View Cameera article on scanning

[Duane Polcou]

In the current issue of View Camera magazine there is an article describing how to achieve maximum quality from scanning sheet film on an Epson flatbed. Remarkably improved sharpness was achieved by upgrading the scanner software from the shipped version of Silverfast to the latest version.

Why would an upgrade in scanner software produce a sharper scan?

[Gem Singer]

You have the March -April issue? You must be the first one to receive it.

We have been comparing various scanning software among our little group in North Texas.

We have compared Silverfast SE, Silverfast Studio, VueScan, and the software that is included with the Screen, Microtek and Epson scanners.

Except for operational differences they are all capable of producing an acceptable scan. Each has different features. Some are more convenient to use than others.

[Walter Calahan]

Improved algorithms within the software? Not being a software engineer, this is the only thing I can think of.

[domaz]

Could be better control of the stepper motor or post-processing of the scan.

[sanking]

I agree with this observation. The various scanning softwares have operational differences but none produces sharper results in my experience.

The version of Silverfast that usually comes bundled with Epson flatbed scanners is limited to 8 and 24 bit scans. For 16 and 48 bit work you must upgrade this version of Silverfast. High bit scans are important if you plan to do post-scanning processing of the file, as is usually the case.

Sandy King



You have the March -April issue? You must be the first one to receive it.

We have been comparing various scanning software among our little group in North Texas.

We have compared Silverfast SE, Silverfast Studio, VueScan, and the software that is included with the Screen, Microtek and Epson scanners.

Except for operational differences they are all capable of producing an acceptable scan. Each has different features. Some are more convenient to use than others.

[Jim Graves]

You have the March -April issue? You must be the first one to receive it.

The referenced article is in the Jan/Feb issue at p.44-46. Author Brian Akerson says, on p.46: "In some of the images I scanned with SilverFast v6.4 I found that some scans were unnecessarily blurry." He goes on to say that upgrading to v6.6 solved his problem.

[Gem Singer]

Jim,

He said, "the current issue".

I was aware that the article to which he was referring was in the Jan.- Feb. issue.

That's not the "current issue", We're still waiting for that one to arrive.

(insert smily face here).

[Ron Marshall]

The scanner used for the comparison was an Epson 750. The example photos showed a dramatic improvement with the software upgrade.

I upgraded to the same software (free trial version) and using my Epson 4990 saw absolutely no difference in scan resolution between the old and new software.

[AFSmithphoto]

I don't have the article in front of me, but I believe he mentions that he is using the multipass feature on his scans. This can result in blurry images on the epsons do to poor control of the stepping motor.

My guess is that the updated software EITHER has better control of the motor somehow, or more likely, evalutates the mutliple scans and attempts to match them up, rather than laying one over the other on a pixel for pixel basis.

[Duane Polcou]

I was referring to the Brian Akerson article in the Jan/Feb issue. Since I've not seen the March/April issue out yet, I referred to that one as "current".

[David Luttmann]

I was surprised at that as well. When I looked at the sample images however, it appeared that there was a difference in the alignment. I think the scans were done at different times and thus the huge sharpness difference was nothing more than focus.

I noticed absolutely no difference in the sharpness of my scans with a V700 before and after software upgrade. I can see no evidence of improved algorithms, etc.

[Ron Marshall]

I don't have the article in front of me, but I believe he mentions that he is using the multipass feature on his scans. This can result in blurry images on the epsons do to poor control of the stepping motor.


The caption for the comparison sample images stated that they were from single pass scans, although in the article multi-pass scans were disussed.

[Ron Marshall]

I noticed absolutely no difference in the sharpness of my scans with a V700 before and after software upgrade. I can see no evidence of improved algorithms, etc.

That's interesting. Since I was using a 4990, I assumed there was some difference between it and the 750 that the new software was able to exploit. But that doesn't seem to be the case since you didn't see any difference with the 700 either.

Is there something we are missing, or was the comparison flawed?

[PenGun]

As always ... focus.

[David Luttmann]

That's interesting. Since I was using a 4990, I assumed there was some difference between it and the 750 that the new software was able to exploit. But that doesn't seem to be the case since you didn't see any difference with the 700 either.

Is there something we are missing, or was the comparison flawed?

Sorry Ron, maybe I wasn't clear in my post. I was just referring to the results I obtain on the V700.....not comparing to the 4990.

[Ron Marshall]

Sorry Ron, maybe I wasn't clear in my post. I was just referring to the results I obtain on the V700.....not comparing to the 4990.

Sorry, my post wasn't very clear. What I meant was, since I didn't find any improvement from the software upgrade, perhaps my 4990 lacked something that the 750 in the VC article has that prevented the upgrade from having any effect. But that doesn't seem to be the case, since you didn't see any change either when you upgraded.

[Brian_A]

Sorry to cause any issues here. Maybe I mistyped when I said what I said. I have found that many people had the same issue as I and upgrading to the newest version of SilverFast solved the issues. You can see from the scans in my article that there as a marked improvement. Here's what I did to make sure it wasn't just me: I scanned the thing five times over just to get the film good and warm so it would "pop." (As much as it could - being done with the BetterScanning holder) Then - after seeing 0 difference from scan one through five - I upgraded the software, verified the settings remained the same and took one more scan. A huge difference. I had read in a number of places that this solved a bunch of people's issues with the scanner.

For those who don't know, LaserSoft develops SilverFast for each scanner. I'm sure a good deal of the stuff is the same, but the algorithms change.

Anyways, I've been away from the forum a while or I would have responded to this sooner. Thanks for reading.

-Brian Akerson