! Enjoy. But if you say: I
like this car, it's great quality - without scratching the paint to
see the rust, then I will say: You may like the car, but the fact is
it's rusty underneath. You may still like it but that's not quality.

That's a nice image, but I havn't seen the rust so far. I found some
annoyances, but not even worth to mention here. As soon as I encounter
a real problem, I'd ask here.

But seriously, I hope you know what I mean. There's a difference
between personal (subjective) feeling and impersonal (objective) fact.
That's all I'm saying. The trouble is that some people fail to see
this difference and misinterpret a simple statement of objective fact
as a subjective judgment.

I understand your point, but what are these objective facts? Is there a
list somewhere or what are these pitfalls?

BTW, have you looked at SANE? Also, there are a few other Linux users
here. Dances With Crows <[email protected] is one of
them who's been around for a long time so may want to talk to him.

Thanks for this hint, I'll try to get in touch. Yes, I also had a look
at SANE, but unfortunately my scanner is not (yet?) supported.

Anyway, Willkommen! Viel Spaß! ;o)

Danke schön! :-D

 

[Don]

Yeah, that Robert sure fills the news group with a lot of spam doesn't
he?

Scott, without being insulting, but do you *read* before replying? In
the very *next* paragraph I wrote:

--- start ---

Silly "conclusion"? Of course, it is. Just as you provocative
insinuation is silly.

--- end ---

It was *irony* to expose how silly it is to quote numbers without
context and I said exactly that in the very next sentence!

So either you don't read or are intentionally trying to provoke with
blatantly false insinuations. It's that which turns people off and it
doesn't do anything for your collective "cause". Actually it's
counterproductive and only an own goal when you do that.

Don.

 

[Don]

That's a nice image, but I havn't seen the rust so far. I found some
annoyances, but not even worth to mention here. As soon as I encounter
a real problem, I'd ask here.

If you scan as JPG and at 2000 dpi it will be more difficult to see.
Indeed, probably impossible in many cases which is why I always say
that Vuescan may be OK for a quick-and-dirty JPG, assuming you can
find a Vuescan version without other major bugs such as a 0-byte file
or cropping problems, etc.

I understand your point, but what are these objective facts? Is there a
list somewhere or what are these pitfalls?

That's very difficult to do because Vuescan bugs are constantly
changing. Old ones keep coming back, new ones are created, etc.

As you know from Linux, reputable programmers include "outstanding
issues" in program documentation to warn users. Unfortunately, Vuescan
is such a mess and the author is too sloppy and angry to do that.

Anyway, I'll attach a list below which I use as illustration. This
list is *not* to be used as a replacement for "outstanding issues" but
simply as an illustration of a *trend* i.e. how badly programmed and
unreliable Vuescan and how notoriously buggy it is.

Danke schön! :-D

Don.

--- arbitrary start ---

I had a similarly negative experience with VueScan:
I tried VueScan with the Minolta Dimage Scan MultiPRO and found it
unusable because of severe banding problems.


Unfortunately, to date VueScan is not capable of scanning the Raw data
with a linear gamma...

Yes that'll be one of the effects the VueScan D-max bug will cause.

But: being a novice in the
trade I could not determine for myself that what was claimed: Vuescan
supports Minolta Scan Dual IV, wasn't true.


Tried that. It doesn't help.
I tried all the avenues that Vuescan allowed and no combination of features
provided a good scan. Your suggestion even made things worse.

So this bug has survived through two subsequent versions to 8.1.13,
rendering Vuescan more-or-less useless, if you use scan-from-disk
workflow.

ICE manages to clean my problematic slides very well, doing a much more
complete job, and much more "seamlessly". Vuescan leaves so much, and
leaves obviously softened areas.

I'm really getting tired of even
trying new releases, it's a time consuming waste of time.

Somewhere around recent version .20 "something bad happened" to Vuescan
speed. Since then, several new version descriptions have promised
greatly improved speed etc. Atleast as of .23, my personal experience
is it's still very pokey.

About a couple of weeks ago I bought Vuescan to use with my brand new
Minolta. I was worried about reports of lines but was told that has
been fixed. IT HASN'T!! The damn lines are everywhere! Vuescan is total
CRAP! I wrote two emails but got no reply and I'm really fed up and
pissed off! I WANT MY MONEY BACK! What a ripoff! It's Vue-SCAM! That's
what it is!

I'm using VueScan with Canon FS4000US over SCSI connection. Just
upgraded from 8.1.32 to 8.1.36 and noticed a problem with "Preview"
command. In version 36 it takes forever, compared to version 32.
Apparently, version 36 does preview at full resolution (4000dpi) even
though the "Input | Preview resolution" is manually set to mere 500dpi.

I just updated to 8.2.03, and I'm getting "double" images side by side
of the SAME scans in the preview OR scan window..

Eddie Wiseman

...After I disabled batch mode and pressed
'Scan', VueScan went on to scanning all six frames in batch mode,
despite that fact that I explicitly asked it to scan only one frame.

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

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!

Would if I could. I'm on his black list, since venting here regarding
Vuescan's undocumented feature of assigning icc profiles to raw file if
scan-from-disk outputting new raw file is done "at save".

Do you know for certain that you are blacklisted and that it is a result of
your posts to this NG? I don't remember any of your posts regarding the
above as being particularly damning.

The thread titled:

"Vuescan raw files saved "at save" have altered color balance"

prompted Ed Hamrick to email me with the good news. He mentioned his
action was in light of my recent Usenet posting.

Well I just tried the latest version, 8.3.03, and I'm seeing the same
exact effects. ....
the appearance of dust spots and imperfections actually look WORSE on
the "light" setting than they do with "none". And since the "medium"
setting begins to blur, it basically makes the dust removal almost
unusable.

The curves control feature is implemented a bit differently compared
to most photo editors. The adjustment is applied to linear gamma data
after setting black/whitepoints, but before Gamma adjustment. So don't
expect to use the same settings as one would use in Photoshop. The
Preview/Scan tab will show the effect after all (including gamma and
colorspace) adjustments, so go by that.

The graph seems to serve no particular purpose beyond entertainment,
but time will tell...maybe someone will find a use.

I downloaded 8.3.16 and was not too impressed.

Have others had problems with the IR cleaning? There was a new and
interesting artifact I'd never seen before with my Canon FS4000US which
looked like a bunch of multicolor circles landed on part of my image.
Novel and yet disturbing. Saving the non-cleaned file confirmed this
was an IR artifact. ....
After this I went back to 8.3.01 which works except that it chopps off
5% off of mounted slides if you change the cropping.

Same here with PS CS. It used to be that the 1st image wouldn't open but
subsequent images would. Now none of the scanned images do ....
Maris


I was using version 8.3.24 of Vuescan with the Minolta 5400 and
found an issue with IR cleaning. ....
Since part of the film is scanned twice (the overlap), and the
IR defects only appear the second time, the problem lies with
the software.

I'm using the Linux version of 8.3.26 with the Minolta 5400. I can't
reproduce your streaks, but I find the IR cleaning does not work at all
now.

With the IR clean set to None, the IR channel shows some dust on a grey
background. With the IR Clean set to Medium the dust remains on the RGB
view, but the IR channel shows pure white. The pixel colours display
doesn't show any IR.

Reverting to 8.3.10 with the same slide it all works correctly.

So there is clearly something wrong.

Another problem I found was when the 'number of samples' is set to 4 or
more the scanner skips, and strips of the picture are repeated. Has
anyone else seen that?

John

Same here. Streaks in shades, visible only with IR switched on. ....
Yes, 3.25 and 3.26 do not have streaks but IR cleaning seems to be
(mostly?) gone. ....
In all honesty I am getting tired of this hit and miss game.


....
You can try different version of Vuescan, I believe that 8.3.30
is seriously broken. I have installed it and it broke _everything_.
Had to return to the previous version (8.3.25) which works OK for me.

Andy.

Second the notion of rolling back to a prior working version of VueScan. I
was OK with 8.3.25 also. Version 8.3.30 stuffed my K-M DSM into an endless
"calibrate" state.
Regards,
Theo

I'm seeing a similar issue with an HP Scanjet 5500c. Scanner works
with other programs but once VueScan (8.3.30) is run then I have to
reboot the computer to get the scanner recognized again by the other
programs.

Subject: Re: VueScan stopped working as soon as I paid the $50!!!!

I feel raped. ....
I plunked down $50 to
register the program, assuming all its features would now work. Well,
as soon as I tried to run the program again after registering it, not
only did I find the PREVIEW function not working, but the whole program
stopped working altogether. I can't even get it past the point where ....
The Hamrick website seems to make it too hard for anybody to want to
submit a question or complaint. But they made sure to note that the
$50 is non-refundable.

I am absolutely fed up with things that don't work and companies that
do not take responsibility for their products. This was $50 I could
not afford to waste at this time.

Vuescan version 8.3.32 is indicated as having: "Improved profiling of
IT8 calibration targets"

I've tried the new version, doing scan-from-disk with the same 16bit
linear scan of an IT8 target. My old and new histograms were
*identical*, with all variables/settings unchanged, down to the 1/100
of unit for "Mean" "Std Deviation" and "Mean", Photoshop CS2.

I haven't tried the latest version to compare profiles myself. But I
seem to recall that people had observed some bugs with the
implementation of the profiling. ....
But, perhaps the "improvements"
were more about overcoming some bugs as opposed to improved
quality/accuracy of the profiles. Or alternatively, maybe one of
those bugs is still there and no new profile files(s) were actually
written - so you're really working with your old profiles.

Now, let's see if 8.3.33 fixes the annoying but where the cropping
changes between preview and the scan (gotta love waiting for a 4000dpi
scan and then having a side lopped off).

--- no end... ---

 

[Henk de Jong]

Anyway, I like your images (http://www.hsdejong.nl/) more than some of
the 'contributions' of 'some' others ;-)

Bart, thank you very much!
It is a pleasure to read that experienced photographers and "scanners" like
you appreciate my photography.


With kind regards,
Henk de Jong

 

[Bruce]

Don,

As usual, when pressed, you side step the point.
You attacked Robert without provocation, and then justified it by
claiming that any and all posts here about Vuescan are spam.
Numerous people were upset by you comments.
Now, instead of apologizing or leaving it be, you try to belittle each
responder, in this case Scott.

 

[Mendel Leisk]

Any chance someone can comment on the original question? I've just
downloaded 8.3.51 and, like the origanal poster, am trying to sort out
how the frame-by-frame settings work, if it's possible to reset all
frames to some base settings, etc

I *do* like the concept of frame-by-frame settings, I tend to have a
fair percentage of frames that I want to vary.

Also, how to save the frame-by-frame settings? I suppose thru saving an
ini file?

 

[Mendel Leisk]

Any chance someone can comment on the original question? I've just
downloaded 8.3.51 and, like the origanal poster, am trying to sort out
how the frame-by-frame settings work, if it's possible to reset all
frames to some base settings, etc

I *do* like the concept of frame-by-frame settings, I tend to have a
fair percentage of frames that I want to vary.

Also, how to save the frame-by-frame settings? I suppose thru saving an
ini file?

Well, playing with a bit, it seems variations in the color tab settings
only "take" if you do a preview with those settings, and are held in
memory. Once I've gone thru this process for say 5 frames, my (fairly
fast) pc starts to protest. If I release memory, all is gone. If I save
an ini file there doesn't seem to be anything in there relating to
frame-by-frame color tab settings.

Would be nice if you could set a few frames, save an ini, then edit the
ini directly for the rest of the frames. As it is, doesn't seem that
practical.

 

[Don]

No, what I don't like is spam. As others have repeatedly pointed out
this is *not* a VueScan support group. For that go to:

But I do enjoy spamming this group with anti-VueScan invective. In
fact, take a look at my posting with google, and you'll see that the
vast majority are just VueScan diatribes.

Don

 

[Don]

But the surest way to extinguish a flame war is to deprive it the
oxygen of response. I will, therefore, and as always, refuse to engage
and respond to impending and unprovoked insults which will now
commence from various directions i.e. the usual suspects.

Yes, the surest way to have a calm, considered discussion is to post
the same rants about VueScan over and over and over. I quite enjoy
this, because I like showing people how intelligent and all-knowing I am.

Don

 

[Don]

If Don posted numbers like that he would be accused of being a sad
creature with nothing better to do than count messages. The beauty of
double standards... :-/

Of course I only post messages about VueScan - I'm helping the
author of VueScan raise his visibility. His revenues probably go up
every time I post a message about VueScan - otherwise fewer people
would hear about VueScan. He really should pay me for this.

Don

 

[Roger S.]

But I do enjoy spamming this group with anti-VueScan invective. In
fact, take a look at my posting with google, and you'll see that the
vast majority are just VueScan diatribes.

Don

Somebody didn't hijack Don's account, did they?

 

[Steven Saunderson]

Somebody didn't hijack Don's account, did they?

I hope so; the recent posts seem far more reasonable and perhaps even
honest. Or maybe Donny's latest course of therapy and medicine is
working. The wonders of modern science !

 

[Andre C]

Somebody didn't hijack Don's account, did they?

I think he was on drugs that day. Would a great deal about him.

 

[Don]

Somebody didn't hijack Don's account, did they?

No, that would be too hard. ;o)

It's just a simplistic and clumsy forgery you can spot from miles
away. Since I don't respond to insults the "somebody" is now resorting
to braking the law.

Anyway, I've forwarded the lot to my Internet provider and let them
run the trace and worry about it.

Don.