Slow scans, inefficient system resource usage with Silverfast 8.0.1r13 DEMO and V700

[architorture]

Hi everybody,

I have posted this question/complaint on the silverfast forum, but that seems to be full of people complaining about how slow the response is and how unhelpful! I also posted this in a couple groups on flickr, so apologies if you come across this in multiple places. I thought I'd post here and see if anyone has experienced the same thing. Thanks for your help!

The post:

I am a current user of the bundled Silverfast SE that came with my Epson v700 scanner. My software is updated to 6.6.2r3.
I recently downloaded the AI Studio 8.0.1r13 DEMO so that I could test the new version 8 and evaluate whether I should upgrade.

I think the image quality/tonality is slightly improved in 8, and would like to upgrade from my version SE anyway so that I can save to 48bit color with processing (NegaFix). However, in testing the DEMO of version 8, I have found it completely unusable for my situation.

I scan MF and LF film at 4800spi, immediately downsampling to 2400dpi in Photoshop. I prefer to scan at double resolution to eliminate grain aliasing and reduce noise in the scanned image, taking advantage of the effects of the 2x2 pixel averaging. This does create very large files, but with version 6.6.2r3 the scan time is reasonable and the workflow acceptable. Scanning a 4x5 negative in 48bit HDR mode takes under 10min, from start to saved file (2.5GB).

I tried to scan a 6x7cm color negative with the Demo version of SF-8, but found it incapable of doing so reasonably. A 4800spi 48bit scan of the 56x68mm image took 45 minutes! (755MB). I also tried other settings: 4800spi 48->24bit took 49 minutes with 8 (410MB), compared to 7 minutes with version 6.6 (406MB). I am able to scan at appropriate speeds with version 8 at lower resolutions - a 3200spi 48->24bit scan took only 4min (184MB), as I would expect. I also tested at 2400spi and 1200spi, 48bit, without problems, and also successfully scanned only a small portion of the negative at 4800spi 48bit (76MB).

When scanning the entire negative with version-8 at 4800spi and 48bit, I can hear the drive motor in the scanner run for only about 5 out of every 20 seconds. Most of the 45 minutes it is not actually scanning! It is in fact constantly writing to the HDD, while the memory usage in the windows task manager graph goes up-and-down like a heartbeat (but never above 40% of the total). The silverfast 8 process never uses more than 340MB of memory, despite between 4 and 6 GB being "available" according to the task manager. It also seems to create four 700-800MB files in the temp directory. In contrast, when scanning with my current version 6.6, the memory graph is a completely flat line, the HDD is idle until the scan is over and the file is saved, and everything runs smoothly. If helpful I can upload or send screenshots I recorded of the task manager while scanning in these different situations.

I know the immediate response is that it would be a memory issue but the fact that I can scan, with the same settings, a file that is 3.4 times larger, on the same system, using the older software, eliminates this explanation in my opinion. Poorly written code and inefficient system resource usage in version 8 is the only potential difference.

For reference, my computer: windows 7 professional x64, service pack 1; intel core-2 quad Q9550; 8GB DDR2-800 RAM; traditional HDD with 116GB (50%) free space.

At this point I would like to purchase the upgrade for a version of SF-8, but cannot do so because the software is wholly non-functional for my needs.

Thanks for your help - I look forward to any responses.

****END****

p.s., I also have Vuescan Pro 9, but find it intolerable - people say silverfast has a bad UI!
pps, none of this is an issue with black and white, because i don't need negafix for that - just scan in 48bitHDR mode and adjust in photoshop. Another win for B&W!

[Brian C. Miller]

Huh. I never thought that I could help out with digital photography problems, but this happens to be one of my areas of actual professional experience.

Yes, you have a software and system performance problem. However, you're not going to like the only solution to Silverfast 8. One way or another, your are going to have to massively reconfigure your system.

You have one hard drive in your system. Windows Server can move the temporary file storage to another hard drive, which could be a striped array, but not Pro. You are going to need to load Windows onto a striped drive array, and this can only be configured in your BIOS setup. Alternately, see if there is a setting in Silverfast 8 to change the location of where it writes the temporary files. If this can be changed, then your files can be written to an striped array, which is simple to add.

[architorture]

hm, thanks for the quick response Brian!

I actually have two drives in my case - a 250GB system drive (117GB free), and my 1TB "Data" drive (158GB free), where the scans get saved to in the end. I also have two external backup drives, but those are not turned on generally.

There is an option in SF-8 to change the temp file location (not available in 6.6). I'll try moving it to the Data drive, and report back on how that affects things.

For what it's worth, I'm probably going to get an SSD and re-install the OS with that as my system drive. It would certainly speed things up with SF-8, but it still seems like it shouldn't need speeding-up, based on how smoothly SF-6.6 runs (with bigger files even).

I'll report back soon -

[Brian C. Miller]

If your data drive is faster (check the specs) than your system drive, that's good. What is limiting you is how fast the data can be written to the drive, i.e., the sustained data rate. You probably need two (or more) drives with high spindle speeds (like 10K), and then make a striped RAID 0 (not spanned) drive array out of them. What this means is that, at the same time, the data is written to all the drives in the array. So in a two drive array you get 2x the performance, three drive is 3x, etc.

When a drive is used for nothing but temporary data, then you don't have to worry about performance problems with fragmentation. Fragmentation is when the drive data is written all over the disk, as file space permits, instead of a contiguous file. This is why in server operating systems the temporary data is kept in its own partition, and usually on a seperate drive.

[architorture]

Ok, so, I tired again with the Temp files on the 1TB data drive and total scan time was 38 minutes. Improved, but still terrible. Behavior was identical as before.

I understand what you're saying - the scan process is actually two phases: the first 19 minutes is actually scanning, writing to the disk continuously as it goes, stopping and starting. The final 19 minutes is just "processing" according to Silverfast. There is no disk usage, but it sits with constant 50% CPU usage and very little memory activity/use. So a faster disk (ssd, raid 0, whatever) would shorten the time it takes because it would write the data faster. (with the old 6.6 "scanning" takes about 8min, "processing & saving" 1.5 minutes, and that's with a 4x5 negative at 4800spi 48bit).

I don't think fragmentation is an issue - there is so much free space, and I also don't hear the drive heads moving around constantly like they do during random read/writes.

I'm sure you're right that a RAID 0 array would make it faster, but it still seems silly to me that that is required. It just seems like poorly coded software. Why would it want to write to a disk (even ift's RAID 0) when there are 5GB of RAM sitting there that it can access at least ten times faster than any disk!? Why would they configure it to not use the RAM, and wait for the disk write operations instead? And also, why would a "completely re-written" piece of modern software not utilize more than 2 cores (or 50% of 4)? It's all the more frustrating because they seem to have understood these things when they made the old version 6.6.

Thanks again for your help Brian.

[LSIGregoire]

Hi everybody,

I have posted this question/complaint on the silverfast forum, but that seems to be full of people complaining about how slow the response is and how unhelpful! I also posted this in a couple groups on flickr, so apologies if you come across this in multiple places. I thought I'd post here and see if anyone has experienced the same thing. Thanks for your help!

Hi, we have posted a reply over on flickr --> http://www.flickr.com/groups/silverf...57630712032346

Please reply either here or over there but your scanning times are completly unacceptable. Unfortunatly we can't reproduce them when we use the same settings as you described. Our scanning times are between 8 and 12 minutes with SF8. Looking forward to your reply because we want to get to the bottom of this.
Thx and best,
LSI Support

[Jody_S]

You're running a 32-bit version of Silverfast 8 Demo. It is limited to 2GB RAM use, because it's the 32-bit version, so it is using the HDD as a scratch disk on the 40+ minute scans. I don't know if they make a 64-bit version of the program, but if they do that would fix your problem. I expect the problem occurring only at higher resolutions is because you're scanning above the optical resolution of the scanner, so it is extrapolating to create the larger file, which is very processor-intesive, and perhaps memory-intensive if it's a good algorithm that is sampling more than a 2x2 square to do the extrapolation.

I assume, with those speeds, you're not doing any dust/scratch removal in-scanner?

[photobymike]

I had similar problems with a PC and windows Vista. I was going to upgrade to windows 64. It required that i buy a new computer. Here is what i did to fix the limitation problem with total costs kept in mind.
1- bought used power mac G5 $250
2- upgraded memory from 4 to 8gb $125
3- downloaded MAC epson drivers
4- Got a MAC version of Silverfast
5- connected G5 MAC to router and to net drive (read write both MAC and PC)

I really make scans faster than i could ever make on a PC; noticeably faster and lager files. And much to my surprise this bargain computer is faster than my i7 PC in photoshop surfing the web ect... and its while i am scanning. That was 2 years ago and my 8 year old MAC is running strong as i am typing this note. Still faster than my PC which my kids are using now to play games and surf. I dont want to start a war here. There is a lot of passion between PC and MAC people... I really dont care about that i just wanted a cost effective solution. Also Unlike my PC laptop with win 7, my MAC G5 has never ever ... not even once locked or given me an error....

so you spent some major bucks to for your scanner why not get a computer dedicated for scanning only... it would cost about half of what you spent on your scanner. I dont know why people think there computer needs to do everything compatible with everything... One size does not fit all solutions sometimes is not the most efficient. I have since upgraded to an intel based MAC. Photoshop screams on my used MAC... 10 seconds to open and once open, it stays in memory and reopens instantly. Changes happen instantly ...

Well bottom line think about an older used MAC G5 or newer to run your scanner. The files it makes are compatible with your PC, including your PSD Photoshop files.....

Please dont turn this into a MAC vs PC war... This what i did to solve a specific performance problem with Epson and a PC. I have maintained a separate scanning station for about 2 years now that i am very happy with... think outside the box to get the solution that works for you.

[Jody_S]

I had similar problems with a PC and windows Vista. I was going to upgrade to windows 64. It required that i buy a new computer. Here is what i did to fix the limitation problem with total costs kept in mind.
1- bought used power mac G5 $250
2- upgraded memory from 4 to 8gb $125
3- downloaded MAC epson drivers
4- Got a MAC version of Silverfast
5- connected G5 MAC to router and to net drive (read write both MAC and PC)

I really make scans faster than i could ever make on a PC; noticeably faster and lager files. And much to my surprise this bargain computer is faster than my i7 PC in photoshop surfing the web ect... and its while i am scanning. That was 2 years ago and my 8 year old MAC is running strong as i am typing this note. Still faster than my PC which my kids are using now to play games and surf. I dont want to start a war here. There is a lot of passion between PC and MAC people... I really dont care about that i just wanted a cost effective solution. Also Unlike my PC laptop with win 7, my MAC G5 has never ever ... not even once locked or given me an error....

so you spent some major bucks to for your scanner why not get a computer dedicated for scanning only... it would cost about half of what you spent on your scanner. I dont know why people think there computer needs to do everything compatible with everything... One size does not fit all solutions sometimes is not the most efficient. I have since upgraded to an intel based MAC. Photoshop screams on my used MAC... 10 seconds to open and once open, it stays in memory and reopens instantly. Changes happen instantly ...

Well bottom line think about an older used MAC G5 or newer to run your scanner. The files it makes are compatible with your PC, including your PSD Photoshop files.....

Please dont turn this into a MAC vs PC war... This what i did to solve a specific performance problem with Epson and a PC. I have maintained a separate scanning station for about 2 years now that i am very happy with... think outside the box to get the solution that works for you.

Shorter version: Bill Gates sucks.

[photobymike]

Shorter version: Bill Gates sucks.

LOL LOL LOL i was hoping to be constructive and help the poor guy. The real problem is that Windows tries to be all things to all people. When the reality is individual computers and software have strong points and weak points. Kinda like people

Which begs the question .... why is he scanning at such hi resolutions.... there is a point where more is not better, it just a waste of time ..... for printing 16x20s that look gorgeous on say a 6x7 120 neg which i do all the time i scan at 3200 and sometimes 4800 ... thats huge.... There comes a point where there is diminished return on resolution and sharpness. I never use 48 bit for saving or scanning My printer (epson 4800 and R3000) does not have the color space or the resolution to print that.... when you start the printing process it takes all this picture information and translates down into what the printer can print..... Total waste of time to scan at hi resolutions higher than what is needed... There is an optimum for resolution and sharpness applied... if you go beyond this it is a waste of time and your picture looks bad. For instance a scan ment for the screen needs little sharpness applied and a scan that is not hi rez.. most screens display at 72 pixels mine does 96 pixels.... it just takes practice to find the optimum settings