Test of Vuescan 8.3.15 running a Canon 9950

[Ed Richards]

www.public-health-law.com/photos/ (http://www.public-health-law.com/photos/)

This is a two pass scan to allow 4800 dpi scanning of a color negative. The first pass is used to generate a raw (unprocessed) scanner file that is down sampled to 2400 dpi. This is done because the full size file is more than 2 gigs, which causes memory issues in Windows because processing the file can push past the 4 gig limit. Vuescan is then used to load the raw file for processing. It is flipped, rotated, inverted, and color corrected, and saved out. There is no sharpening or post processing - it is not spotted, as it obvious. The file was shot with a Fuji 250mm f 6.3 on a Technika IV, Kodak Portra in a Readyload. It is Quebec in July, 2005.

[paulr]

the copy i downloaded looks crazy ... completely posterized, pixelated, and full of random noise. not sure if that's what it looks like on your end.

[Mick Noordewier]

Ed, this looks very nice. Paul, Ed has put a low-res jpeg version so that you can see the entire image without downloading a gigabyte file. However, it's not going to look that great if you view it at 100%. Look at the full-res TIFF crops to see the actual detail. I'm sure a drum scan would bring out more, but this makes me think I should consider replacing my 4870.

[Kirk Gittings]

"the copy i downloaded looks crazy ... completely posterized, pixelated, and full of random noise. not sure if that's what it looks like on your end."

Same here-it looks terrible. Must be some Mozilla wackiness.

[Kirk Gittings]

The details though look good, but I'm not sure what the point is here. It is a good scan from a scanner at this price level, moderately sharp and with a fair amount of shadow noise. Nothing unusual. There is none of the banding that I saw on the ones I returned, which is good. What are you trying to show?

[Kirk Gittings]

Actually I take that back about a fair amount of shadow noise. I hadn't looked at the tree detail. The noise is actually very good.

[Ed Richards]

> the copy i downloaded looks crazy

As the instructions on the page say - do not try to view these in the browser, download them and open them in PS.:-) They are not optimized for the WWW.

> What are you trying to show?

The interesting part is how I got here. To get the best quality, you have to scan at 4800 and downsample. This was impossible in the past because of memory limits, at least in the window's world. The newest Vuescan has improved the memory handling, and I combined that with Vuescan's ability to read in a raw file and process it as it were data directly from the scanner. (I think Siverfast HDR studio will do this as well.) This let me scan at 4800 and downsize it in the first pass, then load it into Vuescan to do the color and rotations and save the final file.

Being able to do this at 4800 really helped with the noise and the resolution. Remembering that this is color negative material and not Tmax100, the detail is pretty good. Good enough for at least a 16x20 print, and I think perhaps a 20x24.

As for the noise, while I have not tried it on 4x5, I bet Noise Nija would really clean up color noise. Anyone tried that?

[John_4185]

Sorry, but the jpeg looks pretty bad. The clouds and river, for example, look to be like GIF compression - gradient colors are lost. And I used CS to load it. That is, I did not use a browser at all.

(WindoZe people, you can paste the URL directly into CS's 'Open' dialog box to bypass browsers.)

Looks the same through a browser nonetheless.

Perhaps you could post a full resolution of a couple small sections.

[John_4185]

S O R R Y - You DID post detail sections!

My fault.

Looks pretty good.

[Kirk Gittings]

I own Noise Ninja and have worked with it extensively. Again the problem is that we are larger format guys who want detail. Noise reduction programs on scans all destry detail to some extent. The only place NN works for me is a very limited bit painted into the skies where detail is not important, but a slight Gaussian Blur will do that almost as well for free.

"and I think perhaps a 20x24"

That statement suggests that you haven't tried it. Ed, here is where we part company. You do very well at extracting a very good scan from the 9950 and Vuescan. But there is no way that that scan would satisfy my personal requirements at 20x24. I can tell by looking at the detail images. It would be marginal at 16x20. I have been around the block with this 50 times with my personal work and show prints. I have tried everything to get around this to avoid the expense of drum scans. That scan would not get me there. You shoot 4x5 and end up settling for a digital emlargement that is about the quality of a MF when you settle for anything less than a drum scan from a 4x5 at 20x24. Get a drum scan from someone who knows how to do them (like West Coast Imaging) from that negative and make side by side 20x24's the difference will be remarkable. I know, I have taken the time to do this side by side testing trying to avoid the expense on my recent retrospective show. I ended up having about 30 drum color scans done and did 20 B&W Imacon scans myself. I just finally had to bite the bullet and do it, but that was after having tested 4 9950F's, a 3200, two 4870's and two 4990's with numerous software and consulting with friends of mine like George de Wolf who is one of the leading experts in this business.

[Ed Richards]

> That statement suggests that you haven't tried it.

Not yet, but I have to attend to my day job.:-)

I will over the next few days to see what it looks like. We will see what the right level of sharpening will do with the fine details. The image you are looking at details from is 28x37 at 300 DPI, no sharpening at all. That hotel detail would be 3.16 x 3.28 inches on a 20x26 print. Anyone who is interested can sharpen it up and print to that size and see what it looks like.

> I know, I have taken the time to do this side by side

But with all the problems with workflow and scanners we have been discussing. Technology changes, software improves, we are trying to see how much. Maybe not enough, but more than when you were running through scanners like the 9950, which at the time had horrible software. I do not fault you - you needed to get work done, not wait for the software to get better. But it has, and it is time to see how much difference that makes.

I think drum scans are the right choice for you because they open up the whole world of bigger prints to you - it is a very good investment for someone with an established reputation and prints that look like they would scale up beautifully. For me, I need to shoot and print about 1000 more sheets, getting the best prints I can, but not spending 100k on scans to practice. You did that in the darkroom over the past x years.

[neil poulsen]

How do the Imacon Flextight scans hold up against a good drum scan for color or black and white? Aside from the high expense, the Imacons can reasonably be used in the home or studio. Good drum scanners are out of the question.

[Mick Noordewier]

I'm quite grateful that Ed took the time to post a procedure and the results. No one questions that a drum scan is going to beat a consumer flatbed. However, Ed didn't pretend to make any such claim. Most of us use the lower-cost Epson and Canon scanners to proof and print smaller versions of our photos. Since this is an integral part of our photography, it is very helpful to have workflow suggestions and actual results that we can examine and compare to our own.

[Kirk Gittings]

Mick,
Read the posts. No one said that Ed claimed it rivaled a drum scan. Ed claimed you could get a high quality 20x24 from that scan which I disagree with. It would not meet my standards. Nothing short of a drum scan or a very good Imacon scan gives me enough detail at that size and I have tested this extensively.

Ed,
"when you were running through scanners like the 9950, which at the time had horrible software"
As I have said numerous times, even Canon's engineers agreed that it was a hardware problem!!!!! I got all the way thru all the support staff to talk to the engineers. I sent them scans and they agreed it was a hardware issue.

**************************************

I get really tired these days of doing the product testing for hardware and software manufacturers as a result of simply buying their products and trying to make them work. Almost every new peoduct is shipped too soon and it is our aggravation that gets them to make the necessary changes. I have wasted enormous amount of time with Epson, Imageprint, Canon, Silverfast, Microtek, Hahnemuhle etc. etc. etc. fighting my way thru to someone who actually knows something to get an intelligent conversation about product deficiencies. If I were paid for this, I could quite shooting commercial work!

[Ed Richards]

> I get really tired these days of doing the product testing for hardware and software manufacturers

Amen! But is not just camera folks who have to put up with this. I have quit using the first generation of new software and hardware if I can possibly get by without it. My wife is a doc - she will tell you that only a fool wants to take a new drug for the first few years it is out, if there is any alternative.

> Canon's engineers agreed that it was a hardware problem!

Always hard to tell - that way they can ignore the problem by saying it is just a few units that must have been damaged in shipping. It is a lot harder to admit that your software is crummy - or more accurately, that it is optimized for low end scans of 35mm and that 4x5 holder is just for proofing. Does not make much difference at the consumer end - there is nothing you can do either way if there is no software alternative available at the time.

[Henry Ambrose]

Kirk wrote:

"I get really tired these days of doing the product testing for hardware and software manufacturers as a result of simply buying their products and trying to make them work."

The manufacturers used to do something called "beta testing". When I did it, I at least got a free unit to test and a chance to buy it cheap if I wanted it. Now they just let the consumer do testing at release of the new wonder product.

This really sucks but apparently not too many people complain about it. Do we have so much money that buying a piece of untested junk does not matter?