Vuescan 8.2.24, what's new: "Significantly improved infrared cleaning "?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mendel Leisk
  • Start date Start date
M

Mendel Leisk

Just to save others the exercise, my "slide from hell", which cleans up
quite nicely with ICE, looks about the same as usual with this latest
version of Vuescan. In short, not very clean.
 
Just to save others the exercise, my "slide from hell", which cleans up
quite nicely with ICE, looks about the same as usual with this latest
version of Vuescan. In short, not very clean.
Click to expand...

I take it you're not surprised? :)

--

Hecate - The Real One
(e-mail address removed)
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
 
Well, I live in hope :) I suppose unless there is some breakthrough,
say Ed adding ICE, it's not gonna happen.
 
say Ed adding ICE, it's not gonna happen.
Click to expand...

Very unlikely, since ICE is not an OpenSource software or common
public algorithm but a complete technology from Applied Science
Fiction, who are now part of Kodak.

If every user of Vuescan would be alright paying up for it, though ...
 
Evo2Me said:
Very unlikely, since ICE is not an OpenSource software or common
public algorithm but a complete technology from Applied Science
Fiction, who are now part of Kodak.

If every user of Vuescan would be alright paying up for it, though ...
Click to expand...

I would, within reason.
 
Very unlikely, since ICE is not an OpenSource software or common
public algorithm but a complete technology from Applied Science
Fiction, who are now part of Kodak.
Click to expand...

Careful, you'll be accused of Vuescan "bashing" next because the above
seems to imply that Vuescan only incorporates features stolen from
Open Source or ripped off from publicly available algorithms.

That's not the case, of course, because if it were then at least those
stolen portions of Vuescan may actually work (sometimes); assuming the
author didn't bungle the copy too much which is a big assumption...

It's all academic, anyway, because I can't imagine Kodak bringing its
products in disrepute by allowing something as unreliable and buggy as
Vuescan to mutilate them.

Don.
 
Any luck with 8.2.25?
Reports "Improved infrared cleaning" again...
Click to expand...

Which is as credible as reports of flying pigs!

Don.

P.S. To be fair, a pig-shaped UFO may actually land one day... ;o)
 
Very unlikely, since ICE is not an OpenSource software or common
public algorithm but a complete technology from Applied Science
Fiction, who are now part of Kodak.

If every user of Vuescan would be alright paying up for it, though ...
Click to expand...

Then, of course, it would about the same price as Silverfast - and
guess what? - Silverfast works.

--

Hecate - The Real One
(e-mail address removed)
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
 
I'm meant to say take turns in reponse to report of improved cleaning
(not "significantly") in .25. It's around an hour's exercise upgrading
and testing.
 
Just the facts, eh Don?
"I can't imagine Kodak bringing its products in disrepute by allowing
something as unreliable and buggy as Vuescan to mutilate them"

I found that IR cleaning significantly improved from 8.2.23 to 8.2.25
because it didn't work with batch scans until now. Now I'm just
waiting for the cropping to work right again so it doesn't cut off 10%
of one side of the image and give me a nice black bar on the other side.
 
Then, of course, it would about the same price as Silverfast - and
guess what? - Silverfast works.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't have dreamed that it's actually one of the Terrible Twins
(Don and Hecate) seeing my argument, even if somehow spun to their own
limited weltanschauung.

Yes, I cannot imagine Vuescan's price going up to compete directly
with Lasersoft's application; still, while Silverfast would run with
one scanner for this price, Vuescan would be working with lots of
older and new devices.

As for your spin, doctor, Vuescan does work, too, it works good, too.
Just because certain aspects don't work nice doesn't mean VS doesn't
work at all. Or should I say Silverfast is crap just because my
legally bought copy doesn't work with my Epson Perfection 2480 or my
Minolta SE 5400?*





*Just so nobody gets this wrong: My Silverfast was bought in
conjunction with a Microtek x6 SCSI scanner years ago.
 
Roger said:
because it didn't work with batch scans until now. Now I'm just
waiting for the cropping to work right again so it doesn't cut off 10%
of one side of the image and give me a nice black bar on the other side.
Click to expand...

Whoa! I'm still with 8.2.20, just wondering if it would make sense to
jump to .25
This crop bug is annoying. :(
Plus I can't seem to have the preview matching the final scan in
brightness.

Fernando
 
Recently said:
Then, of course, it would about the same price as Silverfast - and
guess what? - Silverfast works.
Click to expand...
[...]

Yes, I cannot imagine Vuescan's price going up to compete directly
with Lasersoft's application; still, while Silverfast would run with
one scanner for this price, Vuescan would be working with lots of
older and new devices.
Click to expand...
I really don't understand why Don and others don't get this point.
As for your spin, doctor, Vuescan does work, too, it works good, too.
Just because certain aspects don't work nice doesn't mean VS doesn't
work at all. Or should I say Silverfast is crap just because my
legally bought copy doesn't work with my Epson Perfection 2480 or my
Minolta SE 5400?*
Click to expand...
I'll go you one better: I have two ArtixScan scanners on one system; a
120tf and an 1100. SilverFast for the 120tf _won't even load_ if I have
the 120tf connected via FireWire because it only sees the 1100 on SCSI
(unless it is turned off) and there is no provision for selecting the
other scanner! That is a really elementary problem that should have been
worked out prior to releasing the software. OTOH, Vuescan has no such
problem seeing both scanners regardless of how they're connected.

While I prefer the UI of ScanWizard Pro to either Silverfast or Vuescan,
ScanWizard for the 120tf is buggy and, so far, has been beyond the ability
of Microtek tech support to sort out. The point is, no software is
perfect, and IMO should be evaluated based on its intended use. If one
needs higher-end features, they should simply buy the application that
delivers those features -- if such an application for their scanner
exists.

Neil
 
Neil Gould said:
I'll go you one better: I have two ArtixScan scanners on one system; a
120tf and an 1100. SilverFast for the 120tf _won't even load_ if I have
the 120tf connected via FireWire because it only sees the 1100 on SCSI
Click to expand...

Sounds familiar. It also can't cope with a Minolta 5400 and an Epson
Perfection 3200 connected through Firewire to the same Mac. I need to
switch off one in order to use Silfverfast with the other.
The point is, no software is perfect...
Click to expand...

Quite so.

I've been using the Minolta scan software, Nikon Scan, Epson Scan,
Silverfast Ai for various scanners and Vuescan and there's no way
around this: Vuescan still delivers the best results. It simply extracts
more information from the same negative, especially in shadows and
highlights. And that's the only thing that counts.

This doesn't mean it's perfect. Far from it. The user interface is a
mess, it's buggy and Ed has an incredible talent for knocking over with
his butt what he's just built up with his hands.

Still, the scans look definitely better, require less work in Photoshop,
and it's way faster, especially in batch mode. Has anyone ever compared
the speed of the Minolta 5400 under Vuescan and the same scanner with
the other two drivers? Without Vuescan, I'd have to give up the 5400.

My ideal would be the results from Vuescan with the user interface of
Silverfast.

Now, if only Vuescan weren't produced by someone who's apparently more
concerned with yet another 400 different scanner models instead of
getting it to work right with the first 400. :-/

Ralf
 
Ralf said:
and it's way faster, especially in batch mode. Has anyone ever compared
the speed of the Minolta 5400 under Vuescan and the same scanner with
the other two drivers? Without Vuescan, I'd have to give up the 5400.
Click to expand...

My thoughts, too.
With the other softwares, I'm forced to scan at 2700dpi, which is only
fine for relatively small prints.
Now, if only Vuescan weren't produced by someone who's apparently more
concerned with yet another 400 different scanner models instead of
getting it to work right with the first 400. :-/
Click to expand...

Yup. I must confess that I always upgrade Vuescan with fingers crossed
(which renders typing quite difficult). :)
Presently I'm stuck with 8.2.20, and I mostly have problems in
profiling and IR cleaning. I'm not extremely happy with shadow
rendition... seems like something weirdly non-linear happens in the
shadows of dense originals, like Velvia slides; I mean, something
*more* weird than that family of slide film already does on its own.
But the Minolta software is as slow as molasses, and I just can't get
accurate profiling for it, too. Plus, it does a poor job on BW negative
film.
Silverfast demo kept crashing my PC anytime I was at 5400 dpi *and* 4x
multisampling. :(
Sometimes I'm tempted to write my own scanning software, but I doubt it
would be an easy job. :)

Fernando
 
Just the facts, eh Don?
Absolutely!

"I can't imagine Kodak bringing its products in disrepute by allowing
something as unreliable and buggy as Vuescan to mutilate them"
Click to expand...

Do you really think Kodak would have any patience for a flood of angry
Vuescan users complaining about ICE while all along it's just another
Vuescan bug? I may be wrong, of course, but it seems very unlikely.

For example, that's why (in general) companies don't hand out software
developer kits to just anyone because incompetent programmers may
bring their own products in disrepute by association. Instead, they
require a track record, a description of planned software, etc.
I found that IR cleaning significantly improved from 8.2.23 to 8.2.25
because it didn't work with batch scans until now. Now I'm just
waiting for the cropping to work right again so it doesn't cut off 10%
of one side of the image and give me a nice black bar on the other side.
Click to expand...

If history teaches <insert Vuescan bug here> will be return in a
subsequent version. I may be wrong, of course, but the odds are I'm
not. Again, please check the archives. All the facts are there, I'm
afraid, reported by frustrated Vuescan users themselves.

Don.
 
I really don't understand why Don and others don't get this point.
Click to expand...

Because there is nothing to get!

What does any of the above have to do with the avalanche of Vuescan
bugs or its notorious lack of reliability?

Please check the archives! You'd be surprised to learn I have even
recommended Vuescan to people who don't care for quality and just want
a quick-and-dirty web scan.

Don.
 
Recently said:
Because there is nothing to get!

What does any of the above have to do with the avalanche of Vuescan
bugs or its notorious lack of reliability?
Click to expand...
1) Even though I'd call "the avalanche of... bugs" hyperbole, the bottom
line is that the bugs don't affect everyone's usage.

2) Your opinion about its reliability differs from the experience of many,
including myself. I don't find that it fails any more often than
Silverfast or ScanWizard Pro with my scanners.
Please check the archives! You'd be surprised to learn I have even
recommended Vuescan to people who don't care for quality and just want
a quick-and-dirty web scan.
Click to expand...
Your opinion on this differs from many others, so perhaps a grain or two
of salt is appropriate. Such a global statement only exposes your bias,
Don. Vuescan may not be the best application for _all_ scanners, but for
many it's the best option available. And, for some people, it apparently
gives better results with pro-sumer scanners as well. For an under $100
scanning app, it's a pretty good option. To expect it to best a $300+ app
dedicated to a particular make and model of scanner is pretty
unreasonable, IMO.

Neil
 
Back
Top