Vuescan reborn

[Ed Richards]

The latest release of Viewscan has transformed it for certain scanners. I use a Canon 9950 for 4x5. I have used Vuescan for years because of the control and because I can use the same software for all of my scanners at no extra costs and because upgrades are frequent and FREE. Lately I changed to Silverfast for multiple pass scanning because it has a method of dealing with creep between passes, and because it gives good control over the output. Then I tried the newest version of Vuescan and it has added multiple sampling for the 9950 and some other scanners that I did not think supported it. Suddenly you can do X samples in one pass, so there is no creep and no alignment problems! The scans are terrific, as good or better than the best of silverfast, plus you get Vuescan's extra scanner controls.

[Ellen Stoune Duralia]

Good to know, Ed! I've just upgraded to SilverFast's AI Studio and it is a vast improvement over Epson's scanning software. I tried VueScan before making my decision but I just didn't like the interface as well. However, if I had multiple scanners, I might have tried to get over it just because of the cost issues you mentioned. I think both are very capable scanning packages and it's good that VueScan offers multi-pass scanning. Anyway, I appreciate you sharing the update as I'm sure others are looking to improve their scanning results too!

Cheers!

[Kirk Gittings]

The real question is which one reduces noise better. I'll take a slow scan if it is better. Has anyone done a side by side comparison of the new Vuescan and Silverfast AI 6 Studio?

[Ed Richards]

Ellen - not multi-pass, it always that that. Now it will do multi-sampling on one pass, so there is no alignment problem. I am not seeing noise, but scanning 4x5 B&W it is a lot harder to see than with digicams so I cannot say which is better.

[Ellen Stoune Duralia]

I'm sure somebody has, Kirk. But if it turns out that VueScan does a better job, don't tell me! LOL Just kidding! It would be interesting to see the results.

[paulr]

anyone have a sense of how much slower multisampling is? my scans already take an hour ... not sure how much more endurance i can spare. i'd also be curious ot know what differences you can see. so far i haven't had any issues with noise (scanning 4x5 bw negs) except in shadow areas where they don't end up visible in the print.

[Ed Richards]

What sort of scanner are you using that takes an hour? My 9950 will do the basic scan in about 10 minutes, and multiple sampling seems to about about 70% for each sample, i.e., 10 samples is about an hour, maybe a little more. I seem to be getting better shadow detail, and better sharpness. While sampling should not affect sharpness in theory, with a scanner like the 9950 that is resolving way below the rating (4800 is probably closer to 2000), averaging the signal should increase the effective resolution. It would be interesting to test.

[Kirk Gittings]

" so far i haven't had any issues with noise (scanning 4x5 bw negs) except in shadow areas where they don't end up visible in the print."

It becomes an issue depending on how large you print. At 8x10 nothing is visible like that. At 20x24 everything showes up. I try to produce files that will print well at 16x20 and you have to be very careful with shadow noise even at that size. This then really effects how you sharpen as noise grows with sharpening. The other issue related to this which has been difficult to solve in my work is in the dark areas of filtered skies. If you go to mainipulate them more in PS noise turns into large granularity and gets worse with sharpening. I solve this by using a darkened snapshot that has been slightly degausian blurred and is painted in with the history brush. The sky also does not recieve the final sharpening by the same method. This effectively solves the granularity problem in burned skies. It took me nearly 6 months to figure this out. It doesn't work as well in shadows. That can only be solved by the quality of the scan as far as I know.

[Ted Harris]

I have looked at Vuecan side by side with Silverfast Ai although have not yet done what I would call a rigerous comparison. My general impression is that Vuescan does a beetter job for quick and dirty scans but that Silverfast offers far more flexibility if you learn the software and are taking the time to do all your settings manually.

[Will Strain]

With my Epson 3200 photo - Vuescan misses focus (and this model does not allow for manual adjustment), Silverfast, as a result, was much much sharper. But this was not the case on a second 3200 I tried.. just the one I actually own.

Silly consumer grade machines.

[Ed Richards]

Ted and Will - have you tried the most recent version? (It was posted about a week ago.) It was a great improvement for me.