Re: filmscanners: VueScan 6.5 Available

[EdHamrick@aol.com]

In a message dated 1/29/2001 2:13:27 PM EST, michael@shaffer.net writes:

> I need to admit a bit of confusion regarding Ed's conventions for new
>  versions.  They are his own of course, but if I were to make a
>  suggestion it would be to update the 2nd digit whenever, he changes
>  how the primary scan is measured, exposed, or scanned.

There's seldom anything I do that changes the raw scan file.  The
long exposure pass could possibly be considered something that
changes raw scan files, but not really.

I once had a boss who got tired of the 1.1.a2.pre-beta types of
long hierarchical version naming conventions that some 
companies use, and he laid down a rule - software versions
were to be integers, and every new version, no matter how minor,
got a new version number.  This worked surprisingly well.

I'd be the first to admit that there isn't much logic behind which
digit I increment.  In my own mind, when I'm particularly pleased
with the new features I've added I increment the second digit.
This is usually about 80 hours worth of work.  I worked 10 days
straight, some days till 3 in the morning, getting the new
"Options|Restore colors" feature working.  It's quite a subtle
new feature, but it works surprisingly well.

My next big bit of work is to add better grain removal and
dust removal.  I found some references to Sigma filters
on the web that look very promising along with another
type of filter that should work very well.  I'll roll the second
digit when I get this done.

I'll roll the first digit if I make significant user interface
changes.

Regards,
Ed Hamrick