I meant Vuescan, not Scanvue.

[PhilBurton]

sorry for the mixup.

 

[MattKing]

Best thread so far from you Phil.
Why don't you Report your own Post on this thread and on the "Scanvue" thread and ask the moderators to delete this thread and correct the title on the "Scanvue" thread.

 

[SchwinnParamount]

Vuescan is now sort of crappy. It's never been very good. I used the scanning software for Windows that came with my Nikon scanner for a few years but had to switch to Vuescan when the Nikon scanner died. Vuescan is an very unsatisfying experience. For example, I routinely have to turn off my scanner in the middle of a scan that has suddenly stopped. Quit Vuescan. Restart Vuescan, turn on the scanner (Plustek), restore the scan settings that Vuescan failed to save, and then restart the scan. That's just 1 frame. Imagine you want to scan a roll of 36? I use Windows 10 and have the newest Vuescan, newest Plustek drivers, and my Windows is up to date. Vuescan puts out a new release about every 9 days... which means their programmer(s) is using me as their tester (unpaid). That's a crappy way to run a software company. Hamrick software should hire a tester but they probably operate on a shoestring and can't afford one.

 

[SchwinnParamount]

Now that I have written the above ^^^ post, the moderators can delete the thread. That'll just mean I have to re-type my genuine and heart felt gripe about Vuescan all over again.

 

[PhilBurton]

Vuescan is now sort of crappy. It's never been very good. I used the scanning software for Windows that came with my Nikon scanner for a few years but had to switch to Vuescan when the Nikon scanner died. Vuescan is an very unsatisfying experience. For example, I routinely have to turn off my scanner in the middle of a scan that has suddenly stopped. Quit Vuescan. Restart Vuescan, turn on the scanner (Plustek), restore the scan settings that Vuescan failed to save, and then restart the scan. That's just 1 frame. Imagine you want to scan a roll of 36? I use Windows 10 and have the newest Vuescan, newest Plustek drivers, and my Windows is up to date. Vuescan puts out a new release about every 9 days... which means their programmer(s) is using me as their tester (unpaid). That's a crappy way to run a software company. Hamrick software should hire a tester but they probably operate on a shoestring and can't afford one.

Lots of small companies operate on a shoestring, a worn out shoestring.

I agree with you about the lack of testing. But with how-many different scanners that they claim to support, I can't imagine what a proper "test matrix" (in a large company) would like like. Gives me the shivers just thinking about it.

 

[PhilBurton]

Best thread so far from you Phil.
Why don't you Report your own Post on this thread and on the "Scanvue" thread and ask the moderators to delete this thread and correct the title on the "Scanvue" thread.

What he said.

 

[SchwinnParamount]

imagine what a proper "test matrix" (in a large company) would like like. Gives me the shivers just thinking about it.

Given that Vuescan is almost the only software available for all of these scanners, the owners of Hamrick software can easily demand current test hardware for every scanner they support and a test budget. If I were making a scanner for sale and my success was 100% dependent on the quality of Hamrick software, I would either buy them outright or make god dammed sure that their software worked flawlessly with my hardware. Failure is not an option and is inexcusable.

 

[MattKing]

the owners of Hamrick software

Mr. Hamrick and his son?
And as so much of the value of VueScan comes from its ability to work with discontinued scanners, many of which are from defunct companies, I ask the question: "Who are they going to make the demand to?"
Ed Hamrick and his son do amazing work reverse engineering so many pieces of old hardware.

 

[SchwinnParamount]

They may be a father-son business but they are still a business. Sentimentality aside, they have leverage and should use that. Manufacturers still make scanners. Those manufacturers must be appeased. At the same time, those manufacturers must appease Hamrick or there will no way for us consumers to use the machines produced. What I am supremely annoyed by is the utter failure of each and every manufacturer of current equipment to 100% insure the success of the hardware/software solution that is (Plustek [or whoever]/Hamrick) It makes no sense that Hamrick is allowed to flail and then fail.

 

[PhilBurton]

Given that Vuescan is almost the only software available for all of these scanners, the owners of Hamrick software can easily demand current test hardware for every scanner they support and a test budget. If I were making a scanner for sale and my success was 100% dependent on the quality of Hamrick software, I would either buy them outright or make god dammed sure that their software worked flawlessly with my hardware. Failure is not an option and is inexcusable.

If Hamrick sold his company to some scanner company, his software would probably become a "captive" in-house supplier. That's what usually happens in high-tech industries when a company acquires one of its suppliers or key partners. Sooner or later, support for all other brands of scanners would be dropped.

 

[SchwinnParamount]

If Hamrick sold his company to some scanner company, his software would probably become a "captive" in-house supplier. That's what usually happens in high-tech industries when a company acquires one of its suppliers or key partners. Sooner or later, support for all other brands of scanners would be dropped.

Right. Assuming Silverfast scanner software is expensive and crap (I don't know that it is), Hamrick is the only viable game in town. So the only real option is for scanner companies like Plustek is to provide Hamrick software with all the resources it needs to make the software work. That includes free API support, 1 of each model of Plustek scanner to be supported, and a "hotline" to Plustek engineers. All scanner manufacturers who have a critical dependency of Hamrick should be doing this. My previous company (Microsoft) had this arrangement with companies like Intel. My current company, Square has this arrangement with all of our 3rd party software developers.

Note: Silverfast 9 is not looking good. The install program craps out about half way through on my Windows 10 box.

 

[SchwinnParamount]

I finally get the Silverfast demo version installed and played with the interface: A better interface than Hamrick by far. Then I scanned an image to see what Silverfast can do:

Utter and complete fail: You would think that the company that wants to sell you its software would let you see what it can actually do
without destroying the output with stupid watermarks.

 

[PhilBurton]

I finally get the Silverfast demo version installed and played with the interface: A better interface than Hamrick by far. Then I scanned an image to see what Silverfast can do:

Utter and complete fail: You would think that the company that wants to sell you its software would let you see what it can actually do
without destroying the output with stupid watermarks.

View attachment 266743

I agree with your issue about the size of the Silverfast watermark. It also annoyed me. Like you, I think that this watermark obscures too much of the image. In contrast, Vuescan just superimposes wording that effectively conveys the point without totally obscuring the image.

That said, I was able to do the evaluations that I described in my other thread which led me for my use case to select Silverfast. Almost all of my slides are Kodachrome. The rest all all Ektachrome 400, push-processed by Kodak to 1600 or 3200. Those Ektachromes have very little exposure latitude, and since many of them were shot in low-light situations like subway stations (I am a railroad enthusiast), a lot of them could also benefit from multi-exposure or dual exposure to bring out more shadow detail. In direct comparisons, Silverfast's multi-exposure brought out a lot of additional shadow detail, but Vuescan's did not. Also in several cases, Vuescan's multi-exposure lost some detail in diagonal lines.

And Silverfast's multi-scan took only about 1/3 the time that Vuescan did. That's a factor because I have a 50 slide batch feeder for my scanner and have at least 1000 boxes of slides to scan. So yes, I did not like Silverfast's pricing, but considering my volume of slides to scan, it is worth it to me.

 

[SchwinnParamount]

I agree with your issue about the size of the Silverfast watermark. It also annoyed me. Like you, I think that this watermark obscures too much of the image. In contrast, Vuescan just superimposes wording that effectively conveys the point without totally obscuring the image.

That said, I was able to do the evaluations that I described in my other thread which led me for my use case to select Silverfast. Almost all of my slides are Kodachrome. The rest all all Ektachrome 400, push-processed by Kodak to 1600 or 3200. Those Ektachromes have very little exposure latitude, and since many of them were shot in low-light situations like subway stations (I am a railroad enthusiast), a lot of them could also benefit from multi-exposure or dual exposure to bring out more shadow detail. In direct comparisons, Silverfast's multi-exposure brought out a lot of additional shadow detail, but Vuescan's did not. Also in several cases, Vuescan's multi-exposure lost some detail in diagonal lines.

And Silverfast's multi-scan took only about 1/3 the time that Vuescan did. That's a factor because I have a 50 slide batch feeder for my scanner and have at least 1000 boxes of slides to scan. So yes, I did not like Silverfast's pricing, but considering my volume of slides to scan, it is worth it to me.

Excellent comparison!!!!
I don't know if there is a sticky thread that talks about film scanning software but perhaps there should be. New photographers have access to inkjet printers and scanners. They have some difficulty finding working enlargers and enlarging lenses although there is enough good printed knowledge that would teach them about this older equipment if they could actually get their hands on it.

But assume they can't. Now they need to know about the right software to let them realize their creative impulse through scanning and ink jet printing.

 

[brbo]

Utter and complete fail: You would think that the company that wants to sell you its software would let you see what it can actually do
without destroying the output with stupid watermarks.

Just scan at the highest resolution available on your scanner. The watermark should then be relatively smaller. At least old(er) Siverfast demos were like that...

 

[fs999]

or scan a white page and use it in Photoshop or a layer supporting program to revert it...