I want this this is a good idea. I want it.
- Collin Ong
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, Mark T. wrote:
> At 09:17 AM 14/03/01 +1000, Rob wrote:
> >> why would you want to seperate these? to allow the
> >> option of grain removal WITHOUT clean?
> >
> >Yes, or to allow varying intensities of clean withou
"Maris V. Lidaka, Sr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I had understood that grain removal was a by-product of the ICE-type
> cleaning and therefore could not be separated. If it can, certainly I
agree
> that should be an independent option.
No, grain removal and dust/scratch removal are different
If I remember correctly, about a week or two ago, someone on the list had a post
that also said that ICE or its equivalent needed the IR channel but that GEM ad
ROC or their equivalent operated independently and did not need the IR Channel.
Gordon
> Not sure about VueScan, but ASF's GEM and ROC
> I had understood that grain removal was a by-product of the ICE-type
> cleaning and therefore could not be separated. If it can, certainly I
> agree
> that should be an independent option.
>
Not sure about VueScan, but ASF's GEM and ROC do not depend on ICE. Two
separate sources for this stat
>>Yes, or to allow varying intensities of clean without
>>grain removal. They should be two separate drop down
>>options, and with the interface changes in 7.0 there's
>>plenty of space.
>>
>>I for one would like to be able to see the effect of
>>grain removal on its own without having to combine
>From: "Mark T." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
>Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 16:28:11 +1000
>
>At 09:17 AM 14/03/01 +1000, Rob wrote:
> >> why w
D]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 12:28 AM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
| At 09:17 AM 14/03/01 +1000, Rob wrote:
| >> why would you want to seperate these? to allow the
| >> option of grain removal WITHOUT clean?
| >
| >Yes, or to al
Hersch Nitikman wrote:
[regarding separating cleaning and grain removal in vuescan]
> I have no strong feelings about this, but I don't see how it
> could hurt, and it might help. It doesn't sound hard to do.
At the moment I *never* use anything stronger than "clean"
...er... "light" because too
I have no strong feelings about this, but I don't see how it
could hurt, and it might help. It doesn't sound hard to do.
Hersch
At 04:28 PM 03/14/2001 +1000, you wrote:
At 09:17 AM 14/03/01 +1000, Rob wrote:
>> why would you want to seperate these? to allow the
>> option of grain removal WITHOU
At 09:17 AM 14/03/01 +1000, Rob wrote:
>> why would you want to seperate these? to allow the
>> option of grain removal WITHOUT clean?
>
>Yes, or to allow varying intensities of clean without
>grain removal. They should be two separate drop down
>options, and with the interface changes in 7.0 th
Jules writes ...
>> I think many on the list would vote for a separate
>> checkbox control to enable grain removal
>> independently of the clean/scrub/scour setting.
> but scrub = clean + grain removal and
> scour = clean + heavier grain removal
AFAIK the clean algorithm does change between the s
> Speaking of which ... is there any chance we'll see the next version
> of VS present the scan properly in "monitor space"??? To reiterate
> ... if you ask for AdobeRGB color space, Vuescan will show you
> AdobeRGB data in monitor space ... and your scans will appear
> under-saturated in V
In a message dated 3/6/2001 6:00:02 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> is there any chance we'll see the next version
> of VS present the scan properly in "monitor space"??? To reiterate
> ... if you ask for AdobeRGB color space, Vuescan will show you
> AdobeRGB data in monitor space ... and
Shough, Dean wrote:
It sure beats
> talking about CD-Rs and printers. Most of my comments just reiterate what
> others have already told you, but it never hurts to repeat good ideas.
>
Obviously, the revamping of Vuescan is of great interest to many on the
list here, which explains all
In a message dated 3/6/2001 4:43:03 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> As a VueScan and NikonScan user (I have an LS-30), I have to say that I
> cannot figure out what values I would put into VueScan in the two fields
> you mentioned whereas I use the NikonScan analog gain quite a bit - I
> c
Gordon writes ...
> Ed. Something along this line and what Hersh said earlier.
> I find the Scan memory odd. It has really no
> advantage unless you want another file of the
> same scan. ...
Exactly! Keep in mind, you, at least some of us, want another file.
If you scan into a color
Ed. Something along this line and what Hersh said earlier. I find the
Scan memory odd. It has really no advantage unless you want another file
of the same scan. I would prefer changing it to something like PreScan,
which will do the scan, not output a file, and allow me to check the
changes I
> Yes, this already works in VueScan. Turn off "Options|Auto exposure"
> and set "Options|RGB exposure" and "Options|Infrared exposure".
> This controls the same SCSI fields as Nikon changes when you set
> the "Analog gain" option in NikonScan.
Ed,
As a VueScan and NikonScan user (I have an LS-
Ed - I hope you _really_ wanted all of this feed back. :-) It sure beats
talking about CD-Rs and printers. Most of my comments just reiterate what
others have already told you, but it never hurts to repeat good ideas.
I think your rearrangement of the options is a very good idea. I am alway
GMT
>Subject: Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
>In a message dated 3/6/2001 9:54:57 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>> I see. This raises the question of what the zoom
>> feature is for, and it sounds like you intend it to be
>> useful for croppin
- Original Message -
From: "shAf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 8:52 AM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
> Manually adjusting exposure, also brings up a point. I wish the
> number w
Ed Hamrick wrote:
>I realize that I could make the cursor modal, where
it sometimes moves the crop box and other times
moves the zoomed image, but I'd prefer to avoid
modal things - it hurts ease of use for beginning
users.
I tend to agree. I've had my fill of "gimmickey" cursors, and the
suppose
tures
every day and scanning less frequently. Therefore something more standard
would be greatly beneficial.
Bob Kehl
- Original Message -
From: Rob Geraghty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 7:17 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Need fe
work!
Bob Kehl
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 4:56 AM
Subject: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
> I'm thinking about some improvements to the VueScan
> user interface, and I
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In a message dated 3/6/2001 9:54:57 AM EST,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > I see. This raises the question of what the zoom
> > feature is for, and it sounds like you intend it
> to be
> > useful for cropping in the main.
>
> Yes, it's mainly useful for adjust
> > I see. This raises the question of what the zoom
> > feature is for, and it sounds like you intend it to be
> > useful for cropping in the main.
>
> Yes, it's mainly useful for adjusting the cropping more precisely.
As well as exposure I would venture to guess...
>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 3:50 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
| "Hersch Nitikman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote re the abort button:
| > I find I have to hit it 2 or 3 times before it takes effect.
|
| I suspect thi
Jules writes ...
> > I think many on the list would vote for a separate
> checkbox control to
> > enable grain removal independently of the
> clean/scrub/scour setting.
>
> but scrub = clean + grain removal
> and
> scour = clean + heavier grain removal
>
> why would you want to seperate these?
In a message dated 3/6/2001 9:54:57 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I see. This raises the question of what the zoom
> feature is for, and it sounds like you intend it to be
> useful for cropping in the main.
Yes, it's mainly useful for adjusting the cropping more precisely.
Regards,
Ed H
Jules writes ...
> Subject: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
>
>
> > I'm thinking about some improvements to the VueScan
> > user interface, and I'd like to solicit feedback and suggestions.
>
>
> ...
>
> since you're asking
In a message dated 3/6/2001 10:21:57 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> are there any plans to support the analog gain controls of the LS-2000?
Yes, this already works in VueScan. Turn off "Options|Auto exposure"
and set "Options|RGB exposure" and "Options|Infrared exposure".
This controls the
Joel asks ...
> ... This raises the question of what the zoom
> feature is for, ...
One of the few features I appreciated about Nikonscan was the ability
to zoom in and focus. Without this capability I would have never
realized the focusing issues which affect scanning with my LS-2000 .
- Original Message -
From: "Collin Ong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 3:12 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
> On Mon, 5 Mar 2001, shAf wrote:
>
> > I though Ed made the p
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 2:56 AM
Subject: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
> I'm thinking about some improvements to the VueScan
> user interface, and I'd
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In a message dated 3/5/2001 5:33:29 PM EST,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > As an alternative to scroll bars, would it be
> possible
> > to use instead a hand to grab the image with the
> mouse
> > and pull it to the location one wants, like
> ACDSee?
>
> The
>Rob Geraghty wrote:
>
>The only interface feature of vuescan which regularly drives me crazy is
>resizing the outline for the crop. Sometimes dragging an edge moves the
>whole box, sometimes it's possible to set the area outside the scannable
>area, sometimes it drags the corner instead of the
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The problem with this is two-fold - clicking in the
> middle of the crop box already moves the crop box,
> and dragging the image only lets you move it one
> screen at a time (scroll bars give you quick scrolling
> anywhere within the image).
I for one would prefer th
"Hersch Nitikman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote re the abort button:
> I find I have to hit it 2 or 3 times before it takes effect.
I suspect this is more to do with how well the scanner responds to
an abort instruction while scanning than vuescan itself.
Rob
, March 06, 2001 1:36 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
>
> YES !
> Thanks Ed !
>
[]
> - Original Message -
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Mo
In a message dated 3/5/2001 5:33:29 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> As an alternative to scroll bars, would it be possible
> to use instead a hand to grab the image with the mouse
> and pull it to the location one wants, like ACDSee?
The problem with this is two-fold - clicking in the
midd
I find I have to hit it 2 or 3 times before it takes effect.
At 12:40 AM 03/06/2001 -0500, you wrote:
>A more responsive abort button would be nice. Not infrequently I find
>myself having made a mistake but spending a good deal of time while the
>scan is occurring waiting for a window when I can
Rob Geraghty wrote:
>
> Alan wrote:
> > I agree that the dialog box would be a good thing, but I do
> > have to point out that directory creation already happens,
> > and automatically, if you enter a pathname into the raw,
> > TIFF, or JPEG file name fields!
>
> Which is nice, but less foolproo
A more responsive abort button would be nice. Not infrequently I find
myself having made a mistake but spending a good deal of time while the
scan is occurring waiting for a window when I can abort. Not sure if
this might be due to something about my system though.
John M.
Something in the nature of clean light, medium, and heavy perhaps?
Maris
- Original Message -
From: "Bob Shomler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 8:51 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
| &
Alan wrote:
> I agree that the dialog box would be a good thing, but I do
> have to point out that directory creation already happens,
> and automatically, if you enter a pathname into the raw,
> TIFF, or JPEG file name fields!
Which is nice, but less foolproof than the common dialog box.
If you
At 08:29 PM 05-03-01, Rob wrote:
>Most programs which have resizable items change the mouse pointer appropriately for
>what kind of drag is available at that point - a horizontal double ended arrow for
>horizontal drag, vertical for vertical, angled for corners. This adds a visual
>assistance
>> I though Ed made the point: "clean" would NOT soften the image except
>> in the regions where dust was removed, BUT that softening kicks in for
>> "scrub" & "scour" because of his grain removal algorithm is used(?)
>...
>I think many on the list would vote for a separate checkbox control t
Rob Geraghty wrote:
>
> IMO something like the Microsoft Common Dialog Box would be a great boon
> for setting the paths. That way it's done visually and you don't have to
> remember or type the text by hand. I'm talking about interface style when
> I mention the common dialog box - it would in
Joel Wilcox wrote:
>
> --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > 1) Adding a "Zoom in" and "Zoom out" button that
> > will double
> > (or halve) the size of either the preview or scan
> > images. While
> > zoomed, the preview or scan window will have scroll
> > bars.
>
> As an alternative to scroll bars
Title: Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
on 3/5/01 3:56 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm thinking about some improvements to the VueScan
> user interface, and I'd like to solicit feedback and suggestions.
>
> Regards,
&
Ed Hamrick wrote:
> I'm thinking about some improvements to the VueScan
> user interface, and I'd like to solicit feedback and suggestions.
The only interface feature of vuescan which regularly drives me crazy is
resizing the outline for the crop. Sometimes dragging an edge moves the
whole box,
Michael wrote:
> I concur, and that recent addition (not having to go to the Vuescan
> program files for the "crops") was really helpful. Paths are tough,
> and any improvements here (and there've been many) are welcome.
IMO something like the Microsoft Common Dialog Box would be a great boon
for
Collin wrote:
>I think many on the list would vote for a separate checkbox control to
>enable grain removal independently of the clean/scrub/scour setting.
I'd vote for that. Not necessarily because it would help a lot - more because
at the moment I have no way to tell what difference it makes
Maybe my request reflected a lack of appreciation of where else to go for
the same features.
At 06:29 PM 03/05/2001 -0500, you wrote:
>Hersh wote:
>
> >The thing I'd most like to see is to have the preview window 'live', i.e.,
>when I invoke a scan option, have the effect show on the preview. Th
Kodachrome & 6.7.4. I'll load 6.7.5 tonight & let you know.
Sorry for the incomplete post.
Ken Jaskot
- Original Message -
> The "Clean" option shouldn't visibly soften the image. Is it softening
it?
> Is this with Kodachrome film or Ektachrome film? Is this with
> VueScan 6.7.5 (thi
YES !
Thanks Ed !
Sincerely.
Ezio
www.lucenti.com e-photography site
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 11:56 AM
Subject: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
> I'm thinking about
What I mean is that if I set rotation to 90ccw, I'd like to see that happen
to the image in the preview window. And if I propose a change in 'white
point', e.g., that the effect would show in the preview, so I could change
my mind if I didn't like it. Or, if I change the film type, the effect s
>
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 4:56 AM
Subject: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
| I'm thinking about some improvements to the VueScan
| user interface, and I'd like to solicit feedback and suggestions.
[snipped]
On Mon, 5 Mar 2001, shAf wrote:
> I though Ed made the point: "clean" would NOT soften the image except
> in the regions where dust was removed, BUT that softening kicks in for
> "scrub" & "scour" because of his grain removal algorithm is used(?)
Ed,
I think many on the list would vote fo
Hersh wote:
>The thing I'd most like to see is to have the preview window 'live', i.e.,
when I invoke a scan option, have the effect show on the preview. That would
make a whole lot of difference.
That was an incarnation in a much earlier 6.x Vuescan version (possibly a
Beta), and I liked it too
shAF writes:
>(4) I think we all need to come up with how to better set the file paths
... or maybe I simply need to understand your current philosophy and
experiment more. But I wish I could consistently store the settings in a
specific location, independent of where I put my projects. Can I
shAF writes:
>(4) I think we all need to come up with how to better set the file paths
... or maybe I simply need to understand your current philosophy and
experiment more. But I wish I could consistently store the settings in a
specific location, independent of where I put my projects. Can I
shAF writes:
>(4) I think we all need to come up with how to better set the file paths
... or maybe I simply need to understand your current philosophy and
experiment more. But I wish I could consistently store the settings in a
specific location, independent of where I put my projects. Can I
Ed Hamrick wrote:
> I'm thinking about some improvements to the VueScan
> user interface, and I'd like to solicit feedback and suggestions.
The suggestions sound good (especially the preview zoom). There's another thing I
would find useful (although I might be a minority of one).
I still find
Ed wrote:
>I'm thinking about some improvements to the VueScan
user interface...These are the main things I'm thinking of
>1) Adding a "Zoom in" and "Zoom out" button that will double
(or halve) the size of either the preview or scan images. While
zoomed, the preview or scan window will have s
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 1) Adding a "Zoom in" and "Zoom out" button that
> will double
> (or halve) the size of either the preview or scan
> images. While
> zoomed, the preview or scan window will have scroll
> bars.
As an alternative to scroll bars, would it be possible
to use instead a
IronWorks writes ...
> 1)Ed has previously said that this is an unfortunate
> but unreformable byproduct of Clean, Scrub and Scour.
> ...
I though Ed made the point: "clean" would NOT soften the image except
in the regions where dust was removed, BUT that softening kicks in for
"scru
In a message dated 3/5/2001 3:46:35 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> The thing I'd most like to see is to have the preview window 'live', i.e.,
> when I invoke a scan option, have the effect show on the preview. That
> would make a whole lot of difference.
The problem with this is that th
In a message dated 3/5/2001 3:43:20 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 1)Ed has previously said that this is an unfortunate but unreformable
> byproduct of Clean, Scrub and Scour.
The "Clean" option shouldn't visibly soften the image. Is it softening it?
Is this with Kodachrome film or Ek
The thing I'd most like to see is to have the preview window
'live', i.e., when I invoke a scan option, have the effect show on the
preview. That would make a whole lot of difference.
At 05:56 AM 03/05/2001 -0500, you wrote:
I'm thinking about some improvements to the
VueScan
user interface, and
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 10:54 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
| Ed,
| Forgive me for not replying to your list. I will in another post.
| Yesterday, I fired up my LS-30 for the first time in several months to
| scan a Kodachrome slide. I was blown aw
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 4:56 AM
Subject: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
| 1) Adding a "Zoom in" and "Zoom out" button that will double
| (or halve) the si
: Monday, March 05, 2001 5:56 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
I'm thinking about some improvements to the VueScan
user interface, and I'd like to solicit feedback and suggestions.
These are the main things I'm thinking of - let me kn
On Mon, 5 Mar 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 3) Reorganize the tabs on the right side to make them
> a bit more logical and useful (these suggestions came
> from a helpful user):
The suggested reorganization would definitely be an improvement, and the
groupings are logical. However, I would su
Ed,
Forgive me for not replying to your list. I will in another post.
Yesterday, I fired up my LS-30 for the first time in several months to
scan a Kodachrome slide. I was blown away by the improvement in VueScan in
handling Kodachromes! I went into Nikonscan just to verify that it wasn't
Ed writes ...
> I'm thinking about some improvements to the VueScan
> user interface, and I'd like to solicit feedback and suggestions.
>
> These are the main things I'm thinking of - ...
>
> If you have strong feelings about my doing things
> differently, please let me know soon.
I like
Ed wrote Monday, 5 March 2001 9:56
>Subject: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
> I'm thinking about some improvements to the VueScan
> user interface, and I'd like to solicit feedback and suggestions.
Great that you continue to make valuable improvements to
I'm thinking about some improvements to the VueScan
user interface, and I'd like to solicit feedback and suggestions.
These are the main things I'm thinking of - let me know if you
don't like these changes or if you'd like to see things done
differently:
1) Adding a "Zoom in" and "Zoom out" butt
78 matches
Mail list logo
