Vuescan - new features

[Wilfred]

This one:

--- start ---


--- end ---

Even though Bart agonizes trying to minimize the problems by using
vague and circumspect language, the truth still comes through if one
reads carefully.

No, you are arguing that VueScan offers an incorrect interpretation of
the 'curves' concept, not that it *handles* the corrections incorrectly
(i.e., that it would make miscalculations based on the values the user
has entered at 25% and 75% or that it wouldn't be WYSIWYG).
IMO what VueScan offers is a very limited subset of what you can do with
curves. For some, that's better than nothing.

It's certainly no proof positive in the absolute sense, but you can't
just casually dismiss a known and appalling track record based on
reliable sources.

My own VueScan usage has not produced an 'appalling track record'. For
myself, I am a reliable source. The program has had is glitches and
quirks, but hey, hasn't all software?

Sure, you can give an unknown product such a benefit of the doubt, but
after a product repeatedly demonstrates its unreliability it would be
irrational to ignore its track record.

To me, VueScan is not an unknown product. To you, it still is - at least
true where recent versions are concerned.

The important thing is that this Vuescan contraption is anything by
"Curves". In addition to all the "oddities" Bart has outlined, having
only two fixed points and working totally blind makes it basically
useless.


I think you're right about the intention because the "S" curve is
really a contrast adjustment.



That's a stretch (because it addresses a very narrow subset) and I'm
sure the author did not even consider that.

Instead he wanted to be able to (falsely!) advertise Vuescan as having
Curves.

He doesn't seem to. This is what he says on his website: 'Added
"Prefs|Graph type" for curves'. This is a rather cryptic remark and I
still don't know what it means. It's not good marketing, that's for sure;-)

The Vuescan "curves" contraption has nothing to do with standards. The
standards I refer to above are things like using EV for exposure.

I don't know any scanning software that uses EV for exposure. But I have
no experience with NikonScan or SilverFast. Do they have EV adjustment?
I can imagine that it would be an advantage indeed.

 

[Marjolein Katsma]

Bart van der Wolf ([email protected]) wrote in [email protected]:

I assume he reads, but doesn't participate (saves him a lot of phony
"bug" reports). Reading Usenet and Web posts about one's creation
could provide useful user feedback. Like with scanning, the real issue
is to discriminate between "signal and noise".

Anything in particular that you are basing that assumption on?

 

[Marjolein Katsma]

Ralf R. Radermacher ([email protected]) wrote in

Rest assured that Bart, me, and a lot of people have had ample
opportunity to reach our conclusions on this matter.

Based on historical information, probably. But for as long as you have
killfiled him you have no current information on which to conclude your
initial conclusion is still valid or not.

If you say you ignore Don'ts posts then I'll ignore your posts about teh
value of his posts.

 

[Marjolein Katsma]

Don ([email protected]) wrote in

Only "most of the time"? ;o)
Yes

That means I'm not a very good zealot and I have to try harder! ;o)

No


;-)

 

[Neil Gould]

No, you are arguing that VueScan offers an incorrect interpretation of
the 'curves' concept, not that it *handles* the corrections
incorrectly (i.e., that it would make miscalculations based on the
values the user
has entered at 25% and 75% or that it wouldn't be WYSIWYG).
IMO what VueScan offers is a very limited subset of what you can do
with curves. For some, that's better than nothing.

Having used ViewScan's curves feature a little now (thanks to this thread
that made me aware of the new version, as I don't typically replace
versions that often), I think I see what Ed had in mind. ViewScan is not
trying to replace Photoshop (or name your editor, here), so having
extensive curve editing is not necessary. Combined with the feature to
show clipped colors and regions, the ability to bring the highlights and
shadow areas into range with a bit more control than before is, IMO, a
Good Thing, and saves a lot of time. Ballpark it with the scan, and do the
subtle stuff in an image editor.

Regards,

Neil

 

[Ralf R. Radermacher]

Based on historical information, probably. But for as long as you have
killfiled him you have no current information on which to conclude your
initial conclusion is still valid or not.

Not to worry. This is taken care of by all the quotes of "Don's"
messages in the responses of those comics who still think they must
stirr up the mud by answering him.

If you say you ignore Don'ts posts then I'll ignore your posts about teh
value of his posts.

Pardon? Oh, never mind...

Ralf

 

[Bart van der Wolf]

SNIP

Anything in particular that you are basing that assumption on?

1. It would be common sense to monitor internet and usenet activities
concerning ones own product. It allows to improve the product based on
user experiences an expectations.
It's quite easy, just by Googling for "VueScan" (and a few often made
typo versions of it). It also allows to monitor serial number fraud,
which prompted him to retire certain series of numbers in the past.
The culprits are unlikely to have informed him.
2. I've seen adjustments made in VueScan shortly after these were
suggested/discussed in this group. The coincidence was striking, but
of course it could have been unrelated.

That's why I assume he's reading, and he is obviously not sharing his
knowledge any longer.

Bart

 

[Marjolein Katsma]

Bart van der Wolf ([email protected]) wrote in [email protected]:

SNIP

1. It would be common sense to monitor internet and usenet activities
concerning ones own product. It allows to improve the product based on
user experiences an expectations.
It's quite easy, just by Googling for "VueScan" (and a few often made
typo versions of it). It also allows to monitor serial number fraud,
which prompted him to retire certain series of numbers in the past.
The culprits are unlikely to have informed him.
2. I've seen adjustments made in VueScan shortly after these were
suggested/discussed in this group. The coincidence was striking, but
of course it could have been unrelated.

That's why I assume he's reading, and he is obviously not sharing his
knowledge any longer.

Both good enough reasons. But not all people (or software companies for
that matter) always behave according to common sense; and it could
equally be that someone simply sent him an email. Being a one-person
software company it's also common sense to spend your time wisely; given
enough "correspondents" (and you'd need only one or two) relying on
email could be good enough.

 

[Don]

No, you are arguing that VueScan offers an incorrect interpretation of
the 'curves' concept, not that it *handles* the corrections incorrectly
(i.e., that it would make miscalculations based on the values the user
has entered at 25% and 75% or that it wouldn't be WYSIWYG).

Actually, I state both. Initially, that it handled curves incorrectly
(gamma 2.2 vs gamma 1.0) until we learned more. Now, it appears, that
Vuescan has a very "unique" concept of curves making it even worse.

My own VueScan usage has not produced an 'appalling track record'. For
myself, I am a reliable source.

So, we're back to "it works for me". :-/

Whether you are a reliable source or not is totally beside the point
here. But before we even get to that you need to address this:

If you want to make a *generic* statement you can *not* do that based
only on your own requirements/experiences/wishes/feelings.

The program has had is glitches and
quirks, but hey, hasn't all software?

And that's no excuse either. For two reasons:

1. "But, mom, he did it too" didn't work when we were 3 and it doesn't
work now.

2. More importantly, the quantity and severity of Vuescan bugs is in a
category of its own and can't be compared to an occasional
inconvenience other programs may exhibit. It's night and day.

To me, VueScan is not an unknown product. To you, it still is - at least
true where recent versions are concerned.

You misunderstood completely.

If Vuescan were a new product I would give it the benefit of the
doubt. Indeed, that's exactly what I did when I tested it initially.

However, Vuescan is an "established" program in major Version 8 (?)
and for such a program to exhibit real amateur bugs and with such
regularity, plus the volume of the bugs, does not make it a serious
product for anything other than casual use.

He doesn't seem to. This is what he says on his website: 'Added
"Prefs|Graph type" for curves'. This is a rather cryptic remark and I
still don't know what it means. It's not good marketing, that's for sure;-)
;o)


I don't know any scanning software that uses EV for exposure. But I have
no experience with NikonScan or SilverFast. Do they have EV adjustment?
I can imagine that it would be an advantage indeed.

NikonScan certainly does. Don't confuse the name of the panel i.e.
"Analog Gain" with the actual units the setting uses which are EV.

Also, it's not only that Vuescan fails to use EV but it actually uses
a totally ridiculous "multiplier". (Not to mention it's buggy once the
exposure exceeds a certain value.) Negative values are in the range
0-1 while positive values are in the range 1-infinity.

It's easy to see why the author did it that way because all he has to
do is multiply the baseline with the given value. It's a prime example
of an amateur programmer.

Don.

 

[Wilfred]

So, we're back to "it works for me". :-/

That's as subjective as the claim "the track record is appalling". It
works for *me* and the track record is appalling in *your* opinion. No
sense in arguing any further.

Whether you are a reliable source or not is totally beside the point
here. But before we even get to that you need to address this:

If you want to make a *generic* statement you can *not* do that based
only on your own requirements/experiences/wishes/feelings.

At the same time, you apply your definition of "appalling" to "reliable
sources" which you do not explicitly refer to and conclude that VueScan
stinks.
If you really want to prove that VueScan is rubbish, you have to collect
all bug reports (both from public and closed sources) related to
VueScan, SilverFast, NikonScan, Dimage Scan Utility, ScanGear, etc., and
the number of users of all these software packages. Perhaps based on
that you'll be able to establish proof that one or the other package is
significantly buggier than all the others.

the quantity and severity of Vuescan bugs is in a
category of its own and can't be compared to an occasional
inconvenience other programs may exhibit. It's night and day.'

VueScan is an "established" program in major Version 8 (?)
and for such a program to exhibit real amateur bugs and with such
regularity, plus the volume of the bugs, does not make it a serious
product for anything other than casual use.

To me VueScan's "bugs" are nothing compared to bugs I experienced in
Microsoft Office, CorelDraw, F-Secure AntiVirus, Norton System Works,
Windows, Mac OS, etc.
VueScan doesn't make computers crash, it doesn't erase data and it
doesn't expose my private information to hackers.

To you, the fact that its user interface doesn't work as you expect
seems to be its main "bug", or better, a "huge collection of bugs".

NikonScan certainly does. Don't confuse the name of the panel i.e.
"Analog Gain" with the actual units the setting uses which are EV.

Also, it's not only that Vuescan fails to use EV but it actually uses
a totally ridiculous "multiplier". (Not to mention it's buggy once the
exposure exceeds a certain value.) Negative values are in the range
0-1 while positive values are in the range 1-infinity.

It's easy to see why the author did it that way because all he has to
do is multiply the baseline with the given value. It's a prime example
of an amateur programmer.

Sadly, this is often (but not always) the case with software. Users of
Microsoft Office, for instance, have to learn to think like its
programmers all the time. Just try to tell Word on which page a picture
should appear - you will fail, unless you adapt your thinking to the way
Word was programmed.

Apparently, NikonScan is the perfect program for you and it allows you
to follow your preferred workflow. You tried VueScan once and concluded
that it's inferior. You may be right. I have no experience with
NikonScan or Nikon scanners. I have a Minolta scanner and a Canon
scanner. For both scanners VueScan gives me better results than the
software provided by the manufacturer. Also, it allows me to apply a
workflow that makes more sense than the workflows enforced on me by the
Dimage Scan Utility and Canon ScanGear. I can imagine that it's possible
to write better software than VueScan and perhaps that's exactly what
LaserSoft offers. I haven't tried SilverFast because I don't like their
pricing policy.
This was my last contribution to this discussion.

 

[Robert Feinman]

Bart van der Wolf ([email protected]) wrote in [email protected]:


Both good enough reasons. But not all people (or software companies for
that matter) always behave according to common sense; and it could
equally be that someone simply sent him an email. Being a one-person
software company it's also common sense to spend your time wisely; given
enough "correspondents" (and you'd need only one or two) relying on
email could be good enough.

Speculating on whether Ed Hamrick reads usenet anymore is rather
pointless, don't you think? The real issue is that he no longer
participates and this is a real loss. We all know the reasons.
For myself, I always email bug reports even if I mention them online.
Ed needs various log files and stuff or he won't look into an issue.

I take the amount of troll discussion currently taking place as an
indication that there is really nothing of major interest happening
in the world of scanners.

 

[Bart van der Wolf]

Don wrote:
SNIP
If you really want to prove that VueScan is rubbish, you have to
collect all bug reports (both from public and closed sources)
related to VueScan, SilverFast, NikonScan, Dimage Scan Utility,
ScanGear, etc., and the number of users of all these software
packages. Perhaps based on that you'll be able to establish proof
that one or the other package is significantly buggier than all the
others.

;-)

That would indeed take a much more serious effort than just calling
it, whatever one doesn't grasp, a 'bug'.

SNIP

VueScan doesn't make computers crash, it doesn't erase data and it
doesn't expose my private information to hackers.

Amongst others, it also gets the job done (regardless the one of four
different (Minolta, Epson, Nikon, Microtek) scanners I use(d), same
driver interface), color managed and all.

To you, the fact that its user interface doesn't work as you expect
seems to be its main "bug", or better, a "huge collection of bugs".

Or, for another 'Don' Classic, notoriously buggy ;-)
Funny, if he wasn't so sad.

LOL, how hard is it to understand 1 EV == times 2, or divided by 2,
depending on the actual setting.

Indeed it requires successfully finishing primary school. :-(

SNIP

I haven't tried SilverFast because I don't like their pricing
policy.

I only tried bundled versions but, indeed, it's price is steep
compared to the alternative(s), and it requires a new licence for each
scanner. I'd imagine that Silverfast would have been able to get more
money if they'd offered a more attractive pricing policy. They're
simply too late to copy e.g. VueScan's pricing policy by now.

Bart

 

[Evo2Me]

That's why I assume he's reading, and he is obviously not sharing his
knowledge any longer.

Actually it doesn't matter at all what we assume or if it would be a
good idea to monitor what happens here.

We can be relatively certain he is not posting here because

a) his name is not one of the featured posters
b) his style is very sparse, to the point and sometimes even harsh;
not seen here since he officially went
c) he wrote he won't participate anymore.

Does he read here? Well, Bart, your assumptions are good and I share
them, but since we are talking about a fact that either can be or
cannot be a logical conclusion cannot be reached, only an empirical
one. Everything else is probability, stochastic and conjecture (not
even of the better kind).

Question arises: Why is it so important to ELIZA - sorry, Marjolein -
to take you up on this topic?

 

[Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen]

I agree, the price is too high for the added value. I stick with Epson
Scan on my 4990, the bundled version of Silverfast is very seldom
used. On my Scanmate, I use ColorQuartet, which has one feature I
really miss from Epson Scan, the ability to continue working with the
preview images (curves, contrast, color balance, cropping, etc.),
while the scanner is busy making scans. It relly helps speeding up the
process if you have images that need a lot of tweaking. Also,
calibrating ColorQuartet for different types of negative film is a
piece of cake, just take a picture of a grayscale and scan it, then
tell ColorQuartet to build a profile based on that.


<snip>

BvdW> SNIP

BvdW> I only tried bundled versions but, indeed, it's price is steep
BvdW> compared to the alternative(s), and it requires a new licence for each
BvdW> scanner. I'd imagine that Silverfast would have been able to get more
BvdW> money if they'd offered a more attractive pricing policy. They're
BvdW> simply too late to copy e.g. VueScan's pricing policy by now.


BvdW> Bart

 

[Don]

That's as subjective as the claim "the track record is appalling". It
works for *me* and the track record is appalling in *your* opinion.

No, it's not! It's an objective fact! Do you want the bug list again?

At the same time, you apply your definition of "appalling" to "reliable
sources" which you do not explicitly refer to and conclude that VueScan
stinks.

I don't refer to? You have obviously not been paying attention. See
the bug list below.

If you really want to prove that VueScan is rubbish

Stop! That's the problem right there! I do *not* want to prove that
Vuescan is rubbish. I don't care either way.

But when people make *unsubstantiated* and *misleading* claims
(whatever the subject!) I may correct that and substantiate it with
facts. That's all.

If this occurs more with Vuescan than with other subjects that's
merely a function of the many Vuescan bugs and the aggressiveness of
its "fans" (not to be confused with reasonable Vuescan users).

Again, don't shoot the messenger!

To me VueScan's "bugs" are nothing compared to bugs I experienced in
Microsoft Office, CorelDraw, F-Secure AntiVirus, Norton System Works,
Windows, Mac OS, etc.

We need read no further than "to me".

To you, the fact that its user interface doesn't work as you expect
seems to be its main "bug"

When have I ever said that? Quotes *in context* please?

Apparently, NikonScan is the perfect program for you and it allows you
to follow your preferred workflow.

No, it is *not*! Far from it! That's why I wrote my own program.


Anyway, it appears from all of the above you have not really followed
this and are just making wild and unsubstantiated accusations. You
need to back them up as I just did with the list below.

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.

--- no end... ---

 

[Wilfred]

No, it's not! It's an objective fact! Do you want the bug list again?




I don't refer to? You have obviously not been paying attention. See
the bug list below.

OK - I did not plan to react anymore, but your bug list is, however long
and impressive it is, no proof of anything.
If you follow the link http://tinyurl.com/7eakq you will find a similar
"bug list" with (currently) 417 items (including some redundancy) from
"reliable sources" concerning Adobe Photoshop. Can I conclude anything
from that list? Is the list "appalling"? Is PaintShop Pro, Picture
Window Pro, CorelPaint or The GIMP better than Photoshop? Even if I
would do the same search for the other programs it wouldn't tell me
anything. The same search for The GIMP produces 41 bug-related items
(http://tinyurl.com/c2vq6). However, the installed user base of The GIMP
is (probably) much smaller, therefore it doesn't mean that the software
is better in any way. Also, the GIMP has different capabilities (for
instance it doesn't support 16-bits editing).

Yes, VueScan has bugs. So has NikonScan. So has Photoshop. But that's no
reason to wage some kind of war against it in a newsgroup.
If somebody has a specific question about certain functionality in
VueScan, and you can answer from your own experience "I have tried that
but it doesn't work - it's a bug, because ...", it would be perfectly
acceptable to anyone. But the only thing you do is replying arbitrarily
to VueScan-related messages, warning against the numerous bugs and
suggesting that the software supplied by the scanner manufacturer is
better. I don't think you have enough support for that claim and I think
(and several others with me) your VueScan-related contributions to this
group are not very constructive. I do value some of your other
contributions and I wish you would shift your focus a bit ...

 

[Don]

OK - I did not plan to react anymore, but your bug list is, however long
and impressive it is, no proof of anything.

First of all, it proves that your *unsubstantiated* statement about my
not providing explicit references is totally wrong!

Secondly, you're doggedly attacking me for a simple and objective
*fact* that "Vuescan is notoriously buggy and unreliable".

Well, at the very least, this *partial* list also proves that fact!

But such wild accusations and attacks from Vuescan "fans" are nothing
new. *You* started this very sub-thread by bringing up *irrelevant*
color space re "curves bug" showing you haven't grasped the concept.

I ignored it to spare you the embarrassment but you insisted so both
Phillip and I had to corrected you. Instead of admitting the error you
then quickly tried to change the subject but only got yourself into
more trouble with further unsubstantiated and embarrassing statements.

If you follow the link http://tinyurl.com/7eakq you will find a similar
"bug list" with (currently) 417 items (including some redundancy) from
"reliable sources" concerning Adobe Photoshop.

Yes, and each Windows version has literally 1000s of bugs. However,
Photoshop, Windows et al are massively more *complex* than Vuescan! (A
hint: Check file sizes, for starters!)

So if you want to compare apples and oranges like that, you have to do
it in relative terms, and then...

Yes, VueScan has bugs. So has NikonScan. So has Photoshop.

.... it's a question of scale and severity. Again:

1. Such blanket excuses don't work! "But, mom, he did it too" didn't
work when you were 3 and it doesn't work now.

2. The *quantity and severity* of Vuescan bugs is in a
category of its own and can't be compared to an occasional
inconvenience other programs may exhibit.

But that's no
reason to wage some kind of war against it in a newsgroup.

Just repeating that without any evidence is not going to make it true.

Provide a *single* example *in full context*!

But the only thing you do is replying arbitrarily
to VueScan-related messages, warning against the numerous bugs and
suggesting that the software supplied by the scanner manufacturer is
better.

It's such wild accusations without any basis in fact that get you
deeper and deeper into trouble.

Provide a *single* example *in full context*!

Don.

 

[Wilfred]

Just repeating that without any evidence is not going to make it true.

Provide a *single* example *in full context*!

A *single* example of your *war* against VueScan? That's *easy*. Your
message I'm just replying to is an *excellent* example. However I refuse
to show it in full context because I found your *ranting* so *appalling*
that I don't think there's any need in exposing other readers to
unnecessary repetition of your *notorious* exaggerations.

 

[Roger S.]

Don, as a good scientist, I'm sure you realize that the quality of the
evidence is paramount. Not only do you have to identify good evidence
upon which to base your assertions, but you have to also examine the
quality of the evidence and defend it from question. If your evidence
fails to stand up to scrutiny you have to find other evidence or
abandon your argument. Simply citing "facts," particularly reports of
widely varying quality from users of various levels of knowledge, is
neither scientific nor objective, and it is quite irrational to then
claim that this is in any way scientific.

The tests I believe Bart have done of the 5400 comparing Minolta and
Vuescan software with different options enabled rise to the level of
credibility. You have yet to produce anything comparable to support
your assertions. I look forward to more tests about these new features
from people who use this software, rather from those who simply sprew
vitriol about it and resort to generalities and second-hand reports
when challenged.

 

[Don]

A *single* example of your *war* against VueScan? That's *easy*. Your
message I'm just replying to is an *excellent* example. However I refuse
to show it in full context because I found your *ranting* so *appalling*
that I don't think there's any need in exposing other readers to
unnecessary repetition of your *notorious* exaggerations.

This angry (and unprovoked!) outburst full of insults without any
facts whatsoever illustrates exactly what I'm talking about.

You may notice (although given the above I doubt it) that I have never
insulted you. That's because for me there is no "war". Just facts.

However, some Vuescan users are primed to explode with abuse no matter
how calmly and objectively those facts are presented.

And, as you just demonstrated, no amount of reason can penetrate that.

Don.