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

[SergeiR]

To be honest, Silverfast isn't stellar for me either, and i do run it on Lion OSX, with 2.7Ghz quad core and 16g of ram. Same stuff done in Vuescan goes fairly fast. Silverfast - i had never managed to scan a single sheet of 8x10 with it. Only 120 film. It just never ever finishes processing.

[architorture]

LSIGregoire:
I'm really glad you guys from Lasersoft have responded here and on flickr - I think I'll just reply here. Thanks for your work on this.

I had most recently rebuilt and re-installed all the software on my computer about 2 years ago - with Windows 7 x64. So I assumed that I had installed the proper 64bit drivers at that time (and I think I most likely did). Nonetheless, the idea had not occurred to me before your suggestion, so I went to Epson's site and grabbed the most recent x64 driver, uninstalled the scanner through device manager, and installed the new driver.

Tried to scan again with all the same settings as previously - total time 36 minutes (16 + 20). So, a slight difference, but not much, and possibly just normal variation. All the behavior I described above was still the same - writing to the disk continuously, not using available RAM, not using the multi-core processor fully, etc.

Is there a log-file or something that I could send to you that would be helpful in diagnosing the issue?

Jody_S:
I am NOT running a 32-bit version of Silverfast 8 Demo. The behavior I'm experiencing is exactly like what I might expect if it were 32-bit, but I am not (the exe is "Silverfast (64 bit)" - I've attached a screenshot of what it looks like in the start menu.

Thanks for mentioning iSRD - that is not activated.

Re: mac/pc, new computer, etc.
That's just irrelevant and not helpful.

General:
IMO, the point of 48bit is not for input/output but for the adjustment process in-between. As good as the scan may be, it will need some selective curves and tonal adjustments in Photoshop to realize my intent, which should be done in 16bit/channel mode. And as far as scanning for web/the screen - that's obviously not the point.

Getting into LF with 4x5 scans (at reasonable 2400dpi) was the final incentive I needed to move to an SSD - so as of yesterday I have done so. I have not yet had a chance to test silverfast again with the SSD - It's on my list for tomorrow. I'll return the cache location to the default, so that it uses the SSD. I'm sure it will be faster, but it does not address the underlying condition/circumstances of system resource usage by the software.

SergeiR: are you using version 8?
Has anyone else actually tried silverfast version 8? or are you using older releases?

I'm glad there is such an enthusiastic response to the topic on the forum! I hope it leads to a quick and positive resolution.
Thanks everybody.

[Jim Cole]

Do you have the same issues scanning with Epson Scan?

[SergeiR]

SergeiR: are you using version 8?
Has anyone else actually tried silverfast version 8? or are you using older releases?

Hmm.. i have whatever is latest one i think, b/c i got uprgade in May. But i will check if its 8 and not 7 once i am back at my processing desk this evening.
Like i said - it worked ok for 120.. Not brilliant, but not bad either. But when i tried 8x10 just few days ago, b/c i thought i would love to have some IR cleanup that Vuescan doesnt do on 8x10 transparency mode - poor thing just took forever to get through step 1 , and then hang on step 2. I think i shut it down about half hour later after getting to that step, b/c it was just too painful and scanned it in Vuescan.

Oh and i do have SSD..

[photobymike]

Sounds like you are an expert on this scanning thing... i would be interested in how this turns out... please keep us updated..... The longest my scanner takes on my largest images is not longer than 8 to 10 minutes. 36 minutes seems like a lot.. Well the v750 is a faster scanner than the v700...per Epson website...... I have scanned 6cmx7cm at 12800 to see how long and what file size. 600meg was just way to big.....

[architorture]

Do you have the same issues scanning with Epson Scan?

No. not at all.
I don't use epson scan normally, but I tried it by quickly going in and doing a scan in "professional mode" with the configuration options pretty much on default, but trying to mimic the adjustments applied in Silverfast. It displayed none of the symptoms I described above - infact it deemed fit to make use of the available RAM: the epson scan process maxed-out at ~900MB physical memory used, and never accessed the HDD until saving the output .tif file. I'd say the epson software is well written!
The 4800spi, 48bit, color negative scan took 2 minutes 37 seconds. That's efficient. Obviously, the quality is not quite up to the silverfast scan - but it demonstrates that the issue is software related not system induced, IMO.

Sounds like you are an expert on this scanning thing... i would be interested in how this turns out... please keep us updated..... The longest my scanner takes on my largest images is not longer than 8 to 10 minutes. 36 minutes seems like a lot.. Well the v750 is a faster scanner than the v700...per Epson website...... I have scanned 6cmx7cm at 12800 to see how long and what file size. 600meg was just way to big.....

Are you using version 8?

I wouldn't say "expert" - I just have a strong case of what some might call nerdiness and obsessiveness about some things...
I felt this would be useful to others, that's why I posted on here, as well as at the silverfast forum (they did not allow my thread there, but instead opened a support ticket).

I mentioned that I've installed an SSD - I actually have it configured at the moment so that I can boot into the OS on either my old HDD, or the new install on the SSD. For comparison's sake, I'm still booting into the old OS image.

I went through and removed the epson software/driver again, defragmented all my harddrives, reinstalled the epson driver, cleaned the registry and temp files... etc. just to be sure that none of that was causing the problems.
Result: exactly the same as before: 38 minutes total (18 "scanning" + 20 "processing").

I then changed the preferences in Silverfast so that it placed the cache on the ssd (not the OS drive).
Result: much faster, but still the same underlying, inefficient behavior - 22 minutes total (~2 "scanning" (matches the speed of Epson Scan software) + 20 "processing").

One might think that that's the optimum case; but, looking more carefully at the system usage in Resource Monitor I can see that the Silverfast process maxes-out at exactly 25% CPU usage during the entire 20 minute "processing" stage. Since I have a quad-core processor, that behavior indicates that Silverfast still can only run as a single-threaded process (100% in one thread divided by 4cores = 25%). That is very disappointing. needless to say the processing time would be much less if it used all the available cores...

I also do not think that using the SSD for the cache is a proper solution - that is exactly the kind of repetitive I/O behavior that is recommended against for SSD drives, given their limited read/write lifespan.

So, in sum, Brian's initial recommendation is probably the best way to deal with the poor system usage - a RAID 0 array should be fast enough not to limit the "scanning" portion (the Disk usage maxed-out at 245MB/s total I/O), and it avoids unnecessary operations on the SSD. Unfortunately, it does not address the software's apparent lack of multi-thread support, or the myriad other issues I'm experiencing with it.

22 minutes still seems beyond the acceptable range to me. The times quoted by LSIGregoire are exactly what I would expect with properly functioning software given what I'm seeing: ~2 or 3 minutes "scanning" plus ~5 or 7 minutes "processing" (20/4 or 20/3).

[SpeedGraphicMan]

I had the same problem! Switched to VueScan... Never looking back!
http://www.hamrick.com/

P.S. Look to see if your scanner is outputting an exact size scan (same dimensions as your film) or if it is interpolating it up to a bigger size.

[SergeiR]

just checked - mine is 8.0.1r8, couldn't be bothered to load r13, to be honest.

And 48->24bit mode, 2400 dpi..
Also, as someone who been in software design for 26+ years, i must add that its GUI is amongst most unintuitive ones i ever saw. And i did code on IBM380 and PL/M, mind you...

[Bill Koechling]

Also, as someone who been in software design for 26+ years, i must add that its GUI is amongst most unintuitive ones i ever saw. And i did code on IBM380 and PL/M, mind you...

I agree with you but I've made my peace with Silverfast (I'm still using V.6 on my v750). I get very high-quality scans with it in spite of the GUI. It took me a full year to really figure it all out. I'm not yet inclined to go to v. 8. (By the way, I wonder why they bypassed v. 7?)

[photobymike]

There is a point of diminished return on quality with resolution and color with the Epson scanner. Experience will teach you this over many thousands of scans and 5 Epson scanners v500, v600, v700... v750 < times 2 ... wore the first one out. How big and what depth depends on what you are going to use the output for.

Also some PCs have legacy hardware architecture that make it imposible to go beyond memory limitations. There is some operating software and hardware that this is not an issue. Windows 7 with a full 64bit PC mother board breaks this barrier. The Apple MAC does this out of the box. My wife has a Apple Mac Mini that i upgraded to 4 gig memory. She uses the v600 to make just awesome scans from her family photos.

My experience with computers Heathkit- 82thru 88 ...88thru 92 had my own computer store.. 92 thru 08 AOL Time Warner ..systems design, soft developer ...Certs in Novell CNE...Microsoft ...routers Cisco ...Computer Security ... Now am working on Apple repair cert. I do not know everything but i know people who do... am not really a noob at this..

if your money supply is abundant yea work on getting the PC to do what you want.... but even if i had an abundance of cash, i would not put all of your eggs in one basket

If you do not want to upgrade the PC either hardware or operating system ... which can get costly i was just suggesting that a separate scanning computer. It worked for me cheaper than upgrading the PC. Many people think or want one box to do it all... They get laser focused on the task at hand that really they need to step back and think about what they are doing. "There is a better way grasshopper."

bottom line
my solution was a cost effective way fix the issue just like you have, and i did this quickly and it was extremely easy on the wallet. I solved your problem with about 300 shekels and less than an hour work

I agree with you but I've made my peace with Silverfast (I'm still using V.6 on my v750). I get very high-quality scans with it in spite of the GUI. It took me a full year to really figure it all out. I'm not yet inclined to go to v. 8. (By the way, I wonder why they bypassed v. 7?)

Ditto