Best scanning manager program?

Discussion in 'Scanners' started by T. Wise, Sep 6, 2005.

  1. T. Wise

    T. Wise Guest

    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?
     
    T. Wise, Sep 6, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Per T. Wise:
    Duno from "great", but after taking a strong dislike to Nikon's freebie I
    settled on VueScan.

    Currently driving a CoolScan 4000 (film) and a CanoScan LIDE-SomethingOrOther
    (flatbed).

    The price was right and I have no complaints.
     
    (PeteCresswell), Sep 7, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Per Noons:
    That always mystified me. Compared to NikonScan (whose UI seems tb have
    designed by somebody's 13-year-old kid trying incorporate every oddball control
    he could find...) I find VueScan to be a model of adherence to the Windows UI
    standards.

    Mostly if something can be broken or misunderstood, I'm the one what will do it.
    OTOH, I found VueScan to be easily usable without even reading the instructions.
     
    (PeteCresswell), Sep 7, 2005
    #3
  4. T. Wise

    Mike Guest

    Dunno if your scanner is supported (most are),
    Which edition of Vuescan, Standard or Professional?
     
    Mike, Sep 7, 2005
    #4
  5. T. Wise

    HvdV Guest

    Actually, there is also an advantage in doing cross-platform: a bug which is
    at some stage harmless on one platform will show up early on another. The
    result is more stable software. That is in part also due to the fact that
    writing a cross platform application like VueScan (and to a lesser degree
    Silverfast) simply requires a higher level of software engineering skills
    than say a windows-only package.

    -- Hans
     
    HvdV, Sep 8, 2005
    #5
  6. T. Wise

    HvdV Guest

    I'm not talking about things like divide by zero bugs here, but of bugs
    caused for example by invalid programmer assumptions. Such bugs can remain
    undetected or worse undiagnosed for years. In a multi platform environment
    such bugs have a larger chance of getting detected on one of the platforms
    and then fixed for all. This assumes one is using different compilers.
    IMO you can only make such harsh judgements if you've seen the actual Vuescan
    code.
    Stated differently my point was that you can't keep a cross platform package
    afloat if the code is a mess and you are an incompetent programmer as well.


    -- Hans
     
    HvdV, Sep 8, 2005
    #6
  7. T. Wise

    HvdV Guest

    Detecting a bug early is of course only useful if you do something about it.
    Sure, in that case you'd be better off looking for another job.
    Maybe he was using a very good compiler which does all kinds of
    transformations on the code...
    What was it then what was so appalling?
    (see my other post) I think it is more likely he can't handle the workload.
    What in this case might also play a role is that (as he says on his web site)
    he doesn't get along with Minolta. Happens, but not so smart to state that in
    public.
    You say quality wise it is going under, with the suggestion it is also
    going under commercially. Could be, but from its popularity in this newsgroup
    I gather it is not. Does anyone know how large the Vuescan installed base is
    and how many licenses are sold each year? Same for Silverfast?

    -- Hans
     
    HvdV, Sep 9, 2005
    #7
  8. T. Wise

    Noons Guest

    Don apparently said,on my timestamp of 10/09/2005 5:16 AM:
    Hey, no sweat! I get my feathers ruffled every once in a
    while as well, no one is perfect.
    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. The scanner makers are still in the "windows-only" era
    with a few, far and between, providing Mac versions. Never mind that
    Linux has nowadays a larger market share than Macs. Ah well, that's
    the hardware folks! I still remember Logitech telling me they
    couldn't afford to write drivers for OS2! Like: a mouse driver is
    rocket science?... :)

    Hmmm, I found that screen refresh irritating at the start. I read through
    the FAQs and the UG and the solution was there: 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.

    Ah OK, it's something you've complained about before and got nowhere.
    Fair enough, I'll have a look around.
    Yup. "Been there, done that" kinda thing...
    Will do, thanks.
    Oh boy! A partner in crime! ;)
     
    Noons, Sep 10, 2005
    #8
  9. T. Wise

    mgfv43 Guest


    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
     
    mgfv43, Sep 10, 2005
    #9
  10. T. Wise

    John Guest

    I'll second that - with the Nikon Coolscan 4000 and V8.2.35. My own
    experience. Fact.
     
    John, Sep 12, 2005
    #10
  11. T. Wise

    John Guest

    It's not, actually, but you wouldn't know, since you don't use it. Works
    with Kodachrome too - ICE doesn't.
    You say bungling, I say development.
    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, Sep 12, 2005
    #11
  12. T. Wise

    John Guest

    Don,

    All these points have been made before and argued to death. I have not the
    desire nor the energy to enter into yet another protracted, pointless,
    circular discussion with you. Those who care can trawl through the archives
    and find the 'facts' for themselves. I believe that reasonable people will
    trust the word of those who have relevant and recent experience of a product
    over those who, for whatever reason, choose to trash a product relentlessly.

    If all this antagonism gives you a buzz then fine, but frankly, it does
    nothing for me. I have better things to do.

    I wish you well.
     
    John, Sep 13, 2005
    #12
  13. T. Wise

    Father Kodak Guest

    I just joined this group, and just read 40+ messages on this topic.
    All I can say is,

    1. there appear to be two viable non-vendor choices. Silverfast and
    VueScan.
    2.Neither one sounds "ideal."
    3. This discussion seems to have morphed into a software engineering
    food fight. I work in a Silicon Valley enterprise software company
    (though in marketing, not engineering), so I can appreciate this
    discussion in a way. However, I suspect most readers of this group
    don't care any longer.

    Can I restart this discussion, for my particular situation. My
    questions, for the situation below, are:

    1. Between Silverfast and VueScan, which gives me the highest degree
    of automation when I need it (for a box of slides or strip of film)?

    2. Which gives me the most flexible options for a custom settings, for
    a more precise scan, probably one at a time?

    3. In real life, under real usage, what is the minimum PC config I
    would want to run your recommended software? processor speed, RAM,
    disk storage.

    4. Assuming that I expect my workflow (I haven't gone digital quite
    yet) to be "centered" on Photoshop, not Photoshop Elements, which
    version of Silverfast would I want? And why?

    5. As a side question, what are the specific issues regarding
    Kodachrome and recent model Nikon scanners? Can either of these two
    packages compensate for these issue?

    6. Can either of these packages utilize the built-in image correction
    features such as ICE, etc.

    Now, thank you for reading this far. Here is my situation:

    I have:

    5000+ black and white negs, mostly Plus-X and
    Tri-X, home developed in various developers. Maybe a small amount of
    black and white film based on C-41.

    About 1000 color negatives, various Kodak films, C-22 and C-41
    processes. Mostly in 4 or 6 image strips.

    At least 8000 Kodachrome 25 and 64 slides. K12 and K14
    processes. 2 x 2 mounts. Mostly Kodak, some third party lab in
    either cardboard or plastic. Some in uncut rolls.

    About 1000 Ektachrome high speed slides, pushed to 1600 and
    3200. Mostly cardboard mounts. Some in rolls.

    I would like to scan most of these images, and do my sorting/culling
    after scanning, particular the negatives. Probably in Photoshop, on a
    20" monitor. Beats a loupe. :)

    Being a looong time Nikon user, I will probably opt for the 5000 plus
    the slide autoloader, so I can batch-scan overnight. With this volume
    to be scanned, I can justify the cost of the scanner plus slide
    autoloader. Besides, I will stay with film for at least one more
    year, possibly longer, until the Nikon digital camera of my "dreams"
    is on the market and at a reasonable price. I expect this to occur
    not before 2007, maybe 2008.

    So I expect to end up scanning 15 K, maybe up to 20K images My
    equipment cost per scan could be well under ten cents, or ten plus
    scans for one dollar US.

    Having my druthers, I would like a "RAW" format output done at 2000
    lines or greater. I expect to be doing digital photography with RAW
    format.

    (I'm upgrading my PC in anticipation of large files and many of them.
    I will probably use an 80/160 GB SCSI tape drive for backup.)

    Thank you in advance.
     
    Father Kodak, Sep 15, 2005
    #13
  14. T. Wise

    nailer Guest

    excuse me for being lazy, but your story is long, and my time limited.

    1. RAW format applies to digital cameras, scaners work differently.
    Save in 16 bit tiff or psd, providing the scanning progie supposts 16
    bit scans.
    2. Considering you have BW silver based films a scaner with diffused
    illumination would be a better choice.
    3. Considering all color films - get something with infrared chanel as
    well.
    4. try vuescan and any other progz by yourself, do not expect a
    meaningful reply, unless there is another person with similar needs.
    You must decide (compromise).
    5. get the fastest PC with as much RAM you can afford. Double core -
    why not? hard disks are cheao these days, RAM too.

    and most of all - how many days to retirement? It's gonna to take a
    while to scan THAT amount of frames.
    from my experience with Nikon LS30 on P4 - 3 hours for one roll.


    On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 01:04:25 -0700, Father Kodak

    *I just joined this group, and just read 40+ messages on this topic.
    *All I can say is,
    *
    *1. there appear to be two viable non-vendor choices. Silverfast and
    *VueScan.
    *2.Neither one sounds "ideal."
    *3. This discussion seems to have morphed into a software engineering
    *food fight. I work in a Silicon Valley enterprise software company
    *(though in marketing, not engineering), so I can appreciate this
    *discussion in a way. However, I suspect most readers of this group
    *don't care any longer.
    *
    *Can I restart this discussion, for my particular situation. My
    *questions, for the situation below, are:
    *
    *1. Between Silverfast and VueScan, which gives me the highest degree
    *of automation when I need it (for a box of slides or strip of film)?
    *
    *2. Which gives me the most flexible options for a custom settings, for
    *a more precise scan, probably one at a time?
    *
    *3. In real life, under real usage, what is the minimum PC config I
    *would want to run your recommended software? processor speed, RAM,
    *disk storage.
    *
    *4. Assuming that I expect my workflow (I haven't gone digital quite
    *yet) to be "centered" on Photoshop, not Photoshop Elements, which
    *version of Silverfast would I want? And why?
    *
    *5. As a side question, what are the specific issues regarding
    *Kodachrome and recent model Nikon scanners? Can either of these two
    *packages compensate for these issue?
    *
    *6. Can either of these packages utilize the built-in image correction
    *features such as ICE, etc.
    *
    *Now, thank you for reading this far. Here is my situation:
    *
    *I have:
    *
    * 5000+ black and white negs, mostly Plus-X and
    *Tri-X, home developed in various developers. Maybe a small amount of
    *black and white film based on C-41.
    *
    * About 1000 color negatives, various Kodak films, C-22 and C-41
    *processes. Mostly in 4 or 6 image strips.
    *
    * At least 8000 Kodachrome 25 and 64 slides. K12 and K14
    *processes. 2 x 2 mounts. Mostly Kodak, some third party lab in
    *either cardboard or plastic. Some in uncut rolls.
    *
    * About 1000 Ektachrome high speed slides, pushed to 1600 and
    *3200. Mostly cardboard mounts. Some in rolls.
    *
    *I would like to scan most of these images, and do my sorting/culling
    *after scanning, particular the negatives. Probably in Photoshop, on a
    *20" monitor. Beats a loupe. :)
    *
    *Being a looong time Nikon user, I will probably opt for the 5000 plus
    *the slide autoloader, so I can batch-scan overnight. With this volume
    *to be scanned, I can justify the cost of the scanner plus slide
    *autoloader. Besides, I will stay with film for at least one more
    *year, possibly longer, until the Nikon digital camera of my "dreams"
    *is on the market and at a reasonable price. I expect this to occur
    *not before 2007, maybe 2008.
    *
    *So I expect to end up scanning 15 K, maybe up to 20K images My
    *equipment cost per scan could be well under ten cents, or ten plus
    *scans for one dollar US.
    *
    *Having my druthers, I would like a "RAW" format output done at 2000
    *lines or greater. I expect to be doing digital photography with RAW
    *format.
    *
    *(I'm upgrading my PC in anticipation of large files and many of them.
    *I will probably use an 80/160 GB SCSI tape drive for backup.)
    *
    *Thank you in advance.
     
    nailer, Sep 15, 2005
    #14
  15. T. Wise

    Bruce Graham Guest

    and thats just learning how, then more pain and many more hours doing it,
    then starting over as you get better.

    Scanning is only worth the effort for your *chosen* images, so don't loop
    the loupe just yet.
     
    Bruce Graham, Sep 15, 2005
    #15
  16. A discussion in another forum indicated that low-end and middle range
    LCDs still don't have the color fidelity that a quality CRT has. If
    you choose LCD you should consider high end units (i.e., 20" LCD in
    the $2000-2500 price range!!) Me? I'm sticking with my CRT for now.
    Tapes may be slow but typically hold more data than other formats.
    I've had very few reliability issues with tapes and I've been doing
    tape backups of one type or another for 20 years. Still have the
    tapes and can still read them. For "specialized software" on either
    Mac or PC, use Retrospect from Dantz.


    Also, I noticed in the original query that only Vuescan and Silverfast
    were mentioned for use on a Nikon scanner. Why not NikonScan? I've
    used all three (Silverfast in demo mode only, however) and continue to
    use both Vuescan and Nikonscan. Sometimes one works better than the
    other; sometimes the other works better.

    -db-
     
    David Blanchard, Sep 15, 2005
    #16
  17. T. Wise

    Noons Guest

    Bruce Graham apparently said,on my timestamp of 15/09/2005 8:43 PM:
    I'm finding that as well and I'm nowhere near the number of images
    this guy is going for! What I'm doing now is scanning the older
    negatives and slides and archiving them in raw. That way even if the
    film strips crumble into dust, at least I got something to go back to.
    And only the choice ones of the modern stuff, like you say.
    Life is too short...
     
    Noons, Sep 15, 2005
    #17
  18. T. Wise

    Roger Guest

    On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 01:04:25 -0700, Father Kodak

    OK, I'll add my thoughts to the mix.
    (Sorry, I didn't mean to get carried away)
    Don't discard NikonScan either
    I've not found one yet, I'd consider "ideal". Each has their points.
    I contantly switch between NikonScan and VueScan. I like them both.
    "I think" VueScan will give you a higher degree of control, but with
    that comes a steeper learning curve, and more work at least initially.

    On thing to remember about slides. NO program or pieces of equipment
    is completely reliable with auto feeders. It may run trouble free for
    hours only to jam when you turn your back, or it may jam incessantly.
    This is more the fault of the slides than the equipment. Paper slide
    holders are prone to curling as well as edge curling and spreading.
    Some plastic slide mounts refuse to feed in specific directions. I
    had several thousand that would only feed backwards which is no big
    problem, you just have to remember to do it.
    Again, I would say, VueScan, but much of the work will most likely go
    just fine using NikonScan.
    Image processing is one of the most CPU intensive operations you can
    find. As an opinion, get the biggest, baddest machine you can afford
    and then at least tripple the size of the drive you thought you
    needed.
    I'd get the latest version of what ever, but check the forums to see
    if any one is having a problem with a specific scanner with that
    version.
    Some claim so, I've never seen any "with the exception" of the IR
    cleaning regardless of scanner can be inconsistent between batches of
    Kodachrome. It's a dye transfer process which is quite different from
    Ektachrome, Fuji, and others (E7).
    Kinda, sorta. They have their own way of using the IR source, but
    *seem* to work fine for me with the exception of some Kodachrome.
    ICE does not work with B & W negatives so you do not have the luxury
    of IR scratch and dust removal. I've not seen a small scanner yet
    where I liked the results with B & W, but there are many I haven't
    tried as well.
    How long have your had these masochistic tendencies?
    You are talking many hundreds of hours of work here.

    http://www.rogerhalstead.com/scanning.htm may help, but I do need to
    update it.
    Rolls are easier in 5 image strips (standard holder size) or if you
    have a roll adapter. If you have negatives or positives rolled up
    tight you will never do so again after trying to scan the warped
    little buggers.
    There may be some you not only don't want to bother scanning, there
    may be some you don't want to get in your equipment. As the basic
    scanning with IR cleaning on the LS-5000 ED runs about 30 seconds and
    you can easily take that well past a minute culling does make sense.

    I did the "old family photos" so every thing was scanned and I
    probably have another year or two working part time to finish. I'm
    past twenty some thousand and have about 70 some DVDs full with
    another set as backup.

    If you use Photoshop in conjunction with VueScan it can open the
    images automatically in Photoshop for editing. Scanning a strip of
    five negatives or slides takes a lot of resources. When you add
    Photoshop to that and the images to it, you need a *LOT* of
    horsepower. I found going from 512 megs to one Gig of RAM was like
    night and day. This computer is a 64 bit, 3.4 Gig Athlon with 2 Gigs
    of DDR RAM at 400 MHz. The network is approaching three *terabytes*
    and will hit four shortly.

    I do make liberal use of external USB drives. A couple of them are
    250 Gig, but the last three are all 300 Gig. They are faster than
    most networks, but I'm using a hardwired gigabit network via Cat5e.
    Most of the machines have two external drives and two or three
    internal. One has a 400 Gig SATA RAID and this one will be getting
    one soon.

    One note on the USB drives. If you purchase the drive and enclosure
    seperately you can get the very same drive and enclosure for $30 to
    $50 less. This involves about 4 screws and two cables. Either way
    you still have to format the drive. I leave them as all one
    partition.
    Probably not. The autoloader is a nice one, but you are at the mercy
    of your slides. You learn to roll the edges of paper slide holders by
    smoothing them with the back of a thumbnail or the handle of a kitchen
    knife.
    Going with the voice of experience I'd say It's going to take you
    longer than that to scan in all those images.

    As to the dream camera, I have a couple of nice digital cameras, but
    nothing fancy. A Olympus E20N and a Nikon D70 with a good set of
    lenses. I also have an F4S and my spare is an 8008S. I gave up long
    ago waiting for my "dream camera".
    That is one big job.
    Tis not quite the same thing, but you can scan with the basic settings
    set to get the most out of image's dynamic range and then post
    process. I scan at 4000 dpi, but you are looking at some very *large*
    files. That's 60 some megs per image at 8 bit color depth and 128
    megs at 16 bit color depth for a full frame 35 mm negative of slide.
    My smallest drive is a 250 Gig although I do have a 400 Gig RAID made
    from two 200 Gig SATA drives.

    My own preference is to stay as far away from tape drives as I can
    get. My profession was computers, I have my degree in the field, and
    I worked my way up to project manager so I have more than a passing
    acquaintance with them. Good tape drives are expensive and do not
    allow for random searches as you can do on a CD and DVD.

    All 4 computers here have dual layer DVD drives. Single layer DVDs
    (4.6 Gig) are almost free if you shop around a bit. My last 25 were
    free with rebate and I think I paid 20 or 30 cents for the hundred
    prior to those.

    A word of caution on storage of digital images. No medium is
    permanent. Generally, magnetic media such as hard drives are
    considered temporary although I'd think they have lifetimes measured
    in years. If you use windows, use NTFS and not FAT 32.

    "We thought" images were going to be long lived on CD and DVD, but
    some strange ailments are turning up in some isolated cases. Remember
    the back of the CD is sensitive to damage while the face can be
    blocked with scratches and dirt. Still the information is burned into
    the layer on the back. DVDs are a sandwich and are sensitive to
    flexing. The writing is done between the two layers of plastic. Do
    not pop them out of jewel cases by lifting on the edges. Press down in
    the center and dump it in your hand, but holding it by the edges.
    Store CDs and DVDs on edge, in a cool dry place out of direct
    sunlight.

    Remember too, that no mater how good your filing system, your back up
    system, and your equipment, most trashed files come from user mistakes
    and not the equipment.

    Good Luck,

    (20,000 plus done, another few thousand to go and about 200# of prints
    yet to scan)

    Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
    (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
    www.rogerhalstead.com
     
    Roger, Sep 16, 2005
    #18
  19. T. Wise

    Father Kodak Guest

    My current system is a self-built Dual AMD Athlon 2000+ (not
    overclocked, and very stable) with 1 GB of RAM, and I'm about ready to
    buy another 1 or 2 GB. System maxes out at 3.5 GB. (That used to be
    a honkin' big mainframe not too long ago!)

    For not much, I can upgrade it by about 40% by getting faster
    processors And until you have experienced dual-processor computing,
    you don't know just how "smooth" it is, compared to single-CPU
    systems.

    I use SCSI-320 drives (used off ebay) with a 64-bit LSI SCSI-320
    controller. Very fast. I have 280 GB online now, lots of free space.
    For photo work, I would probably add a SATA IDE RAID config with say
    2x300 or 2x400 GB. Even at 133 MB/image, that's several thousand
    images online at any time.
    Ah. And that proprietary processing is built into the scanner?
    My current monitor is an old-but-great Sun 20" CRT that I got when I
    worked at Sun. I know it's old and won't hold color calibration worth
    an ounce of spit, so I'm planning to get a decent LCD. I'd love to
    get an Eizo, but they are a bit rich for my blood. :)

    I have also thought about DVD for backup, and I'm probably going to
    get a DVD soon enough anyway. But everything I've read says that DVD
    media is physically a lot more fragile than CD media. Another posting
    in this thread talks about how to take the disk out of the holder.
    Only problem is, the half-thick jewel boxes I use (to save space) have
    no way to release the disk by pressing inwards on the center.

    I've had very good luck with tape over the years because I haven't
    tried to skimp. I don't need to restore too often, but whenever I do,
    the tape always does the job.
    Taiyo Yuden?
    I haven't run the numbers yet, so I can't comment too much, but 80 to
    160 GB on one cartridge that is about 4" x 2.5" x .75" (in its case)
    is probably more space-effective than DVD. Putting aside file
    compression, that one tape can hold as much as about 35 DVDs. And
    it's reuseable. (Check out the Exabyte site for the torture tests on
    their VXA media.)
     
    Father Kodak, Sep 16, 2005
    #19
  20. T. Wise

    Father Kodak Guest


    Thanks. You may be right. Maybe I'll do two rounds. First, to get
    "proofs" for use on the "light table." Then a second round for a more
    precise result.
     
    Father Kodak, Sep 16, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.