Vuescan

[TMcG1959]

I'm buying the Epson v550 mainly for 6x6 megs. Is Vuescan software worth buying to compliment this?

 

[MattKing]

I've owned a professional license since 2008.
I've never had to pay for an update - and there has been a lot of incremental updates. I've used it with a number of scanners that are no longer supported by the manufacturer or really anyone else.
I've used it on a number of different computers.
I've had the benefit of Mr. Hamrick's support.
It is reasonably priced and an excellent value, and wouldn't exist if no one paid for it.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

I've owned a professional license since 2008.
I've never had to pay for an update - and there has been a lot of incremental updates. I've used it with a number of scanners that are no longer supported by the manufacturer or really anyone else.
I've used it on a number of different computers.
I've had the benefit of Mr. Hamrick's support.
It is reasonably priced and an excellent value, and wouldn't exist if no one paid for it.

+1

Same here. I’m a long time paid user. It’s not the same as the bundled software in terms of user interface, but if you take the time to learn it, it generally provides much better results and is totally worth it.

[rant]
DO NOT go download a free copy from somewhere and not pay for it. That does nothing but hurt everyone else. If it actually provides value to you, then you should pay for it. If it doesn’t provide enough value that you are willing to pay for it, then why even use it? Just because you’re not physically taking something off the shelf and walking out without paying for it doesn’t mean it’s not theft. Coding time equals money. Not paying means you’re asking the coder to work for free. Do you want to work for free? Then don’t expect or ask him to unless he chooses to on his own volition.
[/rant]

Sorry about the rant. Not aimed at Matt. It’s a bit of a sore spot with me.

 

[GRHazelton]

I have an Epson V700 which I use for 6x6 negs. I strongly suggest you look into the negative carrier and AntiNewtonsRings glass from betterscanning.com. I have no financial interest in the company. The carrier and ANR glass enable good 6x6 neg scans, which I found impossible with the stock carrier with the V700, which I suspect is no better or worse than that furnished with the V550. The betterscanning carrier allows finer adjustment of the height of the neg carrier, plus the ANG glass flattens the negative. A fiddly setup but worth the effort.

 

[bernard_L]

+1 for vuescan. Some learning curve, worth the effort.
+1 for BetterScanning holder
As concerns the AN glass, i got away cheap by using "antireflection" glass (actually lightly frosted from a framing store, cut to size to fit inside the grooves of the holder. And no, I don't see the glass grain in the scans; ymmv if your glass source is different. Negative facing down, under "AN" glass, (convex) back against glass. Long sides of neg strip caught between glass (gravity) and holder; ends want to move apart from glass surface: use small pieces of adhesive tape there (actually do that before you deposit glass+neg in holder groove). Activate mirror option in scanning or post (neg is "wrong" side up). Use Giotto's rocket blower or canned gas to chase the dust before pressing neg against glass.

 

[John51]

Negative facing down

Is that emulsion side down?

 

[bernard_L]

Is that emulsion side down?

Yes. Reasons: (1) film, not AN glass is last on light path before reaching lens; (2) backside (normally convex) against glass, clamping edges ensures the film lies flat against AN glass surface.
And that is why I state that mirror option must be on.

 

[runswithsizzers]

+1 again for VueScan, with the following observations based on many years use:

For me, the biggest advantages of VueScan are:
- if you have multiple scanners (film, flatbed, etc.), you can use them all with the same VueScan interface (The One App to Rule Them All). No need to learn each propritary software.
- new scanner? No problem, you already know how to use it via the VueScan interface (be sure to never buy a new scanner without first checking for VueScan compatibility; most are, but there are a few exceptions)
- when (not if, but when) the manufacturer of your scanner not longer supports it with updated drivers for newer operating systems, no worries, VueScan will still support your scanners
- reasonable price (and no charge for updates!), excellent support; documentation is pretty good, ('tho some settings can remain somewhat obscure, even after reading the manual)

What's not so great about VueScan
- a lot of options, so bewildering number oof choices and initial learning curve - BUT - you can set your Preferences to show fewer options, AND there is no need to learn all the options; you just need to learn a few (see next)
- to me, it's not worth the time and effort to try to get polished scans directly out of VueScan. Suggest learning just enough settings to capture the maximum amount of information without loss, and do all your contrast and color tweeks in a proper image editor like Lightroom/Photoshop.

 

[MattKing]

One quibble about Vuescan.
The program used to allow you to use its trial version to try out the functionality with negatives or scans. The resulting scans were unusable due to embedded watermarks, but you could still determine whether the functionality with your scanner made sense to you - particularly important for scanners that are no longer supported by the manufacturer.
Unfortunately, now, the trial version only supports scanning prints or documents.
Getting back to the OP's original question - if the OP is buying a new Epson scanner from a retailer, I'd recommend first using the Epson software that comes with it to become familiar with it.
Vuescan adds a lot more fine controls, but if you are going to have just one scanner, it may make more sense to become familiar with the process first.
One further benefit of Vuescan - it includes the tools to create PDFs from scanned originals. I don't know whether the Epson software does that.

 

[4season]

Without more information, I'd suggest starting with Epson's own software as it's free and works well. This is especially true when scanning color negatives, where Epson's software really shines. Vuescan can do color negatives too, but it's various film presets invariably give me images with a strong cyan cast. But having said that, Vuescan offers some advanced features which should allow for very accurate color:

https://www.hamrick.com/vuescan/html/vuesc19.htm#topic13

But it comes at the expense of added cost and complexity. I on the other hand, have discovered that I'm kind of OCD about color, so calibration targets are exactly the sorts of things I want (eagerly awaiting the arrival of Wolf Faust's C1 camera target).

 

[jim10219]

I'd give Epson's software a try first and see if it lacks anything you need. Chances are it'll work fine for you, and be easier to use. Vuescan allows for more control, but is more complicated to use and costs more. It may not be worth it for everyone. And if you decide it is worth it, you can have Vuescan downloaded and installed in just a few minutes. So there's no reason not to give the Epson a try first.

The trick with scanning well has more to do with your technique and workflow than what software you use. It'll take some time to figure out how to do it all, but once you do figure it all out and get a process down that works for you, it's fairly easy to repeat.

 

[craigclu]

My old CanoScan 9950F served my limited usage well enough over the years but the newest Windows at the time wasn't supported by Canon drivers and I was simply going to buy a more modern machine. I discovered that Vuescan supported the scanner so after giving it a try, found that it works very well and once the interface is mastered, it's still quite capable for my scanning duties. The scanner is just "Okay" on film duties but very good at scanning prints and I've got some basic settings in PhotoShop that get me 90% of the way to final results from the scans. Vuescan was an excellent investment in my situation.

 

[Les Sarile]

I agree that if you find an application useful that at the very least you should support it's author by contributing what is asked for.

Regarding Vuescan, many years ago now I tried it with my Coolscan and I recall at that time Ed stating that his implementation of ICE is not exactly the same as Nikonscan due to copyright. I assume that this is still the case today.

Fortunately I have a very distressed example of Kodak 160VC that I scanned using Nikonscan compared to Vuescan.

Noting the color from Nikonscan and Vuescan above, I tried all the Vuescan settings - including it's built-in profile for Kodak 160VC compared to default Nikonscan.

I have not tried a more recent version Vuescan and have just continued to use Nikonscan.

 

[PhilBurton]

One quibble about Vuescan.
The program used to allow you to use its trial version to try out the functionality with negatives or scans. The resulting scans were unusable due to embedded watermarks, but you could still determine whether the functionality with your scanner made sense to you - particularly important for scanners that are no longer supported by the manufacturer.
Unfortunately, now, the trial version only supports scanning prints or documents.

What????? This is news to me, and quite unexpected. Seems counterproductive, and also contrary to the overall industry approach of allowing a reasonable free trial for software that costs more than say $20. "Trust me, I'm Ed Hamrick, and I endorse this software?" I don't think so.

So how can anyone evaluate the Vuescan for scanning film and compare it the software that came with the film scanner, or even Silverfast? And this is not just me being argumentative. I read recently that Vuescan can create DNG RAW files, which gives it a unique capability to change the scanned image output without doing a rescan. Sounds good, but how can I judge how well that works out in practice for me, with my very large collection of Kodachrome slides? And how well will Lightroom work with this DNG? How can I address these concerns without a trial?

Phil Burton

 

[macfred]

I'd give Epson's software a try first and see if it lacks anything you need. Chances are it'll work fine for you, and be easier to use. Vuescan allows for more control, but is more complicated to use and costs more. It may not be worth it for everyone. And if you decide it is worth it, you can have Vuescan downloaded and installed in just a few minutes. So there's no reason not to give the Epson a try first.

The trick with scanning well has more to do with your technique and workflow than what software you use. It'll take some time to figure out how to do it all, but once you do figure it all out and get a process down that works for you, it's fairly easy to repeat.

I totally agree - I'm quite satisfied using Epson software with my V600 (though I definitely would like to try one of those Nikon medium format scanners).

 

[Adrian Bacon]

What????? This is news to me, and quite unexpected. Seems counterproductive, and also contrary to the overall industry approach of allowing a reasonable free trial for software that costs more than say $20. "Trust me, I'm Ed Hamrick, and I endorse this software?" I don't think so.

So how can anyone evaluate the Vuescan for scanning film and compare it the software that came with the film scanner, or even Silverfast? And this is not just me being argumentative. I read recently that Vuescan can create DNG RAW files, which gives it a unique capability to change the scanned image output without doing a rescan. Sounds good, but how can I judge how well that works out in practice for me, with my very large collection of Kodachrome slides? And how well will Lightroom work with this DNG? How can I address these concerns without a trial?

Phil Burton

I can address the LR DNG part of this: DNG is a first class citizen in LR, so as long Vuescan outputs DNG files that are spec compliant, LR will handle it exactly the same as all other compliant DNG files. The DNG spec is freely available and for a technical document actually quite an easy read, and Adobe has tools available that you use to validate if a DNG file is valid, so there’s no reason to think that Vuescan DNG files wouldn’t work with LR. If they didn’t, then it’s a bug that needs fixing in Vuescan.

 

[TheYoungPretender]

What????? This is news to me, and quite unexpected. Seems counterproductive, and also contrary to the overall industry approach of allowing a reasonable free trial for software that costs more than say $20. "Trust me, I'm Ed Hamrick, and I endorse this software?" I don't think so.

So how can anyone evaluate the Vuescan for scanning film and compare it the software that came with the film scanner, or even Silverfast? And this is not just me being argumentative. I read recently that Vuescan can create DNG RAW files, which gives it a unique capability to change the scanned image output without doing a rescan. Sounds good, but how can I judge how well that works out in practice for me, with my very large collection of Kodachrome slides? And how well will Lightroom work with this DNG? How can I address these concerns without a trial?

Phil Burton

I used the trial version for Mac just a week or so ago prior to buying the software. For what it's worth, I had no problems scanning film negatives.

 

[Chan Tran]

I've owned a professional license since 2008.
I've never had to pay for an update - and there has been a lot of incremental updates. I've used it with a number of scanners that are no longer supported by the manufacturer or really anyone else.
I've used it on a number of different computers.
I've had the benefit of Mr. Hamrick's support.
It is reasonably priced and an excellent value, and wouldn't exist if no one paid for it.

I installed the free version of VueScan but do not use it. I use the Konica Minolta software to do the scanning and it makes use of the VueScan driver thus I can use my Dimage Dual Scan IV with Windows 10 and KM software.

 

[MattKing]

I installed the free version of VueScan but do not use it. I use the Konica Minolta software to do the scanning and it makes use of the VueScan driver thus I can use my Dimage Dual Scan IV with Windows 10 and KM software.

What a really good idea!

 

[PhilBurton]

I can address the LR DNG part of this: DNG is a first class citizen in LR, so as long Vuescan outputs DNG files that are spec compliant, LR will handle it exactly the same as all other compliant DNG files. The DNG spec is freely available and for a technical document actually quite an easy read, and Adobe has tools available that you use to validate if a DNG file is valid, so there’s no reason to think that Vuescan DNG files wouldn’t work with LR. If they didn’t, then it’s a bug that needs fixing in Vuescan.

The key here is "so long as Vuescna outputs DNG files that are spec compliant .." That's a big IF. My daytime job for many years was in software product management had two statements that we loved to use:

1. The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from.
2. Standards aren't.

To cite a very relevant example, Nikonscan outputs NEF files that can't be read by Adobe Camera RAW or Lightroom or Photoshop. Only some Nikon software can process such NEFs.

The only way to be sure that Vuescan DNGs can be read by Lightroom is to create a DNG in Vuescan and then to process it in Lightroom. A claim for standards compliance is now more than a a promise that must be verified.

Phil Burton

 

[PhilBurton]

I used the trial version for Mac just a week or so ago prior to buying the software. For what it's worth, I had no problems scanning film negatives.

Ok, that's good to know. And that makes me feel better about considering Vuescan.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

The key here is "so long as Vuescna outputs DNG files that are spec compliant .." That's a big IF. My daytime job for many years was in software product management had two statements that we loved to use:

1. The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from.
2. Standards aren't.

To cite a very relevant example, Nikonscan outputs NEF files that can't be read by Adobe Camera RAW or Lightroom or Photoshop. Only some Nikon software can process such NEFs.

The only way to be sure that Vuescan DNGs can be read by Lightroom is to create a DNG in Vuescan and then to process it in Lightroom. A claim for standards compliance is now more than a a promise that must be verified.

Phil Burton

My point was that vuescan has supported writing raw DNG files for a while now. If they didn’t work in LR, then surely someone, somewhere would have brought it up with the author, who could very easily fix whatever the issue was.

Also, being somebody who has actually written code that outputs DNG files, I can tell you that DNG files are in fact TIFF files with a couple of TIFF meta info tags to indicate that it is a DNG file. If the author of Vuescan can’t make usable DNG files, then he also can’t make usable TIFF files because they are the same with the exception of a couple of meta tags. Vuescan also supports writing out raw TIFF files and they work great. To make that a DNG, you just add the meta tags and change the file extension. From a programming perspective, it is overwhelmingly trivial to add DNG output support if you’re already doing TIFF files.

 

[PhilBurton]

My point was that vuescan has supported writing raw DNG files for a while now. If they didn’t work in LR, then surely someone, somewhere would have brought it up with the author, who could very easily fix whatever the issue was.

Also, being somebody who has actually written code that outputs DNG files, I can tell you that DNG files are in fact TIFF files with a couple of TIFF meta info tags to indicate that it is a DNG file. If the author of Vuescan can’t make usable DNG files, then he also can’t make usable TIFF files because they are the same with the exception of a couple of meta tags. Vuescan also supports writing out raw TIFF files and they work great. To make that a DNG, you just add the meta tags and change the file extension. From a programming perspective, it is overwhelmingly trivial to add DNG output support if you’re already doing TIFF files.

OK, sounds good. But too many times I've heard someone say, "It's just a simple matter of programming." Forgive me for being skeptical. Nothing works until I can see that it works. Vendor claims are just a starting point for doing tests, nothing more. I also know from reading that Vuescan captures the IR channel as part of its RAW file, so that you can process a Vuescan file post-scan with or without dust removal. I am not yet familiar with all the details, but I will be when I do evaluations. So the issue here is whether or not this IR channel data is accessible to Lightroom, which would be a huge point in favor of Vuescan, or not. Or at the very least, that it doesn't screw up Lightroom.

Phil Burton

 

[MattKing]

FWIW, I see now that Vuescan appears to allow access to two different trial versions.
The first - the trial version of Vuescan Standard - does not permit you to use it for negative or slide scanning. Vuescan Standard is cheaper, and only includes one year of updates.
The second - the trial version of Vuescan Professional - includes a bunch of other functions, including negative or slide scanning. Vuescan Professional is more expensive, and updates in perpetuity.
My earlier post was based on my observations made when Vuescan changed - prior to the change, Vuescan Standard permitted negative or slide scanning.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

OK, sounds good. But too many times I've heard someone say, "It's just a simple matter of programming." Forgive me for being skeptical. Nothing works until I can see that it works. Vendor claims are just a starting point for doing tests, nothing more.

Fair enough. Totally get where you're coming from.

I also know from reading that Vuescan captures the IR channel as part of its RAW file, so that you can process a Vuescan file post-scan with or without dust removal. I am not yet familiar with all the details, but I will be when I do evaluations. So the issue here is whether or not this IR channel data is accessible to Lightroom, which would be a huge point in favor of Vuescan, or not. Or at the very least, that it doesn't screw up Lightroom.

Lightroom doesn't have the slightest concept of what Digital ICE is, so the IR channel would be quite pointless in LR. I figured it'd be helpful to you so I pulled up my copy of Vuescan and scanned a blank area as if it was a transparency into a raw DNG file then inspected the meta-data (below). It creates a DNG file with 4 16 bit samples per pixel, one of those samples I'm assuming is the IR channel. Looking at the meta-data, it puts Linear Raw as the photometric interpretation so there's no gamma correction happening to the samples, and the raw samples are ranged from 0 to 65535, so it appears to literally be a raw dump off the scanner driver. It also puts the color matrix for the scanner in (nice touch), and the color balance XY coordinates of the scanner's light source (even nicer). If you look down at the bottom of the list, you'll see that's it's outputting a DNG version 1.1 file, which is literally a lowest common denominator version. Pretty much anything that supports DNG should be able to read this file with no problems, especially given that the current version of the spec is 1.4.

I then pulled the file into LR, and.... it imported it just fine. You don't see the 4th sample and LR just ignores it and behaves as if it's just isn't there, otherwise, it works exactly as I'd expect it to. You can go into the develop module, change the WB, exposure, pretty much do everything that you can do with any other DNG file.

----

F018985040D3:flat_bed_scans adrianbacon$ exiftool -a raw0001.dng
ExifTool Version Number : 11.11
File Name : raw0001.dng
Directory : .
File Size : 2.2 GB
File Modification Date/Time : 2019:04:22 20:33:30-07:00
File Access Date/Time : 2019:04:22 20:33:32-07:00
File Inode Change Date/Time : 2019:04:22 20:33:30-07:00
File Permissions : rw-r--r--
File Type : DNG
File Type Extension : dng
MIME Type : image/x-adobe-dng
Exif Byte Order : Little-endian (Intel, II)
Subfile Type : Reduced-resolution image
Image Width : 254
Image Height : 164
Bits Per Sample : 8 8 8
Compression : Uncompressed
Photometric Interpretation : RGB
Make : Epson
Camera Model Name : PerfectionV800
Strip Offsets : (Binary data 43 bytes, use -b option to extract)
Orientation : Horizontal (normal)
Samples Per Pixel : 3
Rows Per Strip : 43
Strip Byte Counts : 32766 32766 32766 26670
X Resolution : 76
Y Resolution : 76
Planar Configuration : Chunky
Page Name : Transparency
Resolution Unit : inches
Software : VueScan 9 x64 (9.6.23)
Subfile Type : Full-resolution Image
Image Width : 21416
Image Height : 13858
Bits Per Sample : 16 16 16 16
Compression : Uncompressed
Photometric Interpretation : Linear Raw
Fill Order : Normal
Strip Offsets : (Binary data 145946 bytes, use -b option to extract)
Samples Per Pixel : 4
Rows Per Strip : 1
Strip Byte Counts : (Binary data 97005 bytes, use -b option to extract)
Min Sample Value : 0 0 0 0
Max Sample Value : 65535 65535 65535 65535
X Resolution : 6400
Y Resolution : 6400
Planar Configuration : Chunky
Resolution Unit : inches
Create Date : 2019:04:22 20:33:30
DNG Version : 1.1.0.0
Unique Camera Model : Epson PerfectionV800
Color Matrix 1 : 3.255101204 -1.546555281 -0.502679944 -0.2098100632 1.381169438 -0.1668915898 0.1249030605 -0.15564619 0.9521815777 0 1 0
Reduction Matrix 1 : 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0
As Shot White XY : 0.3127000034 0.3289999962
Baseline Noise : 64
Image Size : 21416x13858
Megapixels : 296.8