After updating to v8.3.56 I can no longer scan to 4000 dpi.
What I get when I set it at 4000 is the dpi for the preview setting!
If I set the preview scan to 4000 dpi I do then get 4000 dpi along with
a double exposure!
I have written Hamrick twice put no response, and I'm a paid user.

Any ideas? Is there anyone who has v8.3.55 or knows where I can get it?
For a Macintosh OSX

William John Smith wrote:

I have experienced the same behavior using one of the previous version of
VueScan with Canon FS4000US under Windows XP. The problem cleared up by itself
after restarting VueScan. Through my entire history with VueScan I always
noticed that the first runs of a freshly installed version are very likely to
show some erratic and unpredictable behavior that goes away later (after one or
two restarts of VueScan). Probably caused by possible conflicts between the new
version of the program and settings left behind by the old one. Maybe you should
consider a clean re-install for VueScan (I don't know how to do it on Mac).

--
Best regards,
Andrey Tarasevich

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 04:28:54 GMT, William John Smith
<william@greenlion.net> wrote:

That seems to happen all the time. After he gets the money he ignores
all complaints.

There are some (very few) Mac users around here but it seems everyone
is on vacation these days.

I remember reading here that some older versions are available i.e.
archived at various sites but, unfortunately, don't remember where
(I'm not a Vuescan user).

Try searching the archives of this group for these messages or,
failing, that just google for <older version> + "archive". It's a long
shot, but you never know...

I just did a quick search I(old version Vuescan archive) and:
http://www.versiontracker.com/
looks promising (try posting in the message board).

BTW - you probably don't want to hear this ;o) - but this happens all
the time. Seriously, though, one should never delete a "working"
version of Vuescan but just rename the folder. That's because Vuescan
is notoriously buggy and unreliable. A reputable software
manufacturer would have an archive with older versions on their site.
Actually, a reputable manufacturer would not release such buggy
versions in the first place. :-(

Anyway, good luck!

Don.

Hey Don's back. Does this mean more flame wars in this group?

No, this is clearly the fake Don, so we're fine ; )

Andre C wrote:

Predictably, none of the (rabid) Vuescan users actually bothered to
even try to help a fellow Vuescan user in need.

Don did.

And yet they always find the time to shoot arrows at Don which is to
them, apparently, much more important than constructive messages.

Makes one think, doesn't it? Or not, as the case may be...

Either way it shows the true nature of both Don and his rabid critics.

Don.

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 21:24:42 +0100, Andre C <webmaster@aol.com> wrote:

Don never left.

That depends on the (rabid) Vuescan "fans" because Don never engages
in flame wars. The (rabid) Vuescan "fans" do that all by themselves.

Indeed, the more Don ignores them, the more rabid they get.

Don.

On 26 Jul 2006 18:47:46 -0700, "Roger S." <rsmith02@gmail.com> wrote:

Are you sure ? It sounds like the original Don to me. He has been
helpful and non-offensive lately. Let's hope it lasts.

It certainly would be helpful if someone could provide an archive of
Vuescan releases. I kept them quite a while ago but don't now.

--
Steven

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 12:38:49 +0200, Don <phoney.email@yahoo.com>
wrote:

I'm not a rabit Vuescan user. I just find it amusing to read the flame
wars Don and his posse of followers create each time someone asks a
meaningful queastion. I might even go so far as to say I have missed
them for their entertainment value alone.

I agree with "Don's" advice here- don't delete versions of Vuescan as
you'll never know if the next version is an improvement.
I've found googling for versions of Vuescan to work well, too. Some
sites are slower to update to the latest version.
This bug is absurd, and for your sake I hope it gets fixed soon.

Don wrote:

Yes, Ed Hamrick seems to ignore all complaints, but
he does seem to fix most problems that get reported.

VueScan 8.3.57 reportedly fixes the
problem you reported:

What's new in version 8.3.57

Reduced CPU utilization on some systems
Fixed problem with display sometimes going blank
Fixed problem with LS-9000 at 4000 dpi
Fixed extra auto-focus on some PIE slide scanners
Fixed image flipping on some PIE infrared scans
Added support for buttons on Epson 1670

I'm impressed at how good his customer support is,
since no other vendor I know of is so responsive
to customer bug reports.

As far as being "reputable", Ed Hamrick seems to have
a very good reputation, judging from google searches
I've done.

Don

"Don" <phoney.email@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7bffc29ircq2dnar8c87177vaound359f4@4ax.com...

Don wrote:
Hmm, then why is cropping still seriously messed up after 1 year of bug
reports? (I first reported problems in July 2005 and am still seeing
similar problems. I now scan with cropping set to "maximum" so as to
avoid this entirely)

I'm guessing that you haven't sent Ed Hamrick enough information
so he can reproduce your problem. Every time I report a problem
to him, he gets pedantic and sends me a form letter saying what he
needs to reproduce a problem (and in fairness, I often don't send
enough information and I forget that he doesn't know what
operating system I'm using or what scanner I'm using).

Raw scan files seem to be his favorite way to reproduce problems
like cropping problems, and the cropping has gotten much, much
better in the past year.

On a positive note, once he reproduces a problem, he seems
to fix it quickly.

Don

"Roger S." <rsmith02@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1154024375.591202.131830@b28g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...

Andre C wrote:
The correct spelling is "rabbit". You missed a 'b'

--
Best regards,
Andrey Tarasevich

Don wrote:
Your guess would be wrong.
I've always provided the scanner and Vuescan version info, workflow
details/RAW scans, etc that he asked for and tried out the "fixed"
versions. The cropping problem has morphed over the past year, but not
gone away. The original cropping problem (going back to at least 2004
when I bought a scanner) was that the cropping lines in the preview
were often a bit off. The current problem has to do with if you move
the crop lines in preview, you get a scan with one side lopped off (no
the preview doesn't look like that).
The "maximum" workaround is good enough for me at the point as I think
"Don's" advice to do as little in Vuescan as possible is fundamentally
sound. For negatives, I now scan with color balance set to "none" and
cropping at maximum and work on the 16 bit Tiffs in Photoshop using
preset curves.

The cropping worked well enough pre-summer 2005. IR cleaning also went
south at that time on my scanner, but has since improved somewhat. I
don't think he has many Canon FS4000US users, and he does not seem to
have this scanner, so I get to be the reprentative bug tester.

I will agree that he's fixed a number of other bugs I've reported (IR
artifacts, scan rotation bug...) Whether you think that's good and a
sign of responsiveness, or bad that users have to report so many bugs
is up to you.

In message <12cia894jf9l08@news.supernews.com>, Andrey Tarasevich
<andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> writes
No, it's 'rabid'. Rabbit is a small furry rodent.

--
Surfer!
Email to: ramwater at uk2 dot net

How long has he been working on your latest problem
report? Or have you not reported the latest problems
to him?

I'm guessing that you've just given up on reporting
problems to him. From my experience, he only works
on problems that he can duplicate, and if nobody
reports a problem with enough detail for him to
duplicate, it never gets fixed.

Don

"Roger S." <rsmith02@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1154039712.944204.258290@i3g2000cwc.googlegro ups.com...

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 16:49:22 +0100, Andre C <webmaster@aol.com> wrote:

I didn't say you were. If you were I wouldn't even respond because I
don't engage in pointless name calling.

Yes, it's both sad and wasteful. Especially since there's nothing
controversial in what Don writes. Just simple objective facts.

Don.

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 21:09:38 +1000, Steven Saunderson <phelum@Syd.au>
wrote:

Roger was just kidding. However, the fake "Don" did resurface albeit
much more subdued than last time.

Getting clobbered does that to bullies! ;o)

Then you haven't been reading original Don's messages.

Original Don is always helpful and never offensive.

You yourself have benefited from original Don's advice in the past, as
can be read in the archives.

It's only some (rabid) VueScan "fans" and obsessive Don's "critics"
who specialize in being offensive and not contributing anything.

Don.

On 27 Jul 2006 11:19:35 -0700, "Roger S." <rsmith02@gmail.com> wrote:

Uh-oh! Careful, Roger! Objective and substantiated criticism of
Vuescan will only make him accuse you of being a Don's pseudonym. ;o)

Don.