It must be me, but I find the Vuescan interface quite good. Initially it
seemed odd but within a matter of a few hours it all seemed rather slick.
Granted it doesn't have some of the normal features found on many
manufacturers software or the ultimate flexibility of Silverfast. Pretty
windows are not the be all and end all of a good interface. In the good old
days (pre-Microsoft) Autoroute(UK) was really slick to use - it's never been
nearly as good since they ditched DOS and added a Windows front end and
bloody wizards.
With Vuescan the best trick is the ability to redo the last preview and scan
in memory. It saves me several minutes each time I do it compared to a
re-scan with other software. I don't suppose rescanning is much good for the
film either. You can effectively rescan (without actually physically
scanning) with different settings for nearly everything except resolution,
focus, exposure (and multi-pass scan?) - most of which you never change
unless you change the image you're scanning.
If I want to try several options I turn the file output off and change the
options in the colour tab (sometimes filter too) and rescan the memory until
I get the desired result. When I'm happy I turn the file output back on.
The main things to tweak seem to be "gamma" and "image brightness". I
invariably use white balance auto black (0) and white (0.01) point. If all
else fails I try restore colours (only works with scans not previews). If I
still can't get a result I try Silverfast but I generally find I can't get
as good a result with Silverfast. Presumably the operator is deffective!
The file numbering scheme I quite like. I just let everything default to
CROPnnnn.TIF in C:\Vuescan. I do a film at a time - ensure there are no old
crop files. Only do one final scan (with output) or delete dodgy output or
rename with a "a" added before doing a second "scan mem". If you have some
really duff images add in a few blank dummy files. This will make sure the
crop numbers match the numbers on the film/slide. Seems perfectly logical to
me. Add an text,excel,database index to give the images names works great.
Personally I set up an autorun to produce a set of low resolution jpegs for
each file and then just scan these to find the required image.
Even the cropping seems to work quite well. Originally I used the auto
cropping but I found this to be a bit of a pain as you then had to then crop
it in Photoshop which I have never found any better. I orientate it and crop
it at the same time and that leaves less to do with the enormous 16bit files
that are so slow to use.
Yes the interface is unusual but once you work with the program, instead of
against it, I am sure you will find it all falls into place quite nicely.
It seems strange to me that Nikon (to name but one) can produce a digicam
that will usually automatically produce a good white balance (and histogram)
on a positively retarded processing unit, but can't do it on a 1GHz 512MB
PC. After all ultimately a digicam is in most respects a scaled down
portable scanner with a low spec in built computer.
Steve
PS. I don't want some long protracted argument over whether a digicam is
like a scanner. My point is they use a lens, a CCD, an A->D converter and a
computer to convert a physical image into a digital image. Given the vastly
superior processing power available to most film scanners they should be
capable of much better AUTOMATIC results. This is what Vuescan does so well.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Johnny Deadman" <john@pinkheadedbug.com>
To: "Filmscanners" <Filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2001 4:16 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Re: Vuescan gripes
> on 7/19/01 9:51 PM, Roger Smith at rsmith@unb.ca wrote:
>
> > I'm inclined to agree with Dean - I seem to be able to avoid
> > most of VueScan's quirks, and admittedly there are more on the Mac
> > than on the PC. Ed has explained any of them that I have asked him
> > about, and he continues to improve things.
>
> yeah but you guys miss the point
>
> it's not either/or
>
> it should be both/and
>
> Vuescan has a wonderful engine but a TERRIBLE, AWFUL interface
>
> quite literally the worst of *any* app I have on my HD with the possible
> exception of the panotools ptstitcher, but it's close
>
> (and that's about 10G of them)
>
> think how many more Ed would sell if it had a KILLER interface
>
> how much nicer life would be
>
> and how little effort it would take
>
>
> --
> John Brownlow
>
>
>
> ICQ: 109343205
>
>
