Epson V700 and Silverfast 16 bit scanning

[feppe]

Is the V700 a native 16-bit machine which can actually pull 16 bits of clean data and not just claim to be a 16-bit machine like digital cameras advertising 16-bits? I'd be fine with 14 clean bits, or any significant increase over 8.

I tried two bit depths with SilverFast SE. There is an 8 bit (which SilverFast calls 48->24 bit), and 16-bit (first time I've heard anyone call 16-bit HDR, as some marketer decided to name it 48 bit HDR). The 8-bit output can be tweaked nicely to pull shadows up. But when I scanned the same chrome with 16-bit, I had no chance to do it when scanning, and I ended up with severely clipped shadows.

Is tweaking of 16-bit files a missing feature in the SE version? According to their complicated product offerings, Ai version looks like it might allow adjusting the image hi-lowlights before 16-bit scanning, or am I missing something?

[Tyler Boley]

Silverfast was calling that mode HDR long before there were digital cameras and digital processing. It's basically right off the sensors, like Vuescan's "Raw", also before digital capture and also not the same as what we now call raw.
So no software controls are operational in Silverfast's HDR mode. If you want Silverfast image editing tools use the "48 bit color" or "16 bit grayscale" modes, not the HDR modes.
I don't know the native bit depth off the CCD of your Epson...
Tyler

[Ken Lee]

If you mention getting useable data out of the shadows, aren't you asking more about the actual dMax of the scanner ?

One could have 2 different scanners, both of which divide their respective ranges into 2^16 slices, but the scanner with greater dynamic range, will have more useful data, no ?

[feppe]

Silverfast was calling that mode HDR long before there were digital cameras and digital processing. It's basically right off the sensors, like Vuescan's "Raw", also before digital capture and also not the same as what we now call raw.
So no software controls are operational in Silverfast's HDR mode. If you want Silverfast image editing tools use the "48 bit color" or "16 bit grayscale" modes, not the HDR modes.
I don't know the native bit depth off the CCD of your Epson...
Tyler

So you're saying SilverFast doesn't do 16-bit color scanning, only the unadjustable "HDR" mode? And that I'm stuck with 8-bit regardless of what my scanner is capable of?

[feppe]

If you mention getting useable data out of the shadows, aren't you asking more about the actual dMax of the scanner ?

One could have 2 different scanners, both of which divide their respective ranges into 2^16 slices, but the scanner with greater dynamic range, will have more useful data, no ?

I'm talking about getting the additional levels from going to 16 (or more likely 14) bits from 8. I've moved to 16-bit editing in my digital workflow, and while the benefits of going beyond 8 bits can be argued, I'd like to squeeze as much data from the chrome as possible.

Shadow detail was just an example to illustrate that the "HDR" mode doesn't allow tweaking of the output file (levels adjustment, grey point, etc). The data apparently is there somewhere as the 8-bit mode pulls it just fine. I checked the HDR output file, and it does include the same data in very dark shadows which would be much easier to pull during scanning rather than in PS.

According to the product comparison on SilverFast website the Ai version includes "48 Bit RGB TIFF: with SilverFast adjustments" which is not explained further - I'd assume that this means level adjustments, but Tyler's earlier comment suggests it can't be done. I'll ask them.

[Kirk Gittings]

I'm thinking a 48 bit tiff is another way of referring to a normal 16 bits per channel tiff file, 16 bits per channel with 3 channels=48 bit tiff. Nothing unusual there. In PS when you select 16 bits in IMAGE>Mode>16 bit. It is 16 bits/channel or 48 bits altogether.

and
and while the benefits of going beyond 8 bits can be argued Is there still any argument? I thought the benefits of a 16 bit workflow were settled years ago?

[feppe]

I'm thinking a 48 bit tiff is another way of referring to a normal 16 bits per channel tiff file, 16 bits per channel with 3 channels=48 bit tiff. Nothing unusual there. In PS when you select 16 bits in IMAGE>Mode>16 bit. It is 16 bits/channel or 48 bits altogether.

Yeah, that's the case, and have no problem with that. I'm used to referring to it as 16 bits which seems to be the convention - it's not like there's a standard which has odd bits on Red channel, for example :P

[Tyler Boley]

So you're saying SilverFast doesn't do 16-bit color scanning, only the unadjustable "HDR" mode? And that I'm stuck with 8-bit regardless of what my scanner is capable of?

no, the oposite. Perhaps the confusion here is that what you call 16 bit color they call 48 bit color. RGB is 3 channels, 3 channels of 16 bit each is 48 bit.

"16-bit color scanning" is available to you 2 different ways-
48 bit color- which gives you all the normal controls the 8 bit has, seems to be what you want.
48 bit HDR color, which is raw data off the heads, no controls available.

Additionally, no matter the native bit depth of any scanner, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, it will be remapped down or up to 8 or 16 bit per channel depending on settings in any scanner software I know of...

Make sense?
Tyler

[feppe]

no, the oposite. Perhaps the confusion here is that what you call 16 bit color they call 48 bit color. RGB is 3 channels, 3 channels of 16 bit each is 48 bit.

"16-bit color scanning" is available to you 2 different ways-
48 bit color- which gives you all the normal controls the 8 bit has, seems to be what you want.
48 bit HDR color, which is raw data off the heads, no controls available.

Additionally, no matter the native bit depth of any scanner, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, it will be remapped down or up to 8 or 16 bit per channel depending on settings in any scanner software I know of...

Make sense?
Tyler

I think the confusion is due to my crippled SilverFast version (SE) which came with the scanner. It only has the following two color options for scanning slides:
48->24 bit color (outputs files with 8 bits per channel)
48 bit HDR color (outputs 16 bits per channel)

There is a 48 bit color option, but it's greyed out, which I assume will be available with an upgrade.

Thanks for the explanation on the HDR option, it seems the non-HDR 48 bit color is what I'm looking for, and need to upgrade. It's still unclear from SilverFast's feature comparison (http://www.silverfast.com/comparison/scanner/en.html?promode=2&show=diff) whether I need SE Plus or Ai, but hopefully they'll respond to my query faster than Gitzo does...

[Ken Lee]

The Epson driver supports 48-bit color, doesn't it ?

I'm not familiar with the 700, but on my 4990, I prefer it to Silverfast and VueScan.

[feppe]

The Epson driver supports 48-bit color, doesn't it ?

I'm not familiar with the 700, but on my 4990, I prefer it to Silverfast and VueScan.

Haven't really tested it out, yet, but just checked, and it does. Epson Scan has much better UI - no surprise there as SilverFast is a German program, and the only other German software I've used (SAP) also has a horrendous UI :P

I'll do some test scans later this week.

[Tyler Boley]

it's a good idea, once you teach it to not clip your files like crazy, it can be perfectly adequate... and free! I didn't realize 48 bit color would be considered an upgrade option.
Tyler

[feppe]

it's a good idea, once you teach it to not clip your files like crazy, it can be perfectly adequate... and free! I didn't realize 48 bit color would be considered an upgrade option.
Tyler

Bundled software is not designed to be used as is, but to entice people to upgrade to the non-crippled version. Think of it as highly targeted advertising.

Epson Scan doesn't seem to do ProPhoto or even be able to use ICC profiles which is a real shame. I would imagine the hardware is capable of capturing a wider gamut than aRGB.

[Tyler Boley]

it's buried in the prefs worded quite badly, sorry I can't recall where. But there is a color managed workflow, with input profiles that will convert to assignable output working spaces. I'll try to find it when I can get back to the info in a few days.
They word it as though if you want "accurate" scans, it's some kind of an exception to "normal".

[feppe]

it's buried in the prefs worded quite badly, sorry I can't recall where. But there is a color managed workflow, with input profiles that will convert to assignable output working spaces. I'll try to find it when I can get back to the info in a few days.
They word it as though if you want "accurate" scans, it's some kind of an exception to "normal".

ICM option is in the Configuration panel in Color tab, but it doesn't have ProPhoto nor does it have any of the ICC profiles I have installed and available for other applications. There is no apparent way to add more profiles or color spaces, and help file isn't very helpful, either :(

Looks like that 16-bit (SilverFast's 48-bit) is only available in Ai according to this (http://forum.silverfast.com/topic6508.html) which is not cheap at 99 EUR. And if I want Multi-Exposure that doubles the price and then some - then again, Multi-Exposure seems to be a feature which can be duplicated by scanning the same image twice at different settings. Also not a fan of the fact that if I buy another scanner I need a "cross-upgrade" even if I use the same program.

[Tyler Boley]

I just don't recall how we did it, but t was screwy. I don't believe it accesses profiles from their regular location. If you can do a search for one of their supplied profiles that is showing up, and find what folder it accesses, then copy over whatever others you want to there, it may work.
Why all these manufacturers don't stick to standards instead of their own goofy setups is baffling, just makes them look bad.

[Kirk Gittings]

Feppe, I haven't used it in awhile but when I was regularly using SF the multi-exposure feature had problems-because registration of the scans was always slightly off introducing some softness. It did give better shadow detail with less noise. I believe the reason for the softness was actually in the scanner. At this price point scanners do not have a super accurate step motor so no two scans are precisely the same size in the direction the scan.The SF registration software could not handle the slight difference in size of the scans. This may have been corrected in later versions of the software.

[feppe]

Feppe, I haven't used it in awhile but when I was regularly using SF the multi-exposure feature had problems-because registration of the scans was always slightly off introducing some softness. It did give better shadow detail with less noise. I believe the reason for the softness was actually in the scanner. At this price point scanners do not have a super accurate step motor so no two scans are precisely the same size in the direction the scan.The SF registration software could not handle the slight difference in size of the scans. This may have been corrected in later versions of the software.

Was reading about that on their forums earlier today, and that's still the case. SF developers have made improvements in recent versions, and are working on a new one which makes full 2D alignment - currently it apparently aligns only on one axis.

It might be easier just to do the scans separately, one for hilights, one for shadows, and blend them manually in post.

I'm not looking for absolute best quality, but much of my shooting has deep shadows which are tough to get good scans with. The best shots will be drum scanned, or at least done with Imacon; couple of shops here which offer them by the hour.

I'll try to figure out Epson Scan's ICM this weekend, as that would save me 200 EUR...

[mrladewig]

I don't know if this was answered, but if they're still bundling silverfast SE with the scanner, then no it does not do 16bit color scans out of the box. The EpsonScan software included does offer 16bit color. Or you can upgrade to Silverfast Ai or higher to gain 16bit color scans. In any case I think both software packages refer to the setting as 24bit (8X3) or 48bit (16X3) color.

I don't know what native capability of the Epson is, but I strongly suspect it is 12bit or 14bit.

[D. Bryant]

I thought the benefits of a 16 bit workflow were settled years ago?

Unfortunately to this day there are still people on the internet who will argue that 8bit capture and editing are just as good as 16 bit. I suppose some people still think the earth is flat.

Don Bryant

[feppe]

Unfortunately to this day there are still people on the internet who will argue that 8bit capture and editing are just as good as 16 bit. I suppose some people still think the earth is flat.

I missed Kirk's comment on 16-bits the first time around. I put the "can be argued" because I didn't want to open a religious argument about 16 vs 8 bit and derail the discussion.

For the record I'm securely in the 16-bit camp. Do I now get to learn the secret handshake :D