|
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 03:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 14:48 |
|
|
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 21:46 on Apr 19, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2011 21:38
|
|
|
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 04:54
|
|
|
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 02:22
|
|
|
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 02:58
|
|
|
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 23:19
|
|
|
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 20:40 on Jul 17, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2011 20:23
|
|
|
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 06:49
|
|
|
Good deal if nothing's wrong it it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2011 23:59
|
|
|
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 22:38
|
|
|
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 02:52
|
|
|
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 21:40
|
|
|
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 22:22 on Oct 7, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2011 21:50
|
|
|
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 21:54
|
|
|
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 15:03
|
|
|
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 08:00
|
|
|
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 20:57 on May 23, 2012 |
|
#
¿
May 23, 2012 20:49
|
|
|
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 21:20
|
|
|
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 03:57
|
|
|
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 16:01
|
|
|
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/computing/peripherals/scanners/scansnap/scansnap-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 18:43
|
|
|
Chill Callahan posted:I recently found a Polaroid SprintScan 4000 Plus at a Goodwill for $20. It's a surprisingly capable 35mm film scanner. Although it was released sometime around 2001, it outputs through USB and FireWire pretty quickly. It says it can do 4000 DPI, but the software just resamples a 2000 DPI scan. It's pretty unavoidable. You're basically seeing static in the ADC, the signal is weak compared to the noise. It's gotten better with modern scanners, even consumer units have a wider DMAX than older pro scanners. I have a Polaroid SprintScan 45 Ultra. Same deal, it outputs a higher resolution than my V500 will (real-world) but it's a little noisier. So far I've just turned chroma noise reduction on in Lightroom and it's been OK. I usually don't use mine because it only takes mounted slides or individually-cut negatives, which are a loving pain to handle, so I mostly just do 4x5. I really like it otherwise, it's the achilles' heel of the whole damned system. One approach is the double exposure thing. To be honest I haven't been able to get improvements using that. Maybe I need to be using the positive-reversal technique instead of the negative mode or something. Another way is the multipass option. Theoretically if you stack a dozen of the same exposures the noise cancels out and the image is strengthened, but it didn't work for me either.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2013 20:32
|
|
|
This is probably a good place to mention that the only SCSI card that works under windows 7 seems to be the Adaptec AHA-2940 (other letters mean different versions of SCSI, check your cable). If any of you want to use one of the ScanDuals or something, but don't have a legacy machine and don't want to shell out $100 for a converter, that's pretty much your only option. Also the drivers don't ship with Windows 7. There were drivers in Vista that worked, they also work under 7, but they didn't ship them. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 01:40 on Aug 7, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2013 00:43
|
|
|
Vuescan is a piece of poo poo. I have no idea what it's doing 3/4 of the time, particularly when any sort of automatic cropping is enabled. It also has random-rear end bugs like that all the time. I couldn't get it to work at all on Linux. Dude needs to hire himself a UI specialist to clean up that loving mess and let him concentrate on cleaning up his core comm-library and image manipulation code. It's a lot cheaper than Silverfast though, and those are your choices for keeping old scanners running.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2013 01:37
|
|
|
rcman50166 posted:I have a friend who looking into getting a film negative scanner. I looked at the first post and it looks like this thread was born at the seat of the OP's pants. So there isn't any info there. I am skimming through the thread, but in case there is an already accepted scanner that the Dorkroom recommends, that would save me a ton of time. I think all she uses is 35mm. Epson V500 or V600 or a dedicated film scanner made by a company with an actual reputation (something like a Minolta ScanDual)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2013 23:26
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:The D has a 3 element single coated lens so shooting into light is not a recommended practice. The D could also come equipped with a Tessar. My first TLR was a D with a Tessar, I sold it to someone on here a couple years ago.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2013 21:56
|
|
|
Baron Dirigible posted:Thanks, that's actually not too far off some of my scans. Keep Unsharp Mask off during the scan. Use Lightroom or something to sharpen it afterwards, it's probably got a better sharpening algorithm anyway. To avoid artifacts, USM is best applied as the very last step in the process.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
ZippySLC posted:Because then they'd have to design an insert or special holder for 645, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9, etc. Well, you could design the edge of the holder with a zipper-like tooth pattern and then just give the user a half dozen loose crossbars that lock into the teeth, so you could move the bars wherever. Or some kind of friction-fit piece that is locked in by the top of the holder. Or non-NR glass like the Betterscanning holder. At the end of the day it's just not a design priority for scanner companies. Out of all the people who buy the scanner, how many will never scan film in the first place? How many will just scan some old family photos from 35mm negatives a couple times? They don't know whether the film holder sucks or not. Now, how many will scan medium format film, and be technical enough to know that they're getting film bowing? And is pissing off those people worth the cost of giving every single customer a better medium format film holder? And of course the serious pros are using real film scanners, not a $100 flatbed. Or at the least they're buying the V700 or something. There's solutions that could be done. But overall it's probably better for Epson just to let that 1% of their user base deal with it than to really solve it. There's still Betterscanning holders if you really want to spend $100 in improvements on a $100 scanner. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 01:35 on Jul 1, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2014 01:32
|
|
|
Genderfluid posted:Is this bad for glass or something? I've never heard anything like that Ammonia can dissolve the coatings off glass and melt or fog some kinds of plastic and it's volatile. Generally it's a no-no near photographic equipment of any kind.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2014 07:07
|
|
|
TheLastManStanding posted:Turn it off, clean the glass (especially the area near the hinge), turn it on. Better Scans With One Weird Tip From This Neckbeard! Epson Techs Hate Him!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2014 02:15
|
|
|
Pretty much the one weird quirk of the Epson scanners.KosherNostra posted:I've had a V600 for years and never really put it to the test after getting frustrated with results and the software. I thought it was great at handling slide film though, wish I shot more just for the ease of scanning it compared to negatives. But I'm going to give it another shot and try to archive all my negs. For someone who just got Vuescan are there any recommended tutorials? Not sure the differences to begin with even when it comes to scanning 35 instead of 120 with the v600 I use negative mode (  ) and just try to find a profile that looks semi correct for a film, or do the film profiling thingy. For each image, I then tweak the white and black points till everything's in the scan, then tweak the contrast and brightness until it looks sorta OK. Then you correct it in lightroom. If you use the "RAW" mode that outputs an unprocessed 16-bit TIFF positive.I've never played around with scanning multiple negatives at the same time in Vuescan. BANME.sh posted:Does anyone use the film profiles in VueScan, and how do you prefer them vs. doing your own color corrections? I actually seem to prefer the Canon software for my 4870 over VueScan, and I've tweaked the auto color correction settings just enough that they don't clip anything by default. I find it gets me closer to my own manual color corrections a lot quicker, and I only need to do a few minor white balance tweaks in the end. Generating my own base color correction is Plan A, clicking aimlessly through the list until one matches is Plan B, manually loving with color settings until I get bored and use Epson Scan instead is plan C. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 02:34 on Sep 19, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2014 02:21
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:I was actually thinking about this a few weeks back. What are people's thoughts on bringing film scans into Lightroom to edit them? At this stage, whenever I scan with an Epson V-whatever, I'm treating my negative film as exactly that: a negative that needs heavy processing, something I previously would have only thought of when shooting B&W. Yeah, absolutely. The idealized goal of making a scan is a lot like the process of making a negative. In theory you're mostly trying to make sure everything is in the scan and then you worry about making it perfect later when you're working in a real image editing application. In practice I generally try to do that as much as possible, but some negatives start looking really flat if you squeeze absolutely everything on there. In those cases I usually give up on the very edges of the histogram and try to feed Lightroom something semi-reasonable. Theoretically Lightroom should be able to handle really flat scans, but unless it's an image I really care about it's probably not worth the effort.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
Spedman posted:What it did to skies always blew me away, here's some crappy scans from 2010: That's probably just good exposure control and contrast, so the exposure hits the film's dynamic range right. My Stylus Epic is really good at doing that too, here's a random snaps on some random film (probably Fuji 200):    
Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 17:26 on Oct 23, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2014 17:20
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:So, how high-end do you have to go to get a scanner that actually reproduces fine detail from 35mm negatives? My Epson v550 does well enough for checking exposure & focus, and sharing on platforms like Instagram, but right now if I find a good keeper I have to take it to the local camera store to get a high-res scan. I'd bet they use some kind of commercial-grade equipment. Whatever it is, it gives very good results- close to a modern DSLR in detail level. I'm personally not a fan of the DSLR approach. Too slow and/or too much chance of damaging the negatives. Flatbeds are always going to be kinda poo poo at 35mm but dedicated 35mm scanners are pretty accessible. Maybe something like the Minolta ScanDual IV? Filmscanner.info puts the V600 (functionally the same as a V500) at 1560 real ppi, a V700 or V750 at 2300 ppi, and a ScanDual IV at 3100 ppi. http://www.filmscanner.info/en/EpsonPerfectionV600Photo.html http://www.filmscanner.info/en/EpsonPerfectionV700Photo.html http://www.filmscanner.info/en/EpsonPerfectionV750Pro.html http://www.filmscanner.info/MinoltaDimageScanDual4.html Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 21:54 on May 24, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 24, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 14:48 |
|
|
I'd like to get a size-accurate scan of a small object (a rangefinder cam as below). Think it would work if I slapped it on a scanner bed alongside a nickel and using the nickel's diameter to get a relative diameter for the hole in the RF cam?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2016 20:05
|
|