VueScan Infrared Clean option

[anthony_r.1]

<p>On VueScan's website, they say the Infrared Clean option is better than ICE. Can anyone confirm/refute this claim?</p>

[anthony_r.1]

<p>Nikon Coolscan 5000 ED. I'm currently using SilverFast, which supports ICE, but I'm looking into VueScan.</p>

[anthony_r.1]

<p>Looks to me like ICE wins hands down. Thanks.</p>

[starvy]

<p>Les, this is some comprehensive result indeed! I wish I had a Nikon scanner!</p>

[howard_owen]

<p>My understanding is that Hamrick refuses to pay the licensing fee for ICE and so uses his own algorithm instead. I tested it many years ago and got similar results. It appears VS is better at cleaning than it used to be but it's still a poor second to Nikon Scan.</p>

[cabbiinc]

<p>Honestly you should install Vuescan and try it yourself. The trial version is for just this sort of thing. I can't say that it's better than Nikonscan, which won't run on my computer, but I can say that when it works it works rather well. Flatbeds seem to never line up the IR scan with the RGB scan, but my Nikon LS-2000 and Canon FS4000US work great with it.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>I would prefer Nikon Scan, but unfortunately can't get it to work with Mountain Lion. So VS it is.</p>

[travismcgee]

<p>The last I heard, Nikon Scan wasn't updated for Windows 7 64-bit so it supposedly won't run. I've heard there is a way to make it work, but I haven't tried it yet. Just be advised....</p>

<p>Nikon Scan and ICE did not work very well for me on a Nikon Super Coolscan 5000 when I scanned Kodachrome slides. I've heard that the latest version of VueScan has solved that problem. Does anyone have any information on this?</p>

<p> </p>

[ted_marcus1]

<p>Infrared cleaning doesn't work very well with Kodachrome no matter what software you're using. The dyes don't transmit infrared light the same way as the dyes used in other films, so the cleaning algorithm gets confused. Still, Hamrick claims his algorithm handles Kodachrome better than others.</p>

<p>My experience with Vuescan and Kodachrome was interesting. The cleaning worked decently on some slides. It produced strange artifacts and blurring on others. On a few slides, it blurred and distorted the image but the dust and scratches were all intact and sharp. The behavior seemed completely random, although it seemed to do better with older Kodachrome-X slides than with Kodachrome 64.</p>

[roger_smith4]

<p>There is a workaround and I have NikonScan working happily with Win 7 64 bit. Just do a quick search.</p>

[cabbiinc]

<p>I can get NikonScan to install and run on my computer, it just refuses to see the scanner. No such problems with Vuescan. I also use it quite often with Kodachrome with no issues as well.</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>Unless there's been a monumental improvement, I'd say ICE is is better. Might depend on the scanner as well. With my Minolta Scan Elite 5400 Vuescan's cleaning was a distant second. If you're film's pretty clean, and a 100% Vuescan workflow is priority, it might be good enough. I would only use the lightest cleaning setting in Vuescan: medium and heavy (in my experience) only increased overall softening.</p>

<p>You can actually save the cleaning data as separate 16 bit channel in the Vuescan raw file, and play with different cleaning later. Or apply the cleaning, and drop that channel. In practice I found no benefit to that, and it makes it impossible to "spot" the raw file.</p>

[anthony_r.1]

<blockquote>

<p>Nikon Scan and ICE did not work very well for me on a Nikon Super Coolscan 5000 when I scanned Kodachrome slides.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That has always been an issue. I don't remember where I saw it, but it is documented somewhere that ICE does not work well with Kodachrome. That being said, it does work to a certain extent, but I've always had to do extra manual cleanup with Kodachrome.</p>

[sburre]

I have a Nikon Super Coolscan 5000 and am getting superb results with infrared dust removal on Kodachromes using the latest version of Vuescan on 'light' setting (but I also take a bit of time to first hit the slides with an anti-static gun and Rocket air blower...it is worth the effort). I had done direct comparisons with Silverfast vs. Vuescan and artifacts are significant with Silverfast. I've never tried NikonScan and have no interest in it since it is no longer supported and otherwise the biggest downfall with it is the lack of IT8 calibration (I have multiple IT8 calibration targets, including the expensive one for Kodachrome). Waiting to get some reference scans back from a firm that uses Nikon 9000 (I've already received some back from another shop using a Flextight scanner and prefer what I'm doing (better colors and near complete removal of dust). Then we factor in usage of the SF-210 batch feeder and true raw processing workflow (with a couple of PhotoShop plugins). I believe that all of these comparisons are going to be highly dependent on the combination of particular scanner/software (and things like IT8 calibration), so your mileage may vary (wildly). Edited March 8, 2019 by sburre

[Charles_Webster]

You realize that the thread is almost 6 years old? And the OP was last seen here last Oct.

[rodeo_joe1]

And Vuescan has gone through a few revisions in 6 years!

 

The big advantage of Vuescan over most OEM implementations of ICE*, is that, where possible, Vuescan does the IR scan concurrently with the visible scan, thus almost halving the ICE scan time.

 

*ICE consists of colour restoration and 'grain reduction' algorithms as well as IR dust and scratch removal. However I don't see how the simple mapping of a healing tool around an IR blemish can possibly have a patent on it. Especially since Applied Science Fiction doesn't exist anymore.

[wogears]

And Vuescan has gone through a few revisions in 6 years!

 

The big advantage of Vuescan over most OEM implementations of ICE*, is that, where possible, Vuescan does the IR scan concurrently with the visible scan, thus almost halving the ICE scan time.

 

*ICE consists of colour restoration and 'grain reduction' algorithms as well as IR dust and scratch removal. However I don't see how the simple mapping of a healing tool around an IR blemish can possibly have a patent on it. Especially since Applied Science Fiction doesn't exist anymore.

 

IIRC, the Late Great Yellow Father still holds the patent rights to Digital ICE. While the principle of IR detection and "healing" is available to all, the ICE algorithm is still under patent protection.