If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
On 9 Sep 2005 13:52:03 -0700, "Roger S." wrote:
Don, you don't need to respond to *each* comment posted with a new reply. You've now taken over an entire page of comments and anyone tuning into the thread now would only see your comments. Isn't it only common courtesy to respond when people write to you? Not to mention, if I don't comment *with supporting facts* then people like you would (and have! - quotes available on request) accuse me of "bashing without proof". So, damned if I do, damned if I don't! Besides, everyone is entitled to write, just as everyone is entitled *not* to read. Finally, if you don't want to read someone's post use a filter, that's what they're for. Or simply press the key needed to skip the message. Besides, from your comment below it appears you read my messages with interest so I don't understand the above, contradictory, complaint. Don wrote: "Yes, there is a "secret" option to turn the "screen update" off. But that's a cure worse than the disease!! Now the display has nothing to do with actual settings currently active. That's positively crazy! And certainly brakes every UI guideline regarding ergonomics." I complained about this 8 months ago or so. I believe this is fixed and isn't a problem any longer. I regularly enter in exposure values manually and it doesn't refresh while you're typing anymore. That was annoying! The question is, has this "display update" just been turned off (i.e. that "secret" option has been made permanent) or has the input code actually been modified? What I mean is, does the actual setting correspond to the display? Using the above "secret" option made the display and the actual setting potentially different which is against all UI guidelines. Don. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 23:53:57 +1000, Noons
wrote: Indeed, the Vuescan author himself once wrote that he saw these native programs which came with the scanner as his competition, not SilverFast. Well, yes. I can see that. However I think Vuescan has one major advantage for folks like me who run Windows and Linux: it runs everywhere. That's very true. However, when the program is just too buggy and far too unreliable to be useful, then it's a case of diminishing returns. I mean, it's the same as the price argument. Cheap, yes, we all want that, but when it just doesn't work, even free is too expensive. Heck, I wouldn't use Vuescan even if they paid me! ;o) I do run Linux occasionally but not as much as I want to (life keeps getting in the way). There is SANE but, apparently, it's relatively limited. Nevertheless, having the same program run on all platforms one uses is a clear plus. The key word being "run"! Hmmm, I found that screen refresh irritating at the start. I read through the FAQs and the UG and the solution was the set the refresh time to 0. Then it's just a matter of ^E once I wanted a refresh. No great issue with me, but I can see where it would irritate other users with that refresh on every keypress. Humans are adaptable and we can get used to all sorts of things. But the point is that's a clear violation of all UI guidelines. If it were only that, it would be bad enough, but there is an endless slew of such "annoyances" (some of which I outlined earlier). Like I say, one is bad enough, but the cumulative totality just shows a complete lack of understanding of UI design or ergonomics. From IBM mainframe's *logical* IMS (for those in the know the "logical" bit is important!) to Microsoft's unilateral re-definition of NULL! And just for the heck of it, another "Ha!" ;o) Oh boy! A partner in crime! Yup! ;o) Don. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Don:
"Isn't it only common courtesy to respond when people write to you? " Don't take it the wrong way but they're not necessarily writing TO you. It's an open forum, not the "ask Don about Vuescan" forum. Out-of-date factual statements are not facts, but since you don't use Vuescan you have no way of knowing which bugs have been fixed and which ones are still present. This makes your advice of limited use and mainly of historic interest to people like me who remember each bug fondly : ) Of course you refuse to step back and let people who use Vuescan comment on particular aspects of the program, as you are convinced that everyone else is deluded and can't see the flaws in the program which you obsessively document and repeately post. This is offensive and condescending, but you don't seem to realize this and understand why people react negatively to you. You then question the character of posters like me if we point out what works in the program as well as the flaws, which is the definition of a balanced, not biased, assessment. Please examine your own biases as you selectively cite "facts" and ask youself how you know what you're writing was and continues to be true, and beyond that, if it is a fair assessment. You're certainly entitled to write whatever you want, but that doesn't mean that you should. My Current Vuescan experience: The default refresh delay no longer stops you as you're typing. At least I no longer have problems, and have not disabled the refresh feature (which Ed unhelpfully told me to do before). I'm using 8.2.25. There is now a "refresh fast" check box (I have it checked) and a refresh delay box which defaults to 1. IR cleaning also works much better now than in previous versions and I no longer find that it fails. The medium and heavy settings (as of 8.2.25) still soften the image significantly so I don't recommend using them if there is fine detail you care about. IT8 support also works well and I got better (closer to the target slide and better with other reference slide) results with the Vuescan IT8 support than with LittleCMS profiler after recent side-by-side tests. Scanner used with 8.2.25 is the FS4000US via scsi under WindowsXP with a hardware calibrated monitor. YMMV. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 13:30:40 -0700, "T. Wise"
wrote: I have an HP 7410 all-in-one, running under XP Pro. The scan manager program that comes with the HP isn't very good, so I'm wondering if there's a great scanning manager program (for documents and photographs). Any recommendations? Advice so far has been, er, less than helpful. But that may be because you haven't said what you want to do with this "scanning manager program". Scan to a particular format? Organise your scans? Scan to fax? Etc etc. The software you use depends on what you want to do. Tell us and you might get more sensible advice than UI wars. MK |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
On 10 Sep 2005 09:42:42 -0700, "Roger S." wrote:
Don: "Isn't it only common courtesy to respond when people write to you? " Don't take it the wrong way but they're not necessarily writing TO you. It's an open forum, not the "ask Don about Vuescan" forum. Roger, I'm not talking it personally. This is evident from the fact that in this context I do *not* respond to abusive messages only to civilized posts. You're also mixing two things: 1. Responses to specific points I raised i.e. an ongoing conversation. I'm surely entitled to respond to these. They *are* writing to me! 2. False statements which need to be corrected. Again, I'm surely entitled to respond to these too! That's what this forum is all about. Helping those who ask for help *and* correcting misleading statements. Out-of-date factual statements are not facts, but since you don't use Vuescan you have no way of knowing which bugs have been fixed and which ones are still present. This makes your advice of limited use and mainly of historic interest to people like me who remember each bug fondly : ) Again, you're missing the point. The premise is: Vuescan is buggy. Historical evidence is essential in establishing there is an *uninterrupted* avalanche of Vuescan bugs making this premise true. Secondly, just because a certain bug - as fond as you are of any one of them ;o) - is currently "in hiding" is irrelevant. Why? Because Vuescan has demonstrated *repeatedly* that the same bugs keep coming back over and over and over again... Therefore, when it comes to Vuescan no bug is out-of-date, just temporarily dormant as historical evidence shows. Before you overreact to that, check the archives! It's a simple and demonstrable fact. Of course you refuse to step back and let people who use Vuescan comment on particular aspects of the program Do you have any evidence of that? Of course, that's completely wrong. The truth is Vuescan users can't stand to have the bugs pointed out and would rather live in the fantasy world where Vuescan is perfect. So they rabidly attack anyone stating that simple objective fact. Shooting the messenger will *not* fix Vuescan bugs!!! , as you are convinced that everyone else is deluded and can't see the flaws in the program which you obsessively document and repeately post. This is offensive and condescending, I'm sorry Roger, but *that* above statement is both condescending and offensive *without any proof*. Can you quote a *single* manifestation of this *in context*? I never make generic, sweeping statement like the one you just made without any supporting evidence. All my assertions are supported by objective fact! but you don't seem to realize this and understand why people react negatively to you. I do realize why they react negatively and you've just demonstrated a few reasons: 1. They ignore facts. 2. They fail to understand I have no agenda but just state facts. 3. They don't like those facts and overreact emotionally. etc. You then question the character of posters like me if we point out what works in the program as well as the flaws, which is the definition of a balanced, not biased, assessment. I do *not* question their character but simply respond to an unprovoked and *unsubstantiated* attack with simple facts! People assume things *without* providing *any* evidence whatsoever (as you just did, two days running, now!) and then go on to ignore - even complain! (as you are doing) when I present evidence and fact to the contrary! Again, damned if I do, damned if I don't! That's hardy logical, let alone fair! Please examine your own biases as you selectively cite "facts" and ask youself how you know what you're writing was and continues to be true, and beyond that, if it is a fair assessment. There are no biases. How can stating objective facts be bias? Don't you think people would provide conflicting evidence if it existed? How do you explain when people like Bart continue to "defend" Vuescan but then let it slip they don't use Vuescan because it's too buggy? How do you explain when people like Ralf who stalked Vuescan critics with abusive messages for months come clean in the end admitting they are really very frustrated with Vuescan? Etc, etc... Those are pertinent facts, Roger, and unless you take them into account you will never get an objective overview as demonstrated by your false assertions. My Current Vuescan experience: The default refresh delay no longer stops you as you're typing. At least I no longer have problems, and have not disabled the refresh feature (which Ed unhelpfully told me to do before). I'm using 8.2.25. There is now a "refresh fast" check box (I have it checked) and a refresh delay box which defaults to 1. Great! Enjoy! IR cleaning also works much better now than in previous versions and I no longer find that it fails. The medium and heavy settings (as of 8.2.25) still soften the image significantly so I don't recommend using them if there is fine detail you care about. Again, more power to you! IT8 support also works well and I got better (closer to the target slide and better with other reference slide) results with the Vuescan IT8 support than with LittleCMS profiler after recent side-by-side tests. Fantastic and I'm happy for you! But none of that has *anything* to do with the subject matter. I myself have *repeatedly* stated that there are happy Vuescan users. Speaking of bias, how come you never notice that? What you're failing to grasp is that *subjective* statements like yours have absolutely no relevance, nor do they negate the simple *objective fact* that Vuescan is notoriously buggy and unreliable. Just because you (or anyone else for that matter) found a path through the Vuescan bug labyrinth and is satisfied with Vuescan results only tells how low and uncritical your requirements are. Why? Because they are based on subjective feelings and without providing any objective evidence. Saying "I like IR cleaning results" is *not* objective!!! It's a matter of *taste*, not fact! Don. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"Roger S." wrote in message
oups.com... My Current Vuescan experience: IR cleaning also works much better now than in previous versions and I no longer find that it fails. The medium and heavy settings (as of 8.2.25) still soften the image significantly so I don't recommend using them if there is fine detail you care about. I'll second that - with the Nikon Coolscan 4000 and V8.2.35. My own experience. Fact. -- John Replace 'nospam' with 'todnet' when replying. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 11:23:48 +0100, "John"
wrote: "Roger S." wrote in message roups.com... My Current Vuescan experience: IR cleaning also works much better now than in previous versions and I no longer find that it fails. The medium and heavy settings (as of 8.2.25) still soften the image significantly so I don't recommend using them if there is fine detail you care about. I'll second that - with the Nikon Coolscan 4000 and V8.2.35. My own experience. Fact. It's also miles behind ICE. Another fact. It's also after months of bungling. Another fact. And last but not least, just wait a while and it will be broken again in a version or two. Another fact. But you know that already: --- cut --- On Wed, 4 May 2005 19:59:50 +0100, "John" wrote: So it looks like a serious bug with the cropping system, as you suggest. Don will say "told you so" -well, he did! Stick to your working version. Upgrade at your peril! --- cut --- I'll be looking forward to a similar message in regard to broken IR cleaning! ;o) Don. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"Don" wrote in message
... On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 11:23:48 +0100, "John" wrote: "Roger S." wrote in message roups.com... My Current Vuescan experience: IR cleaning also works much better now than in previous versions and I no longer find that it fails. The medium and heavy settings (as of 8.2.25) still soften the image significantly so I don't recommend using them if there is fine detail you care about. I'll second that - with the Nikon Coolscan 4000 and V8.2.35. My own experience. Fact. It's also miles behind ICE. Another fact. It's not, actually, but you wouldn't know, since you don't use it. Works with Kodachrome too - ICE doesn't. It's also after months of bungling. Another fact. You say bungling, I say development. And last but not least, just wait a while and it will be broken again in a version or two. Another fact. But you know that already: --- cut --- On Wed, 4 May 2005 19:59:50 +0100, "John" wrote: So it looks like a serious bug with the cropping system, as you suggest. Don will say "told you so" -well, he did! Stick to your working version. Upgrade at your peril! --- cut --- I'll be looking forward to a similar message in regard to broken IR cleaning! ;o) Don't hold your breath. This version has everything I need, so I shall be following my excellent advice above which you seem so keen on quoting of late. Shame you don't quote it in context, but I guess in the absence of any actual *recent* experience of your own, you have to resort to regurgitating other people's comments, out of context and out of date. -- John Replace 'nospam' with 'todnet' when replying. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Don, you may have a software engineering background but I have an
academic background. You clearly don't understand the concept of objectivity, which is really one of balance. Reviewing software is a qualitative, not quantitative process, and this is where you fall down. There is a wealth of facts about scanners and scanning programs out there. Which facts you choose to report and which facts you choose to leave out is a *subjective*, qualitative judgement. Which facts are recent, which facts are correct? Which facts come from reliable sources? Which facts truly evaluate the program? Which facts are cherry-picked and simply confirm the reviewer's biases? You can attempt to design an objective review process, but the even the design parameters of the review process are qualitative judgements. Do you care more about focus, IR, interface, usability, color scheme, exposure, etc? At the end of the day, the question is "am I being fair?" and not just selectively picking facts which reaffirm your point of view instead of going where the evidence leads. It's up to others to be the judge of this and this is where I think you fail and your comments are biased to the point of being unhelpful. On IR: I can say that Vuescan's IR cleaning works in that it dramatically reduces the visibility of dirt and scratches compared to a reference slide. It also has minimal artifacts. I don't compare it to ICE because Canon scanners don't use ICE, they use FARE. If the question is which system of cleaning yields better results, the clear answer for me is FARE because it works essentially flawlessly with no degradation and no dust remaining, compared to a reference slide in my 4000dpi tests. VS's results leave a slight softening, but are acceptable for my purposes, and I make up to 8x12 enlargements of cropped 4000dpi files. Ultimately I'm the one who decides if the scan quality is acceptable and it's a subjective judgement. I'd rather have a perfectly exposed file with minimal dirt to start from, and VS gives me this. You seem to think that only you can judge if a print is good or not, and the rest of us are happy with whatever crap our scanners produce. This is arrogant, insulting, and patently false, and has no objective basis because you've never compared our print or image viewing skills. The world is a qualitative place full of people who don't like to be insulted, please learn how to live in it. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 13:40:00 +0100, "John"
wrote: I'll second that - with the Nikon Coolscan 4000 and V8.2.35. My own experience. Fact. It's also miles behind ICE. Another fact. It's not, actually, but you wouldn't know, since you don't use it. The common consensus here (according to Vuescan users themselves!) is that Vuescan's IR cleaning is vastly inferior to ICE. (Quotes available on request.) Since you now apparently differ, the onus is on you to prove all those Vuescan users wrong and provide some *verifiable* supporting evidence or at the very least a plausible explanation for your assertion. NOTE: "IR kinda, sorta looks good to me." is *not* objective evidence! Works with Kodachrome too - ICE doesn't. If you knew the internal workings of both you would understand what's going on. ICE is based on a complex heuristics algorithm analyzing image content. Vuescan takes the easy way and just simply applies a threshold to the IR channel and then just blurs everything indiscriminately regardless of image content. And, just as above, your definition of "works" is quite different from everybody else's. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but let's have some *verifiable* evidence. It's also after months of bungling. Another fact. You say bungling, I say development. In the *8th* major program version!? After at least 4 years? That's way past development. And last but not least, just wait a while and it will be broken again in a version or two. Another fact. But you know that already: --- cut --- On Wed, 4 May 2005 19:59:50 +0100, "John" wrote: So it looks like a serious bug with the cropping system, as you suggest. Don will say "told you so" -well, he did! Stick to your working version. Upgrade at your peril! --- cut --- I'll be looking forward to a similar message in regard to broken IR cleaning! ;o) Don't hold your breath. Well, at least back then you were still objective and willing to acknowledge fact. Sorry to hear you decided to stop doing that. Shame you don't quote it in context, but I guess in the absence of any actual *recent* experience of your own, you have to resort to regurgitating other people's comments, out of context and out of date. Now that you gushed with feeling and got that off your chest, would you care to actually provide some evidence? Let's have some of that alleged "missing context"! Don. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
LCD alignment program available here (link) | Barry Watzman | Ati Videocards | 0 | December 30th 04 03:33 PM |
The Diskette Experiments | Paul Allen Panks | Storage & Hardrives | 1 | October 17th 04 07:25 PM |
HP Insight Manager 4.1 help on Compaq 6500R servers | larry | Compaq Servers | 4 | October 13th 04 02:24 AM |
How to access program after new hard drive installed? | OrmesbyJohn | Homebuilt PC's | 4 | August 18th 04 12:34 AM |
How do I get Partition Manager to install properly | Paul | Storage (alternative) | 0 | November 10th 03 11:02 PM |