Best scanning manager program?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

"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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.