- Epson 3200 with Vuescan
- Posted by David R on October 27th, 2003
I have long been a Vuescan supporter and still am. At work I use it
with my HP 7450 for reasons of being faster and colors being better
than the HP software that came with it.
Now at home I own an Epson 3200 and I scan medium format negatives
(b&w). I have found that the Vuescan is agonizingly slow where as the
Epson and Silverfast software are fast. As for the output quality I
find that they are comparable with Vuescan just slightly better.
If you own the 3200 and use Vuescan I am interested in what you
experiences have been.
I think this is a sign that the manufacturer is actually paying
attention to the competition (Vuescan). This is a good thing.
My scans are at 3200 dpi (B&W) with a P4 1.5 with 768RAM, USB 2.0 and
saving to TIFF. The resulting file size can be as large as 150MB.
- Posted by Ed Hamrick on October 27th, 2003
"David R" <drietow@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hmm, I didn't realize that there was a speed difference.
It's possible that the Epson and Silverfast software aren't
varying the CCD exposure time according to the density of the
negatives. You might try experimenting with setting
"Input|Lock exposure" and seeing if setting "Input|RGB exposure"
to 1.0 makes it scan as fast as the Epson and Silverfast
software.
Have you tried both Firewire and USB? It's possible that
VueScan is using 48-bit scans and the Epson and Silverfast
software are using 24-bit scans, and USB might be a bottleneck
in this case.
It's also possible that VueScan is scanning at 48-bit resolution
where the Epson and Silverfast software are scanning at 16-bit
resolution. I looked at the VueScan source code, and I'm pretty
sure it will scan at 16-bit resolution if "Input|Media type" is
set properly, but I could verify this if you send me a vuescan.log
file (a small one, of a scan of a small bit of the film).
Regards,
Ed Hamrick
- Posted by David R on October 28th, 2003
The word "agonizingly slow" is a relative term. We all want thing
better, bigger, faster. Glad to see you are still listening. I will
take your advice and examine this point and then report back my
findings.
Aloha
"Ed Hamrick" <usenet@hamrick.com> wrote in message news:<bniq6p$t6r$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com>...
- Posted by David R on October 28th, 2003
OK I finished my test before my last posting got through. Here are my
findings using Epson direct save to file, Silverfast SE through
Photoshop, and Vuewscan 7.6.64.
Scanning Properties
BW Negative, w3.72" x h4.64", 3200dpi, 16bit Grayscale, No filters,
Tiff file (16bit grayscale in Vuescan), No compression. My hardware
is P4 1.5, 768RAM, 6GIG free, USB 2.0
Vuescan 7.6.64
15.09 minutes to scan. File size 345,333KB, Quality was Excellent!
Epson 1.20a
5.59 minutes to scan. File size 345,057KB, Quality was Excellent!
Silverfast
9.21 minutes to scan. File size 170,513, Quality was Washed Out.
I gauged the time by the time I clicked start to the time I gained
controle of the program. Vuewscan took about the same time for the
scanner (as epson) but the processing of the TIFF file took another 10
minutes. Silverfast runs via Photoshop so the saving of the file was
not calculated.
I would be happy to test again if you have suggestions.
"Ed Hamrick" <usenet@hamrick.com> wrote in message news:<bniq6p$t6r$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com>...
- Posted by Ed Hamrick on October 28th, 2003
"David R" <drietow@hotmail.com> wrote:
The file size is about right, but you might double-check that
"Output|TIFF compression" is turned off. This will lengthen the
output time.
You might make sure "Input|Rotation" is set to "None". If
rotated, it will thrash the CPU cache.
You might also check the memory utilization of VueScan before
you start the scan and after you start the scan. If it goes up
by 350 MBytes, then it's working properly, but if it goes up
by 1 GByte or more, then there's a bug in VueScan that I need
to fix.
Lastly, you might set "Output|Output raw file", and save the
scans as raw files. You can then work directly with the raw
files later. The writing of the raw files is overlapped with
the scanning, so it should go as fast as the scan itself.
Regards,
Ed Hamrick
- Posted by BCampbell on October 31st, 2003
I looked at the VueScan source code, and I'm pretty
I hope this isn't a really dumb question but what is the proper "Input/Media
type setting for scanning black and white negatives in 16 bit?
"Ed Hamrick" <usenet@hamrick.com> wrote in message
news:bniq6p$t6r$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...
- Posted by Ed Hamrick on November 1st, 2003
"BCampbell" <chickenlittle@theskyisfalling.net> wrote:
"B/W negative"
Regards,
Ed Hamrick
- Posted by BCampbell on November 2nd, 2003
So it was a really dumb question. : - ) Thanks.
"Ed Hamrick" <usenet@hamrick.com> wrote in message
news:bo00m8$r35$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...
- Posted by David R on November 5th, 2003
I thought it was a great question really. I just don't think it was
answered with much thought into the type of person asking it.
Actually I'm the kind of person that has wanted to ask that kind of
questions.
Here are my questions. If I am scanning a B&W negative do I need to?
1. Do I need to define my "Bits per pixel"?
2. Do I need to worry about "Filters"?
3. What does it matter if I'm saving to a TIFF file and I don't define
my "Tiff file type"?
4. My negatives are so old that I only presume they are Kodak. What
does it matter if I don't specify the film make and all those other
film questions?
"BCampbell" <chickenlittle@theskyisfalling.net> wrote in message news:<577dd8e7986bac3eddd0ea28031279ed@news.1usene t.com>...
