|
Why is all scanner software such a piece of loving poo poo??
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2011 15:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 19:57 |
|
|
My Filk Mp3s posted:Why is all scanner software such a piece of loving poo poo?? I don't know what you are using, but I'm quite satisfied with my EPSON scan software. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2011 16:31
|
|
|
FLX posted:I don't know what you are using, but I'm quite satisfied with my EPSON scan software. I have tried Epson, Silverfast and VueScan all within the past 24 hours and have been unable to make a 48 bit scan that captures dmax to dmin with no adjustments. All of these programs have a mind of their own. Imacon has the .fff format that you can open up in photoshop and it basically lets you start from absolute scratch. How do I get an equivalent to that with my v700?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2011 17:25
|
|
|
I'm pretty happy with VueScan, but I've been trying to use the ColorPerfect plugin in Photoshop to get more tweaking... it puts weird rectangular patterns of distortion on my images and makes me unhappy  Any ideas what would cause that? The raw file coming out of VueScan looks great, but after applying the plugin, it's all messed up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2011 20:32
|
|
|
My Filk Mp3s posted:I have tried Epson, Silverfast and VueScan all within the past 24 hours and have been unable to make a 48 bit scan that captures dmax to dmin with no adjustments. All of these programs have a mind of their own. On Silverfast: you're not touching the auto-adjust, are you? I usually get the best results from hitting "reset" on the levels and curves to remove any adjustments Silverfast is doing (aside from the Negafix film profiles - did you check those?), then doing color/curves/etc in Photoshop.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2011 21:00
|
|
|
My Filk Mp3s posted:I have tried Epson, Silverfast and VueScan all within the past 24 hours and have been unable to make a 48 bit scan that captures dmax to dmin with no adjustments. All of these programs have a mind of their own. Vuescan will provide you with a raw scan if you tell it to. http://www.hamrick.com/vuescan/html/vuesc14.htm
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2011 21:01
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Vuescan will provide you with a raw scan if you tell it to. http://www.hamrick.com/vuescan/html/vuesc14.htm I tried this with okay results. VueScan has the worst interface of the scanning software that I've tried though. After a lot of fiddling and turning off a lot of settings I found that a 48-bit scan with 1.00 exposure in Silverfast is good enough to capture dmax + dmin with decent shadow detail with Portra 400. It even looks good with auto levels for proofing purposes. The amount of nerding out that is necessary to get a clean scan with this scanner is unbelievable. The XKCD Larper fucked around with this message at 20:32 on Sep 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2011 20:29
|
|
|
What kind of scanner is it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2011 21:33
|
|
|
Bah, the film is still sitting in boxes. One day I will have them all scanned. edit: tonelok, love the before and after scans from last year. edit2: Really giving serious thought to obtaining as high end a scanner as is feasible, and opening up a small business of scanning/archival service, with retouching services additional. I figure I'd need: - a good scanner for prints - a good scanner for film, both 35mm and medium format - a decent light table - ????? Actually, perhaps a decent horizontal camera and well-lit easel would serve best for the first on the list. Would give me an excuse to finally drop the cash (the bank's cash that is) for a d700, or better yet a digital medium format system. Fog Tripper fucked around with this message at 22:20 on Sep 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2011 21:34
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:What kind of scanner is it? V700. I heard its the same thing as the v750 
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2011 23:26
|
|
|
Fog Tripper posted:Bah, the film is still sitting in boxes. One day I will have them all scanned. Scanning film is tedious and I think you have to be at least slightly insane to want to do it as a job. I think a flatbed is the way to go for prints. As far as light tables, you can pick up a dental x-ray viewing thing (same thing) for pretty cheap on Craigslist. Yesterday at work I was idly considering selling my 5D kit and buying a Coolscan 9000.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2011 23:27
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Scanning film is tedious and I think you have to be at least slightly insane to want to do it as a job. I used to be in prepress. Both conventional and electronic. I am no stranger to the tedium of scanning. At least it wouldn't be scans of product shots. Fog Tripper fucked around with this message at 00:32 on Sep 8, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2011 00:27
|
|
|
If you used to be in pre-press then I don't know why you would mess around with anything less than a drum scanner or at the least one of the eversmart/scitex/jazz/early kodak flatbeds. e: Re- art duplication: either a digital MF back or a 4x5 repro camera will be your best bet. Pompous Rhombus posted:Yesterday at work I was idly considering selling my 5D kit and buying a Coolscan 9000. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2011 02:11
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:If you used to be in pre-press then I don't know why you would mess around with anything less than a drum scanner I have no idea what a quality one would cost these days, and if the type of drum scanners I used 10 or so years ago would hold a candle to the non-drums these days.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2011 02:30
|
|
|
Fog Tripper posted:I have no idea what a quality one would cost these days, and if the type of drum scanners I used 10 or so years ago would hold a candle to the non-drums these days. In a word, yes. You can pick up an old drum scanner for like $1500 and it'll beat the poo poo out of any CCD scanner on the market. Why? They actually hit their design specs, which start at like 4k dpi. A Coolscan 9000 will come close or match and has ICE, but doesn't do bigger than medium format. It's more expensive, but you don't need to pay for supplies.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2011 02:52
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:You must have some expensive lenses if it's going to equal the price of a 9000. Are they still about $2.7-3k-ish? Could come close, I've got a 24-70L, Sigma 12-24, Olympus 55mm f/1.2, and the nifty fifty. I swore I'd keep the 24-70L and a full frame Canon until the day I died, but it looks like the NEX-7 is likely going to take its place as my digital workhorse. As it is, I've only brought the 5D out for professional (or stuff that would be paid but I'm doing for friends) stuff ever since I got the NEX-3 last year. I'm a little out of sorts with film at the moment though. I've got a big backlog of stuff to develop and scan from my US road trip (like 25 rolls of B&W 120, 12-ish of C41/E6 that I haven't even developed yet, plus 10 rolls of C-41 that I got developed in the States but still need scanning), so I feel bad about shooting more. I've only run like 3 rolls through my Hassie since I got here almost a month and a half ago, and haven't even touched my 4x5 yet. Part of it is not having access to HC-110 (not sold here, need to import it) or a scanner (haven't bought one yet), but still. Since I don't shoot much 35mm anymore (sold my Bessa before I left), I need to figure out where me and the Hassie stand before I drop $3k on a scanner  Big picture, I'm probably better off getting the V750 and ordering a Betterscanning holder, and sending out the handful of really good stuff that I want to print big. Right now (and even at my film-shooting zenith) I don't really shoot enough 35mm/MF to justify that high end of a scanner, but maybe someday...
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2011 12:30
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:In a word, yes. You can pick up an old drum scanner for like $1500 and it'll beat the poo poo out of any CCD scanner on the market. Why? They actually hit their design specs, which start at like 4k dpi. Well, anything over medium format may be rare enough that they could be farmed out elsewhere. Jesus but their prices (CS9000) are all over the place. $2k to nearly $7k.  (not to mention the whole no support for macs thing)
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2011 15:05
|
|
|
No support for macs? Huh. The digital lab here at work uses a bunch of Coolscan 9000's with Macs, seems to be fine.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2011 10:13
|
|
is go
|
But the nikon mac software for the CS9000 is the worst I have ever used. they stole the UI from the game boy camera
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 03:53
|
|
|
Dr. Cogwerks posted:No support for macs? Huh. The digital lab here at work uses a bunch of Coolscan 9000's with Macs, seems to be fine. From what I can gather, nikon doesn't support above a certain OS version.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2011 16:06
|
|
|
My Filk Mp3s posted:But the nikon mac software for the CS9000 is the worst I have ever used. they stole the UI from the game boy camera Hahahaha... I guess just run Windows for scanning. I already have to when I want to put music on my Zune
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 08:03
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:You must have some expensive lenses if it's going to equal the price of a 9000. Pompous Rhombus posted:Hahahaha... I guess just run Windows for scanning. I already have to when I want to put music on my Zune
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 12:47
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:And it still doesn't support 64bit W7. gently caress you, Nikon. It's great as a music player, and the Zune Pass is really good for people who can't/don't pirate music. If Apple had something similar I'd be all over it, but apparently Steve Jobs knows better than customers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2011 00:53
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:And it still doesn't support 64bit W7. gently caress you, Nikon.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2011 02:57
|
|
|
Can anyone recommend one of those cheap little USB slide/neg scans that gives adequate results for review/Facebooking? Are they all the same or is there an actual difference between any of the brands? As much as I want a v700, I'm neither good enough nor do I have the money to justify one at the time being.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2011 00:59
|
|
|
Dead Alice posted:As much as I want a v700, I'm neither good enough nor do I have the money to justify one at the time being. You really don't have to get a v700 unless you're going into large format(bigger then 120.) A v500/600, or canoscan9000 will do better then the cheap slide scanner, and actually be useful for more then one thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2011 01:10
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Since I don't shoot much 35mm anymore (sold my Bessa before I left), I need to figure out where me and the Hassie stand before I drop $3k on a scanner Find out what this guy and this guy does. They spend a lot of time in Asia and shoot primarily film. They are obviously using labs over there, maybe they know of some good places to go for developing/scanning. It would save you some time at least. Edit: I know I am likely the exception to the rule here, but I just pay for poo poo to get done because it's executed to a very high standard and I don't have to worry about it. I couldn't imagine developing C41 and E6 on my own to the degree of accuracy that a professional lab could do it. And scanning... I don't know what to say. It would take forever. Each picture has to be scrutinized, possibly re-scanned a few times, the colors adjusted... and that's just C41. E6 is a loving mystery. You could spend $5,000 on a Nikon Coolscan 9000 and get pretty good results (assuming you had a computer old enough to hook it up to), or you could buy the Epson V700 or V750 -- but with slide film you really struggle to get good scans. And it's not like these scanners, slide holders and software are cheap. It's a big expense and a huge, manual undertaking for each and every shot. You have to ask yourself if it's worth it. I mean, if you think it's fun then that's a different story. But is it worth it? In the end, what I pay is about $1.50 per picture. That includes everything: the roll, the developing, the scanning, the shipping to/from the lab. That's not cheap. But at the same time, it keeps me in check. I try to take good pictures each time. (I don't always succeed). But I don't waste film, at least not like I would with digital. Every now and then I take a picture of a bike resting against a fencepost just because it looks nice, and then I hit myself in the head later for wasting a shot. But in the end, I allocate money in the budget for film development and scanning, and live a life of peace. Mannequin fucked around with this message at 01:35 on Oct 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2011 01:12
|
|
|
Dead Alice posted:Can anyone recommend one of those cheap little USB slide/neg scans that gives adequate results for review/Facebooking? Are they all the same or is there an actual difference between any of the brands? I bought a V600 from Adorama about a month ago since it was on sale for $160 (currently $189) and it's been awesome. At $160 it will pay for itself in about 20 rolls (which isn't that much) and the results I get with it set to auto are just as good as lab scans, except if I need more resolution or color control I can increase the scan quality. My only complaints so far is that the epson previewer isn't that big and I'll probably have to get a better scanning holder as there is a noticeable difference between flat and curled film. It also can't do 4x5. It's also pretty slow; a roll of 36 with ICE enabled takes 2 hours, start to finish. Those are minor complaints though, and for the price it's amazing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2011 03:54
|
|
|
A $160 flatbed scanner in auto mode and a professional drum scanner are not even in the same ballpark. I'm not saying you can't get results that you are happy with using a flatbed scanner, especially with negatives and the right film holder, but it's very difficult to get true color accuracy. E6 is even more difficult. But hey, if you're happy that's all that matters.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2011 04:11
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:A $160 flatbed scanner in auto mode and a professional drum scanner are not even in the same ballpark. I'm not saying you can't get results that you are happy with using a flatbed scanner, especially with negatives and the right film holder, but it's very difficult to get true color accuracy. E6 is even more difficult. But hey, if you're happy that's all that matters. The results I get are just as good, if not better, than the $5-10/roll scans that I would get at a lab.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2011 04:39
|
|
|
TheLastManStanding posted:Lab scans =/= drum scans unless you are paying a ton. I never said lab scans were the same as drum scans. The lab I use for developing has a drum scanner which they use for their scans. I don't pay a lot for this, but at the same time I am not paying for super high resolution which is why I save money. Overall, though, the developing and scanning process is taken care of at a very high standard, and it's worry free. What I suggested to pompous rhombus before was to see what those other guys were doing because their work is of high quality and they seem to be using some labs with good scanning equipment, so it's worth checking out. Regarding your last comment, from what I have read and seen scanning color film with a flatbed scanner is problematic because of the color profiles. E6 is especially difficult. What turns me off about the process is the unknown factor. You might get a scan that looks good, but you never truly know if the color is accurate. That, and the time it takes for each scan makes it a daunting process. I could accept this if it weren't for E6. I like shooting slide film and from I have read it is very difficult to scan Velvia (for example) consistently, even shots that are on the same roll. So in that sense, comparing a $160 flatbed to a professional drum scanner is a bit off mark. Mannequin fucked around with this message at 05:23 on Oct 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2011 04:50
|
|
|
Dead Alice posted:Can anyone recommend one of those cheap little USB slide/neg scans that gives adequate results for review/Facebooking? Are they all the same or is there an actual difference between any of the brands? Well that stirred up some fun. Let me rephrase my question. At some stage, I intend to get a v700 so I can scan reasonable amounts of MF stuff once I invariably start to play with that. In the mean time, I do not have the money or inclination to buy a smaller but still relatively expensive scanner that will be superceded not too far down the track. There are a wide variety of USB slide/film scanners on online auction sites. Are any of them sufficient for facebook-quality scans - at this stage I do not require amazing results as I can get them done in a lab for a reasonable price if I want to get prints made.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2011 20:22
|
|
|
Buy a V500 or 4490. If you feel like upgrading, sell it. There's nothing else in the price range that will provide acceptable results. Those standalone scanners produce output that looks like a bad 2mp digital camera. Not only will your scans be poo poo, you won't be able to sell it for anything. The V500 will also let you get started in MF, it'll do up to 2 6x6 negatives at a time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2011 21:40
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:Regarding your last comment, from what I have read and seen scanning color film with a flatbed scanner is problematic because of the color profiles. E6 is especially difficult. What turns me off about the process is the unknown factor. You might get a scan that looks good, but you never truly know if the color is accurate. That, and the time it takes for each scan makes it a daunting process. I could accept this if it weren't for E6. I like shooting slide film and from I have read it is very difficult to scan Velvia (for example) consistently, even shots that are on the same roll. So in that sense, comparing a $160 flatbed to a professional drum scanner is a bit off mark. Any variation in the process is the result of settings changing. If you're anal retentive about color accuracy/consistency, what you do is get an IT8 color target for each film you want to shoot, and save a color profile. The target has a known pattern, your profile shows how your scanner reads the film stock's interpretation of the pattern. Now you have the exposure range and poo poo worked out, so lock settings and go to town. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 22:22 on Oct 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2011 21:50
|
|
|
TheLastManStanding posted:I bought a V600 from Adorama about a month ago since it was on sale for $160 (currently $189) and it's been awesome. At $160 it will pay for itself in about 20 rolls (which isn't that much) and the results I get with it set to auto are just as good as lab scans, except if I need more resolution or color control I can increase the scan quality. My only complaints so far is that the epson previewer isn't that big and I'll probably have to get a better scanning holder as there is a noticeable difference between flat and curled film. It also can't do 4x5. It's also pretty slow; a roll of 36 with ICE enabled takes 2 hours, start to finish. Those are minor complaints though, and for the price it's amazing. My V500 is about 10-15m per 10 negatives at 3200dpi with ICE enabled. If you're cranking the resolution up all the way you're probably not actually getting yourself anything except possibly a small reduction in noise in the finished product. The real-world resolution limit is like 1600dpi tops.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2011 21:54
|
|
|
Scan at 300 dpi for whatever your print target is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2011 22:07
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:My V500 is about 10-15m per 10 negatives at 3200dpi with ICE enabled. If you're cranking the resolution up all the way you're probably not actually getting yourself anything except possibly a small reduction in noise in the finished product. The real-world resolution limit is like 1600dpi tops.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2011 22:10
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Any variation in the process is the result of settings changing. If you're anal retentive about color accuracy/consistency, what you do is get an IT8 color target for each film you want to shoot, and save a color profile. The target has a known pattern, your profile shows how your scanner reads the film stock's interpretation of the pattern. Now you have the exposure range and poo poo worked out, so lock settings and go to town. You could spend hundreds of dollars on those profiles, another added expense. Anyway, like I said, I am probably the exception to the rule here. We are in a scanner thread and I'm the only one talking about sending stuff out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2011 23:19
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:You could spend hundreds of dollars on those profiles, another added expense. Anyway, like I said, I am probably the exception to the rule here. We are in a scanner thread and I'm the only one talking about sending stuff out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2011 23:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 19:57 |
|
|
Can anyone give me some advice on coping strategies for dealing with what a piece of poo poo silverfast is?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2011 02:10
|
|