|
Is Vuescan Pro worth it? It looks like the "DNGs" it makes are just a fancy TIFF. Lifetime upgrades might be worth it though.
|
| # ¿ Mar 1, 2011 02:42 |
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 26, 2013 00:56 |
|
|
EvilRic posted:I could do with a couple of pointers for my V500 if anyone can answer a couple of questions. 1. I generally do 3200dpi on my V500 because it's reasonably fast and easier on Lightroom (my computer is a couple years old). I'm fairly confident I'm not giving up much. The V700 tests at about 2300-2400 real DPI, and the V500 is similar. You might be able to gain a small amount of extra resolution and noise reduction by scanning at 4800 and resizing it back down to your intended resolution, but it's just a flatbed scan for web use, so  2. It makes smaller files than storing all three channels, for sure. Vuescan will let you choose a channel (R,G, or B) and it will use that as the grayscale channel. This could theoretically give a small boost in sharpness over averaging all three channels. I don't know which way Epson Scan does this internally. 3. If your pictures look like you want them to, it's not a problem. I mostly use Lightroom and don't really Photoshop, so these instructions may not transfer directly. Generally I do autoexpose, then set the highlights where I want with the exposure setting, tweak the contrast and gamma to get the shadows where I want, then play with all the settings to see if I can get it a bit better. 4. Sharpening really depends on the image/film/scan resolution/etc. You always want to sharpen as the last operation before export, so it's better to do it in Photoshop than in Epson Scan. It doesn't really matter much on web images, but for prints it'll take a couple tries to get the right amount. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at Apr 19, 2011 around 20:46 |
| # ¿ Apr 19, 2011 20:38 |
|
|
Mad Dragon posted:I have several rolls' worth of 35mm negatives from my time in the Navy, and I'd like to convert them into digital format. I know everyone loves the Epson Vx00 series of scanners, but I really don't want or need another flatbed (I have a Canon MX870 all-in-one). All of the pictures were taken with a Minolta point-n-shoot camera, so they're the 90s equivalent of cell phone FaceBook pics. Are these any good for that? Doubtful. Most of those are really terrible quality. Your MX870 is not a negative scanner, so it's not really redundant to get a photo flatbed. Nothing else in that price range will deliver equivalent quality to a V500 or a CanoScan 9900F. If you really want a negative-only scanner you could look for a (probably SCSI) Minolta ScanDual or Polaroid SprintScan but these won't have infrared dust/scratch removal (nor will that one you linked), plus they're more difficult to work with. It's also not like the pictures being from a point and shoot matters. You're taking a picture of a picture. Sure, the result won't be as good if the original negative isn't super sharp. But you can introduce an awful lot of softness in the scan, too, if the scanner sucks. Maximize what you have by buying the right tool before those negatives fade.
|
| # ¿ Jun 27, 2011 03:54 |
|
|
Because you can actually get at the picture without a high end(CCD/drum) scanner. If you've got the money get a betterscanning holder, they're nice (I wish I had one). On the other hand, you will have two more surfaces to keep clean. Wait till you get your scanner to see if you need a half-height unit or the regular-height unit.
|
| # ¿ Jul 15, 2011 01:22 |
|
|
Martytoof posted:Is there any SCSI to USB adapter that doesn't cost as much as a used film scanner? Nope, I couldn't find one. There's the RATOC one, but it's like $125. I ended up buying the only PCI SCSI card (AHA-2940) that's compatible with Windows 7 instead.
|
| # ¿ Jul 15, 2011 01:58 |
|
|
It also seems to add noise to my scans. I tried identical scans on Epson Scan and Vuescan, and there was quite a bit more chroma noise in Vuescan's output. It also seems to be messed up somehow by my attempts to do Polaroid negative scans - everything works great at every resolution except full, then everything has a pink cast.
|
| # ¿ Jul 15, 2011 22:19 |
|
|
Yeah, Vuescan flips out when you include unexposed areas. It tries to get everything on the histogram by averaging everything, so it blows the highlights. Try cropping into your picture just a bit so there is no border, like Martytoof said. Or, try adjusting the black and white points until everything is contained in your image, then adjust the curve points and brightness until it looks decent. Hopefully you can get it decent, I find Vuescan to be a terrible interface. I actually find the Epson Scan interface to be slightly less terrible than the Vuescan one. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at Jul 17, 2011 around 19:40 |
| # ¿ Jul 17, 2011 19:23 |
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Why do you want to lift the negatives off of the platen? I have been operating under the assumption a flatbed scanner is primarily designed to scan opaque paper, which is pressed directly against the glass. Where is the focal plane for a scanner? Scanners use different, hi-resolution optics for scanning transparency media like film. Because they're a different set of optics, they can focus them at a different height, and they put them slightly off the glass.
|
| # ¿ Aug 21, 2011 05:49 |
|
|
Good deal if nothing's wrong it it.
|
| # ¿ Aug 22, 2011 22:59 |
|
|
Martytoof posted:Things like old drum scanners come to mind. There's not a LOT, but if you want to get one working that's probably the easiest way. Also, some high end CCD scanners are still worth it. People tend to think it's not because the resolution numbers aren't that much higher than modern consumer USB scanners, but the difference is that pro scanners actually meet their resolution numbers.
|
| # ¿ Aug 26, 2011 21:38 |
|
|
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 01:52 |
|
|
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 20:40 |
|
|
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 Oct 7, 2011 around 21:22 |
| # ¿ Oct 7, 2011 20:50 |
|
|
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 20:54 |
|
|
whereismyshoe posted:i've had such bad luck with v500's. the first one i bought would disconnect the transparency top every time i opened it. called epson, got a replacement. replacement makes a really loud grinding noise every time it scans and the brightness is way, way off all the time and never knows how to crop MF even when I tell it what format it's in. i know it's not my negatives. drat, dude. Third time's the charm?  The XKCD Larper posted:Buy a v700 This is the objectively correct answer if you shoot MF in any volume. 6x6 is tolerable on my V500 since I can get two negatives in there at a time, but scanning rolls and rolls of 6x7 gets old quickly. The transparency window on the V700 is longer and wider I think, I'm guessing it'll hold 2 strips of 2 6x7 negatives.
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2012 14:03 |
|
|
The XKCD Larper posted:If you value your time in any way you'll just buy a V700 and stop messing around with toy pieces of poo poo. It depends where you spend most of your time. Maybe I'm doing VueScan wrong, but most of my time is spent cropping and pre-processing the preview to capture the histogram well, so actual waiting time isn't a hugely significant part of the total time. Most dedicated film scanners won't let you scan more than the V500 anyway.
|
| # ¿ May 20, 2012 07:00 |
|
|
The XKCD Larper posted:If you think you're spending too much time in scanning software the method I use may be of use to you. I scan it as a color slide in 16 bit tiff then invert it and set the shadow/highlight clipping points for each color channel in photoshop manually. Adjusting RGB limits and color curves in PS is easier than in any film scanner software I have ever used. Yeah, but if the tones aren't properly encoded (meaning, compressed into a small area of your color space) in the initial image produced by the scan, aren't you giving up a lot of image quality pulling it back out later? e: I'm not saying you have to get it perfect, but 90% of the time Vuescan just gives me unusable poo poo after the preview scan, with like 50% of the image clipped. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at May 23, 2012 around 19:57 |
| # ¿ May 23, 2012 19:49 |
|
|
I can't get Vuescan to turn out very good B+W results. Strangely enough Epson Scan does better there, and there's no need for saving the infrared channel on B+W. Vuescan's the only way to go if you're scanning panoramics or you want consistent color balance though.
|
| # ¿ Aug 11, 2012 20:20 |
|
|
One potential approach to getting a good scanner is to buy an old pro-grade SCSI scanner. The numbers are much less inflated in professional gear, but there does tend to be more noise and the dynamic range is sometimes lower. There's one (1) card left that has Windows 7 64-bit drivers, the Adaptec AHA-2940. Other than that prepare to pay $100 for a USB SCSI adapter. Buy Vuescan and marvel at the towering pile of clunky code maintained by one enthusiast that's the only thing that lets you keep your scanner going on modern software. This wouldn't work with USB, the dude is actually writing code which bitbangs the SCSI bus.
|
| # ¿ Oct 26, 2012 02:57 |
|
|
Christabel posted:I'm looking to scan a large volume of prints primarily, with document scanning as a secondary function. It's for my workplace, so I can go a little higher in terms of cost. Does anyone have any good recommendations for flatbed scanners? It seems like these days you either get old tech for cheap or super specialised equipment for a lot of money. I think we'd be looking to spend somewhere between $500 - $1000, and it would need to be fairly easy to use as students would be operating it. It's not a flatbed scanner but if you have a pile of stuff you need scanned the Fujitsu ScanSnap scanners are great.
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2013 15:01 |
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 26, 2013 00:56 |
|
|
Christabel posted:That looks like it might mangle any photos I try to feed it. Or am I not looking at the right model? This thing: http://www.fujitsu.com/us/services/...snap-iX500.html I don't think it would mangle prints. My father has one of the earlier iterations, they're great little scanners. Never tried to do prints, but I don't see why it wouldn't work. The big problem is that it's not the biggest scanner in the world, it won't do more than 8.5x14.7 inches.
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2013 17:43 |
|
