Why is VueScan -still- so crap? (terrible neg clipping)

[dan_lee16]

<p>I'm not new to VueScan, I never had this problem with a Dual Scan II setting it up for someone else, in 2008 on a much older version of VueScan.<br /><br />My scanner is also not faulty, other than being a flat bed with a terrible SNR, poor optics and scan artefacts, it is consistent without problems.<br /><br /><br />Alan, Steve, I'm not stupid, please read the OP, the software is clipping the values before other settings are applied. In VueScan only.<br /><br />Indraneel, I don't have trouble in any other software with clipping or colour. <br /><br />Edward: VueScan <strong>IS</strong> clipping it. I am not using the wrong settings. I would call using Internegative as the wrong settings.. but I still have to use it, I've even used the none setting for no-correction in VueScan and opened up every value, and tried every which combination, as pointed out earlier, only the Kodak Internegative profile actually helped, every other single control is being applied post-clipping, and the only way to prevent that clipping occurring beforehand is to switch to the Kodak Internegative profile it appears.<br /><br />As I said, that is a band-aid approach, a dedicated scanning package should let you colour correct and use the correct profile without clipping. In fact a dedicated scanning package should make those variables transparent and available to the user.<br /><br />RGB exposure/scanner exposure isn't an issue, it isn't putting up a value too high that is clipping the base/mask, so it also isn't clipping the shadows during scanning (and I also know that again because of the Kodak Internegative profile option), it's being clipped internally by VueScan before anything else comes into play (again, I can see this by switching to Kodak Internegative profile without needing to re-scan, the data is there for the shadows, but it gets thrown out, some of it is higher density than other negatives which don't have it thrown out it appears, it depends on the rest of the frame - even with all adjustments off - if you're not in Kodak Internegative, nothing brings it back).<br /><br /><br /><strong>Zack</strong>: It is correctly exposed for the scan, as I said the detail is there, I don't mind having to make flat results beforehand, but both in Epson Scan and SilverFast, the detail is well exposed that I do not need to make flat results, the detail is dense enough to be in there in a regular contrasty picture straight off the bat.<br /><br />I too use Rodinal - though I've had a stand-developed negative reach from just about 0 dMin to full dMax (Shanghai GP3), so I wouldn't say it's ideal for scanners, it depends on a lot of variables, I could still deal with that fine and squeeze in the detail I wanted.<br /><br />I'm not confused about the exposure difference for an enlarger and a scanner. Please do not make assumptions. <br /><br /><strong>Scott</strong>: Setting colour balance to none doesn't help the issue, none of the tools change any amount of the clipping which suggest they are all applied post-clipping, which is verified since nothing brings the detail back, but the Kodak Internegative profile does (with sharpening off), appears that there is a variable level of clipping that VueScan decides on a frame by frame calculation, there is no control to alter this, the only thing that did help was switching to the Kodak Internegative profile.<br /><br />Someone would complain that commercial software doesn't work how it's supposed to you, and you have to use a band-aid approach and forego one of it's major features? Right.<br /><br /><strong>Chris</strong>: Read my posts. Locking the exposure doesn't make a difference, it doesn't make a difference if I even set manual exposure and lock it on either extreme end, it still decides to clip that area, unless I use the Kodak Internegative profile as pointed out by another user. <br /><br />I don't have a trouble getting good colour, or dialling it manually. The point is I can't do that, because I have to switch to the Kodak Internegative profile.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />I decided unless it was significantly important part of the image, since I'm only using a V500 (that I'd pay for high end scans for anything I want for archival or gallery etc), I would just forget about it, and concentrate on just finishing the colour to a nice standard, since I like the multipass scanning as I've said, the dust removal is better, and I can get great colour (on the preview) much faster than I can correcting in Photoshop.<br /><br />I'd consider SilverFast, if I could find the infrared cleaning, the SRD option when scanning only appears to do the software clean without IR mask. But I'm only using the demo version.<br /><br /></p>

 

[gerber_van_der_graaf]

<p>Probably you are right: there might be a bug in the software. This might always be possible as programming is a tedious work, performed by human beings. Nobody can be blamed for that. As your problem concerns a commercial, closed source, program, only the manufacturer himself can check this and repair it. As long as you deal with commercial programs, you will _never_ have full control of the program and complete insight how the software deals with _your_ image data. These are the reasons I advertize Free (libre) Open Source Software whenever it is possible: theoretically, anybody can check and repair bugs, investigate how it works, extend it with new features when required. In other words: you have full control on the program: the software (and entire computer if all software is FOSS) is owned by you, not by the software manufature(s) who sold software licences, with all their conditions and restrictions. Unfortunately, the Epson V500 is not supported by the Sane project, probably because of missing Free and Open Source Software of the driver for your device. I recommend to insist to the manufacturer of the scanner to issue the protocols for writing a driver program or to issue the driver software under a FOSS licence. Actually, you paid for the device and it should be completely yours. At least that is my opinion. I am suprized that we, as photogs and consumers in general, just accept all these restrictions and continue buying scanners, cameras etc that hide its functioning. Selecting on this aspect when buying a new device will definitely change the manufacturers attitudes. Have a look at the smartphone market: Android versus Iphone, for example.</p>

<p>Having all said this, I'd also like to say that I agree with other posts here, Vuescan is a reasonable good program for scanning and the author is quite responsive when a problem occurs. The program is relatively cheap and one does not have to pay for upgrades or when moving out to other Operating Systems. I suggest to contact Hamrick directly. Please, let us know if he could help you.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Dan, I'm sorry my post of trying to help the conversation offended you. I hope everything works out with you and your scanner program. Have a nice day. Alan.</p>

[dennis_oconnor6]

<p>Just in case you are not aware of this. Look at Amazon. There is a book dedicated to scanning using Veuscan due out in the next couple of months. You can pre-order on their siite.</p>

[bgelfand]

<p>Hi Dan,</p>

<p>If this problem is a software bug, you are complaining to the wrong audience. Have you sent an e-mail to Ed Hamrick, the author of VueScan, with your description of the problem? I included a link in my provious post (above). If you have, what was his response?</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>To Alan Klein, regarding:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>How can a scanner clip anything?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If the film is too dense, the scanner will clip.</p>

<p>To the OP,</p>

<p>are you saving the Vuescan raw file (in tiff format) first? Maybe try that workflow, at least for convenience of testing. And open it with Photoshop and check it's histogram for clipping.</p>

<p>I really think there is something, likely in the Color Tab, that's causing clipping.</p>

<p>That is, if you're at all interesting in trouble shooting, and aren't just here to vent.</p>

[thomas_abbott1]

<p>I think the only correct response to the OP is "Your are correct, sir!"</p>

[zack_zoll]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3917590">Dan Lee</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"></a>, Feb 12, 2011; 04:58 a.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

 

<p>I'm not new to VueScan, I never had this problem with a Dual Scan II setting it up for someone else, in 2008 on a much older version of VueScan.<br /><br />My scanner is also not faulty, other than being a flat bed with a terrible SNR, poor optics and scan artefacts, it is consistent without problems.<br /><br /><strong>Zack</strong>: I'm not confused about the exposure difference for an enlarger and a scanner. Please do not make assumptions.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p><br /><br />Then I guess I am confused. You just said that you have a scanner with poor optics and artifacts, and that the software works fine with other people's scanners that you've used it on. But the problem is not the scanner.</p>

<p>It seems the largest assumption that I made was that if it looked like a duck, and quacked like a duck, that it was in fact a duck. But since you've clearly ruled out every possibility, including that the scanner you admit to be bad is giving you poor results, there's only one option left.</p>

<p>The guys at VueScan are conspiring against you, Dan. And we're all in on it. We've all been paid off. I know I won't get my bonus my telling you this, but I just can't keep up the charade any longer. You really are doing everything perfectly, and they just gave you (and only you) faulty software.</p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p ><a name="00YCqf"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3727812">Thomas Abbott</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"></a>, Feb 12, 2011; 12:25 p.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I think the only correct response to the OP is "Your are correct, sir!"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Or that.</p>

 

 

 

 

[Uhooru]

<p>The latest version of Vu Scan is 9.0.19 not 18. For all that, I much prefer using Nikon Scan on my Nikon scanner. It's simpler, and I get better scans with less hassle. Admittedly though I'm sure I don't know how to get the most out of view scan.</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>After getting my Coolscan V for maybe 3 months with Vuescan before I even tried NikonScan, and could not get going with the latter. To be fair, I'm very comfortable with Vuescan, also use it my Minolta Scan Elite 5400, previously with Minolta Scan Dual II, and we're also currently using it with a cheapy Epson flatbed.</p>

<p>It'll capture everything coming from the scanner, in the form of the Vuescan Raw File, and then allow you to work with that data, producing whatever you want.</p>

[benbangerter]

<p>Dan, a quote from Shakespeare might be appropriate here:</p>

<p>"Men at some time are masters of their fates:<br>

The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,<br>

But in ourselves..."</p>

<p>(Just substitute "Dan" for "Brutus" and "Vuescan" for "our stars")</p>

[RaymondC]

<p>I haven't used the Silverfast SE, it came with my scanner but I don't have the Ai version, nor do I want to pay.</p>

<p>I have tried Vuescan, the only thing I like is to to be able to profile a scanner using iT8, cheaper than other software.</p>

<p>For neg film, Vuescan is disgusting. I have heard that some people like it but I don't. You cannot profile iT8 neg film. I have tried to lock exposure and the film base as instructed, the color is off so is the range etc .. I much prefer Epson "auto" scan.</p>

<p>For slides, as others say, they don't profile, they just go and preview and that's it. I find Vuescan about the same to Epson.</p>

<p>But overall for me Epson works better in neg and equally with slides, so I just use that. Even if you wanna profile slide, you can just go to Epson and select "no adjustments or adjustments off" and and scan it. In Photoshop just assign profile. To create the profile there is Vuescan which maybe the only thing I like it or there are other profiling software (that I personally use).</p>

[chrisnielsen]

@Ray. I have very little trouble with negs in vuescan, I wonder what has gone wrong with your setup to cause you to

dislike it so. You could save your settings and email them to me and I will have a look at them for you

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>I've seen fantastic results from Epson Scan, Nikon Scan, Vuescan and Silverfast.....in virtually every scanner ever made. because of this, I normally look to the user.</p>

[roger_smith4]

<p>Here's one approach for scanning color neg. film with Vuescan. I see no clipping whatsoever as clipping is a software, not a hardware issue with color negative film.</p>

<p>http://jingai.com/scanningguide/sec%203%20balancing%20color%20film.html</p>

[jonathan_ratzlaff]

<p>Maybe its your scanner. I have been using Vuescan ever since it came out and on every scanner I have never had problems with clipping, especially with negative film. First of all compared to slide film, negative film has no contrast at all. First of all you have a base colour compared to clear on a slide; then you have a muddy dark tone compared to black. Most negative film has a dynamic range of 2.5 compared to 3.8 to 4 for velvia film.<br>

You set your white points and black points in vuescan and you keep them at 0 for the blacks and .01 for whites. That is the end of the clipping issue. The raw scan will not be clipped.<br>

You do need to realise that negatives are a pain to scan basically because they come out so flat. You also need to ensure that you are scanning in 48 bit mode actually 64 bit if you are using ir cleaning. The basic film profiles are the biggest problem. If you really want to set the white and black points take a piece of fogged film, scan it and use that to set your white point and the unexposed film base to set the black point.</p>

<p> </p>

[jimsimmons]

<p>If you set the black point and the white point both to 0 and you are still getting clipping, then either the scanner is faulty, or there is indeed a bug in the way that Vuescan is processing your images. However, because you never mention your black/white point settings, Dan, I feel that this setting may be at the root of your problem. Until I learned about settings these points properly, I could not get a decent (flat) scan from Vuescan. But that one little change helped me tremendously along the path to mastering Vuescan.<br>

And if that does not help things, then by all means contact Ed Hamrick. He will certainly want to resolve the issue. But I'd suggest you go hat in hand, and not have your opening remarks use the word "crap." He is a professional and a gentleman and deserves better treatment.</p>