> I can even live without a
> histogram.
I'm shocked that 1) Viewscan doesn't have a histogram, and 2) that you can
live without it!
I get around all of these problems by not using these features in VueScan:
- I never have used the crop box. Probably a carryover from when the Mac
version did not have it.
- Tried to use folders once. Now I just leave the images in VueScan's
folder and manually move them afterwards.
- I always
on 7/19/01 5:45 PM, Austin Franklin at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> I can even live without a
>> histogram.
>
> I'm shocked that 1) Viewscan doesn't have a histogram, and 2) that you can
> live without it!
Vuescan, Austin. Vuescan. Repeat after me. V-U-E-S-C-A-N
as for the histogram I set black
At 05:45 PM 7/19/01 -0400, Austin wrote:
[someone else:}
>> I can even live without a
>> histogram.
[Austin:]
>I'm shocked that 1) Viewscan doesn't have a histogram, and 2) that you can
>live without it!
Ayup. I still wonder why Vuescan is so revered by so many.
Earlier versions didn't even h
he preview. Or am
I missing something?
Alex Pardi
-Original Message-
From: Austin Franklin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: giovedì 19 luglio 2001 23.46
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Vuescan gripes
> I can even live without a
> histogram.
I'm shocked that 1)
>Me too. Having a LS-30 I badly need Vuescan as it's the only way to extract
>10 bits rather than 8, and it's really a waste of time having to make a real
>scan to check if the exposure is correct (no clipping at the high and low
>ends), rather than simply looking at the histogram after the previe
In a message dated 7/20/2001 9:50:04 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
> Me too. Having a LS-30 I badly need Vuescan as it's the only way to extract
> 10 bits rather than 8, and it's really a waste of time having to make a
real
> scan to check if the exposure is correct (no clipping at the hi
In a message dated 7/20/2001 10:23:26 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Because I frequently use the 16x multisample option and
> always scan in 16-bit mode, this means I sometimes spend as much as an hour
> on each image, which is a major PITA. Still, the results I get from it,
> despite t
exact version
of Vuescan I'm using (I'm in the office, now), but I downloaded it less than
a month ago.
Thanks, Alex
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: venerdì 20 luglio 2001 17.42
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Vuesc
In a message dated 7/20/2001 12:25:52 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
> Actually this is what I experienced: B&W film (TMax 100 or 400, don't
> remember), auto-exposure, defaults settings: the histogram of the raw file
> had almost nothing in the lower half. I rescanned with manual exposure
>All other things can be re-done by pressing the "Scan mem."
>button, making it unnecessary to _ever_ scan the same piece
>of film twice.
Including manual exposure adjustments and/or a long exposure pass? With my
shots from Lower Antelope Canyon, I find I get slightly better results by
tweaking
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Has anyone ever seen a case where the "Device|Auto exposure"
> option doesn't work optimally?
Yes, but only on images which were generally hopelessly underexposed.
Autoexposure often fails on night photos. It works very well on normal
daylight exposures. To be fair,
On Fri, 20 Jul 2001 11:42:22 EDT ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> The clipping of the cropped file is controlled by the
> "Color|White point (%)" and "Color|Black point (%)"
> options. Is there a problem with one of these options?
Not IME, but it would be nice if you could explicitly set a figure
John wrote:
> it is far too easy to forget to change the output file name when
> starting a new scan.
True, but if you use the "+" after the filename in Vuescan at least you
won't overwrite anything. :)
>user interface. Human interface design clearly isn't something that lights
>Ed's candle, an
Rafe wrote:
>Ayup. I still wonder why Vuescan is so revered by so many.
>Earlier versions didn't even have a preview window.
Because it gets me results from my scanner I simply can't get with the OEM
driver. Sure, the interface could be improved, but *any* interface that
gets me better results
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Rob Geraghty
Sent: Friday, 20 July 2001 11:28 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Vuescan gripes
Rafe wrote:
>Ayup. I still wonder why Vuescan is so revered by so many.
>Earlier versions didn&
>PS. I have just recently returned to this list after a long break. Does
>anybody know if Ed Hamrick still partakes?
Dunno.
> If not does anybody have his
>email address at hand?
I think it's [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Rob
Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com
I seem to be missing something. I have an Acer Scanwit 2740S, which
requires multiple passes to do a multiple scan. I thought that this
was the right thing to do to get lower noise when scanning at 16x. so
as to be able to average the input from successive reads. And, I
thought this would help i
>I seem to be missing something. I have an Acer Scanwit 2740S, which
>requires multiple passes to do a multiple scan. I thought that this
>was the right thing to do to get lower noise when scanning at 16x. so
>as to be able to average the input from successive reads. And, I
>thought this would h
>I seem to be missing something. I have an Acer Scanwit 2740S, which
>requires multiple passes to do a multiple scan. I thought that this
>was the right thing to do to get lower noise when scanning at 16x. so
>as to be able to average the input from successive reads. And, I
>thought this would h
Sorry, Lynn-- my pen flew too fast. I assumed that by 16x, _highest
resolution_ was meant No, I do not scan 16 times, only 3, but at
highest resolution. I _think_ I see improvement in noise levels
then, but I can't convince myself that doing more than 3 scans buys me
anything. But Ed Hamrick
"S. Matthew Prastein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I seem to be missing something. I have an Acer Scanwit 2740S, which
> requires multiple passes to do a multiple scan. I thought that this
> was the right thing to do to get lower noise when scanning at 16x. so
> as to be able to average the inpu
OK-- I was just too hasty and slipshod in my reading. Thanks to you
and Lynn for helping me get straightened out and dried off.
On Sat, 21 Jul 2001 11:12:23 +1000, you wrote:
>"S. Matthew Prastein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I seem to be missing something. I have an Acer Scanwit 2740S, whic
S. Matthew Prastein wrote:
>No, I do not scan 16 times, only 3, but at
>highest resolution.
That would be the "high 32" in Mira, or 48-bit in Vuescan. I'm not sure this
buys you much with thin negs, but OTOH every little bit helps (pun not
intended). :-)
>I _think_ I see improvement in noise
In a message dated 7/20/2001 2:58:04 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I have an Acer Scanwit 2740S, which
> requires multiple passes to do a multiple scan. I thought that this
> was the right thing to do to get lower noise when scanning at 16x. so
> as to be able to average the input from
Thanks for that, Ed. I figured I must be the only one who thought that was
the case..
To be honest I've never used it to help with overexposed negs/ undexposed
slides because my Acer has no trouble with these - from conversations with
other Acer users, I suspect either my lamp is particularly
is *great* for underexposed slides and
overexposed negs, however, which is where most of my problems are.
Best regards--LRA
Best regards--LRA
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Scanning multiple times (was Re: filmscanners: Vuescan gr
> This is an ungrateful thing to say, but in respect to the Acer, I get
> somewhat darker scans on *underexposed* negs with the native Mira driver.
> That's because the Vuescan driver (at least the way I've been using
> it--which is seat-of-the-pants flying, BTW) seems to give a
> slightly longer
Sometime back Ed mentioned there was a SCSI command that causes an extra 20% exposure
on the scanwit and he enables it always.
Alan
>> I don't think VS controls exposure time on Scanwits directly - they have
>> an
>> autoexposure system with "no" manual control. However, I agree it appear
In a message dated 7/23/2001 2:19:32 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
> Sometime back Ed mentioned there was a SCSI command that causes an extra
20%
> exposure on the scanwit and he enables it always.
I vaguely remember someone telling me that Acer claimed there
was a command that caused an
Alan wrote--
>Sometime back Ed mentioned there was a SCSI command that causes an extra
>20% exposure on the scanwit and he enables it always.
Ah,ha. I missed that post, and it explains a lot of what I've seen.
Best regards--LRA
___
ECTED]
> Subject: Re: Scanning multiple times (was Re: filmscanners: Vuescan
> gripes)
>
>
> In a message dated 7/23/2001 2:19:32 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>
> > Sometime back Ed mentioned there was a SCSI command that causes
> an extra
> 20%
> > expo
AIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: RE: Scanning multiple times (was Re: filmscanners: Vuescan gripes)
>Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 16:29:57 -0600
>
>Ed,
>
>If you are not doing anything to intentionally increase/modify the
>exposure,
>and several of us feel sure the exposure is different w
33 matches
Mail list logo
