Jump to content

The unthinkable?: switching from Vuescan to Silverfast


plasticman

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The save-button in each of the sub-windows of SilverFast saves the settings (and profiles if appropriate) just for the respective window. E.g. for iSRD it stores all the settings in the iSRD-menu . But note that when you reset the software (which has to be done quite often!) all these settings are lost, as are the jobs you have saved.

What -- very unfortunately -- cannot be saved are the general settings like "auto" or "CMS". Whenever you reset the software you have to set these things again manually!

Hermann-Josef

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

There instances, when the software is behaving strange. E.g. if you change the ICC-profile and nothing happens -- but the colours should change at least a little bit. If you continue, it can happen that the colours begin to change but then they are not reset to the raw data but it looks like the new ICC-profile is applied on top of the previous one. Result: very strange colours.

In any case there is the strong recommendation by LSI to reset the software every time you apply a new update!

Hermann-Josef

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jossie said:

The save-button in each of the sub-windows of SilverFast saves the settings (and profiles if appropriate) just for the respective window. E.g. for iSRD it stores all the settings in the iSRD-menu . But note that when you reset the software (which has to be done quite often!) all these settings are lost, as are the jobs you have saved.

What -- very unfortunately -- cannot be saved are the general settings like "auto" or "CMS". Whenever you reset the software you have to set these things again manually!

Hermann-Josef

That was exactly what I referred to - it only saves bits of pieces but not the whole thing at once unfortunately. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Phew!  that was quite a read.  I was hoping to see more folks doing an in-depth comparison of the quality between SF and VS.  I'm a novice so I'm not exactly sure my opinion counts :)   But in my testing I have been able to produce what I feel are significantly better results in SF than VS.  Its possible that I still have not mastered VS and thus have not done a fair comparison.  Now in my case I'm dealing with negatives from 198x/199x cheap cameras and negatives that have been sitting in a draw for 30 years so I'm starting from a relatively low quality.  I think that's where SF really shines - likely I could do similar stuff in Adobe (which of would cost me another $120 a year and more "youtube training".

I'm pretty sold on the workflow with SF Archive Suite - being able to scan with IR and full dynamic range and then apply processing from those in batch.  This way I never need to worry that I'll need to go back and re-scan (Just re-process from the DNG files) - Thought it would be nice if the DNG files were interoperable so I don't need to worry that my HDR Studio is not compatible with a new OS and thus my originals become inaccessible.

Negatives of SF:
* Find frames is unreliable (VS is much more reliable and Epson Scan is nearly perfect) - Folks at SF support indicated they were working on it
* No support for hardware "Start" button such as on the Epson v850
* Lack of a single "Preview and scan" option (VS has this / Epson Scan does not )
* Cost - I'm pretty sure this is the only scanner I'll ever have and I really don't know how much an "SW scanner change" would cost but it concerns me. 
* Very slow responses to support email (same is true for VS - in fact no response from VS)
* You'd think with a $300+ software you'd documentation and much better support.  The videos are ok and I've gotten a lot of out some of the videos posted on this thread

Based on my testing, my gut is that SF has far superior image manipulation algorithms.  I suspect if i had really great negatives then VS would be my choice because the workflow in VS is definitely superior.  I'm actually quite surprised that neither Espon Scan or SF have thought to enable ability to do a preview and full scan in a single step - this seems like an especially useful process with SF using AI studio to HDRi format where there is really no tweaking to do except frame finding (which should just work!)

oh, and one note on UX. I didn't find SF unmanageable.  I think the biggest hurdle would be for someone (like me) who doesn't know that much about image processing.  But if you google things like how to use a histogram, you learn pretty fast.  In SF there is only a dozen or so tools and great options like real time preview so you can see effect of everything you do.

I'd love to hear from anyone who has done a deep quality evaluation of both VS and SF.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello,

if you use TIF-format for the HDRi-output you should be on the safe side as far as compatibility is concerned.

SF gives you far more options to tweak the tools than VS, e.g. for the scratch removal. However, even after more than 6 years there are problems with the software and known errors are not eliminated for a long time: As you mentioned, the frame finding is unreliable, GANE (to reduce noise due to the film grain) is not working at all, and in the expert mode of NegaFix the exposure slider freezes if you change the settings for shadows or highlights.

You are scanning negatives so ICC-profiles are not an issue. But as I mentioned above, for Kodachrome there are issues with colour management and scratch removal in VS. For both I would only use SF.

Why do you need a "preview+scan"-option, if you are scanning into the HDRi-format? I use a generous frame for the scan which I keep for all scans, except f I change magazine type. Frame finding is done in SF HDR or manually. So there is no need for a preview, which saves time.

All in all, I agree that SF gives better results than VS.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 11/5/2018 at 12:52 AM, Jossie said:

if you use TIF-format for the HDRi-output you should be on the safe side as far as compatibility is concerned.

Good idea!  I have switched over to TIF.  I guess I can even store "i" channel in TIF and files are still editable in PhotoShop - thought I assume the IR channel is ignored.

 

On 11/5/2018 at 12:52 AM, Jossie said:

Why do you need a "preview+scan"-option, if you are scanning into the HDRi-format? I use a generous frame for the scan which I keep for all scans, except f I change magazine type. Frame finding is done in SF HDR or manually. So there is no need for a preview, which saves time.

Interesting approach.  I tried this.   It does mean I need to manually crop later but given the current situation its a good alternative. 

I still would like to see improvements to SF Find frames feature so I can minimize the number of times I need to interact with each scan by performing the following steps when clicking "start scan":

  1. Run preview scan
  2. Run find frames
  3. Run batch scan (use previous output folder and the last increment from preview scan)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The HDRi-TIF-format contains several images in one file: First frame is the high-resolution RGB-scan, second is optionally the preview RGB-image (see settings -- special: embed HiRePP), the third frame is the IR-scan. Yes, photoshop ignores the IR-channel. You can extract the three frames e.g. with imagemagick or imageJ.

Frame-finding in HDR has been improved, but it is still not 100% reliable, what I do not understand since it can fail in even straightforward cases! So if you enable the automatic frame finding for the batch in HDR you will get a correctly cropped image in most cases without manual intervention. Thus a preview is really not needed, only if you want to save some disk space. If the frame finding does fail in HDR you can always go back to the HDRi-file and correct the cropping manually. This is what I do.

A remark on the HDRiRAW format: If this is enabled, the settings of all tools are stored in the metadata and are applied automatically when you re-open the image. This might seem convenient, but it has the drawback that the "raw" data are changed whenever you work on an image. So if you automatically archive your images, every image that was opened has to be backed up again, since the metadata have been changed. This is not what I want, so I disable the HDRiRAW format.

Hermann-Josef

Link to post
Share on other sites

On ‎10‎/‎29‎/‎2018 at 9:30 AM, frame-it said:

 

This video is one of the best tutorials how to use SF 8.8 effectively for B&W scans! I learned about a few functions in the program which I have never used before - I used them now in a couple of 120-format B&W negative scans with improved results. Thanks again for sharing, this was very useful. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nikon Scan is my favorite software, but between vuescan and silverfast, I find silverfast color to be more accurate and the pixel level quality better. As it happens sometimes, I encounter a color negative shot that Nikon Scan is unable to interprete correctly, in which case silverfast always gives the best results while vuescan is somewhere in between. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, USM should always be used as the last operation, after binning. And one has to be careful to reduce noise before and set the contrast threshold correctly. Otherwise the noise will be sharpened too! And as I had written, GANE does not do anything in SF8. It is just not working -- confirmed by LSI staff already years ago, but nothing has been done about that. I use Nik-collection's Dfine with very good results for grain noise reduction. Yes, SRDx is only useable for very restricted cases. Since infrared-based cleaning does not work for black-and-white negatives due to the silver content in the film, here only manual editing makes sense for me. PhotoShop's cleaning filter results in heavy smoothing of the image.

Hermann-Josef

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

These seem more straight forward, or at least with results that look better to me.  

https://www.iamthejeff.com/post/32/the-best-way-to-color-correct-c-41-negative-film-scans

 

And another...

 

https://www.cuchara.photography/blog/2018/5/one-click-inversion-of-color-film-negatives-in-lightroom

 

And another...

 

http://www.camerachops.com/nikon-d850-digitizer/

 

I have saved these articles over time and intended to fully read and understand it all, but I just can't bear myself to do it.  

All of these methods seem great, but once I start reading them; they seem to start out simple, then for me it starts turning into a headache...almost like it's too much work to get not just good, but excellent results from a scan. 

I truly believe that scanning is the weakest link in the photography process.  I love film, but digital does eliminate what I feel is the weakest link when it comes to transferring all of the quality originally captured onto what ever media, and converting it into the digital realm. 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Hi,

I bought a new Reflecta RPS 10M (Pacific Image Prime Film XA) and started using my Vuescan Pro license I bought for an Epson scanner a few years ago. Really nice that I can still use the software and license for the new scanner. Definitely a huge plus for Vuescan.

I scan at 5000dpi and 64bit RGBi developed TIFF, 64bit RGBi negative RAW and highest quality JPEG. RAW for archive, TIFF for post processing (I try to get all colours right in scan to save time) and JPEG for my gallery and sharing.

As SilverFast Ai Studio 8.8 was bundled with the scanner I installed it too to test it out. One major drawback is, that I don't get all three outputs with a single scan. I would have to use the 64bit HDRi RAW and the SilverFast HDR software to generate the JPEG and TIFF without having to scan a second and third time.

Here are some more of my findings after several test scans in both programs:

  1. Usability of SilverFast is not an issue to me. Probably because I am used to some pretty crappy software UI. There is a bit of a learning curve but after watching the tutorials on YouTube it works pretty well for me. But Vuescan is still much easier to use.
  2. For B/W scans I prefer SilverFast. As I don't want to do a lot of post processing for colour correction and stuff the huge number of film presets (especially including Tri-X 400) is very beneficial. In addition I love how SilverFast renders the grain von Tri-X with USM activated. The sharpening is of pretty decent quality and gives my images the extra sharpness without looking artificial. In Vuescan either color or sharpness (even sharpened in post) doesn't look as pleasant.
  3. For colour negatives I am a bit torn:
    1. Vuescan by default sets it black point closer to the beginning of the photos histogram (so further to the right and not to 0) which delivers more contrasty scans. Good for immediate results but bad for post. This can of course be fixed fiddling with the settings.
    2. Vuescan's generic colour profile delivers pleasant colours for Pro 400H that look more natural for red tones but renders other colours a bit dull. I slightly prefer the SilverFast profile for Pro 400H that is more "filmic".
    3. Both deliver very inconsistent results with CineStill 800T. Sometimes Vuescan is better and sometimes SilverFast. It's mostly about colours and blackpoint.
    4. Dust removal is mixed as well. In very dark areas I think Vuescan is much better as it does use gradients in its mask. Silverfast just puts a blob of solid colour on top of the spots and sometimes even masks grain (toning down the sensitivity ends up in unmasked dust). Zoomed in at 100% + the dust removal of SilverFast looks very artificial and Vuescan more natural. Zoomed out the masking in Vuescan is sometimes visible (especially after sharpening) but SilverFast looks pretty good.
    5. Zoomed in the biggest downside of SilverFast shows. Digital noise is abundant. In Vuescan the grain has the same colour as the underlying picture. In SIlverFast you see a lot of green noise that shifts the colour when zoomed out a bit. In my opinion Vuescan declassifies SilverFast in that regard.

For B/W I will continue using SilverFast and just use the sharpened greyscale TIFF as output. For colour negatives I am going to use Vuescan. The green noise in SilverFast is plain ugly. For the dust removal I can always decide to improve it in post due to the archived 64bit RGBi RAW. If I buy Capture One for my digital Fujifilm I could even reuse it as a post processor for those. I would use SilverFast for colour negatives if it didn't have the noise issues.

Hope this helps.

Cheers,

Stefan

Link to post
Share on other sites

Am Friday, February 26, 2016 um 14:54 schrieb plasticman:

...
- Silverfast is much faster. I gave up doing multi-exposure with Vuescan long ago, both because it became INTOLERABLY slow on the 9000, but also I was afraid of the wear that might be involved on the machine: the scanner always seemed to be laboring so much more. Multiexposure in Silverfast seems to take about as long as single scan on Vuescan. Haven't strictly timed these impressions yet;
...

Yes, multi-scans with Vuescan let become the Nikon 9000 very slow.
So I bought (for only 40€) an old but well preserved Mac Mini made in 2007 with its latest possible software OS X 10.6 including Rosetta.
The scanning workflow has become quicker, which might also result of using the old Mac Mini as a stand alone unit and Nikon 9000, Nikon Scan and computer are belonging to the same generation.
Don't know if Silverfast might be still working better but of course for such little money one should give a real chance this cheap second hand solution.  

 

Edited by mnutzer
Link to post
Share on other sites

@suntorytimed

Quote

Digital noise is abundant.

What is "digital noise"? I do not see any significant difference between a VS-scan (right) and an SF-scan (left) of the same colour negative with my DigitDia6000. No image processing and no profiles were applied in both cases. In VS the Color balance had to be set to "white balance" since otherwise the image would come out way too dark.

Hermann-Josef

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited by Jossie
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
On 9/4/2017 at 8:28 AM, raphael said:

Everyone here is complaining about the higher price of Silverfast. But couldn't you just buy the SE version for $50 instead of the Ai Studio version for $300?

If I understood correctly, the SE version just lacks some minor features such as batch scanning and IT-8 target calibration (which VueScan lacks, too). Additionally, IT-8 target calibration is only useful for slides, not for negatives.

I'm thinking about making this purchase:
SilverFast 8 SE for $50

Instead of:
VueScan for $90 + ColorPerfect for $67

Am I missing something?

As other have said, this depends on the model of scanner you have, but also the versions of Silverfast available depend on your OS. They seem to update the software for new OS's only while the scanner hardware is still in production. So if your scanner predates 64 bit OS's - too bad there won't be an upgrade for it. The more expensive 'pro' versions of Silverfast are supported for longer so this is why many older scanners will have only a Pro version of Silverfast available for sale.

The pattern seems to be:

1) Current hardware + OS = SilverFast 8 SE or Ai Studio

2) Discontinued hardware + current OS = Ai Studio

3) Discontinued hardware + Discontinued OS = Ai Studio (written for old OS)

3) Discontinued hardware + New OS = Ai Studio (written for old OS but may still work)
The danger at this point is that you will upgrade or patch your computer one day and then suddenly find that Silverfast no longer works.

What we need is for Hamrick to release a 'pro' version of Vuescan with better colour management and support for Kodachrome, that would put Silverfast out of business. In the meantime VueScan + ColorPerfect would seem like a much safer investment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Scanned my first film yesterday and I have a question regarding SilverFast.

I select following: Transparency - Negative - 16 bit HDR RAW for scanning B&W film and I select output as DNG file. But when I open it in Lightroom - it's negative, not positive. TIFF - the same

I can select 8 bit JPEG output and I do get normal picture, but I would prefer to archive DNG, not JPEGs.

I couldn't open their forum either - it requires username/password even for main page and therefore I cannot even register there.

 

I tried demo version of VueScan but it also cannot produce DNG and final image is quite overexposed (compared to Silverfast). And they say that for scanning negatives I should use professional version (which I cannot try before paying $99)

 

Any help would be appreciated

Edited by dimm
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...