Coolscan V ED software vs Vuescan

But "RAW" is Vuescan is not actually a RAW file. Its just a non-inverted scan with a gamma of 1.

After seeing the polarised views around Viewscan versus Nikonscan for years, I really start to wonder if its sort of a left brain / right brain sort of thing; or maybe its more about the required level of knowledge around how you can control the scan; and as such Vuescan can become overwhelming for some :eek:

The other thing I really like about Vuescan is the responsiveness from Ed Hamrick around features. I asked for a CTRL-F feature for focusing and got the feature available in a few days - and that been a god-send for taking multiple manual focus readings across a frame.
 
I use Nikon Scan with my 5000 ED and love the results. I've tried VueScan. I didn't see any quality improvements in my scans and I thought its interface was convoluted.

I see VueScan as a good option if you are using an OS that Nikon Scan doesn't support. I keep an old XP laptop and Vista desktop well maintained so that I will be able to use Nikon Scan in its native environment for as long as possible.
 
craygc said:
But "RAW" is Vuescan is not actually a RAW file. Its just a non-inverted scan with a gamma of 1.
Click to expand...

I know. I just find Vuescan's inversion routine odd. It gives me odd colors. However, it's so much faster than Nikonscan for me, especially when scanning at lower dpi, that I like to use Vuescan.
 
rayfoxlee said:
I need some advice, please, from RFF members who have experience of both of these software packages. I use XP2 and scan in the Nikon software at max resolution, 14 bit colour neg setting, but with only the ICE and GEM settings (set at 3) enabled, as I prefer to post process in CS3 or Lightroom. I have been experimenting with Vuescan to see if I can squeeze higher quality out of the negs, especially with the Vuescan multiple scan facility. My Nikon software scans are just miles better, so I just wonder what all of the hype is about. With so many members using it and being enthusiastic about the results, is Vuescan really that much better? If so, then clearly my settings in Vuescan are not delivering. I am scanning TIFF at 4000 res, 4 passes and dust and grain settings enabled at setting 'medium'. I am using colour neg as the setting.

Perhaps I have to wade through the 80 odd pages of the Vuescan manual, but I would be really interested to hear of other members experiences with the changeover.

Thanks to all.

Ray

PS. I had similar problems with Silverfast, too!
Click to expand...

Why are you using GEM? From the Nikon manual:

"Both digital GEM and Digital ROC are software functions... that provide post processing in the Nikon Scan software. Though these take time, the improvements they make to damaged or faded images are usually worthwhile."

If your images are not damaged or faded then you're just prolonging the scan time and doing changes that you have no control over - changes best done in post. Otherwise you're doing exactly as I do. Also, in almost all cases, a single pass scan is adequate.

To elaborate further: The resulting XP2 image is an RGB tif file that I open in CS3 and change to Lab color (Image/Mode/Lab color). I then discard the a and b channels and change the image to grayscale (Image/Mode/Grayscale). I fix the black point in a Curves layer, save as a psd, and that becomes my working file; I discard the tif file.

I've flogged my NYC pics in a couple of posts here. :D Go there and you'll see images all made with XP2 and the above workflow:

http://www.pbase.com/hlockwood/nyc_june_2010&page=all

Harry
 
kiemchacsu said:
IMO, Nikon Scan does better than Vuescan for B/W film, here's the sample, with default settings from both programs:

I'm not sure that, given the flexibility of either software, it's fair to compare them at default settings. These are simply starting places, and the example images might easily have been made comparable with a few tweaks of the Vuescan.

My experience with Vuescan and Nikon Scan:
•Nikon Scan tends to crash on OSx 1.5.8, especially after the film carrier goes into my 8000. That only leaves VS as an option. However, when it does work, Nikon is noticeably faster. Even the machine sounds different.
•Vuescan does produce some funky banding, which looks different than Nikon banding. Fine mode fixes it.
•Nikon produces more subtle and neutral colors. I suggest picking "none" under VS's color balance options.
•Both programs do equally well with digital ICE.
•I'm equally fine with either interface.
•Nikon is superior for batch scanning, of course.
Click to expand...
 
I know this is last years post but I just got my CS 4000 out of the closet so I can get back into the scanning. I will clean it as someone from the forum suggested. I always used Nikon Scan and think that the manufacturer software is usually the best but wait a minute! Windows 7 is here and is already old but Nikon Scan does not support it. Anyone have any luck with Nikon Scan on Windows 7 or do I just count on getting Vuescan? I have looked at Silverfast but it does not seem to have support for the 4000. I was hoping to do some batch scanning so I would really like to get Nikon Scan working.
Pete
 
I know this is last years post but I just got my CS 4000 out of the closet so I can get back into the scanning. I will clean it as someone from the forum suggested. I always used Nikon Scan and think that the manufacturer software is usually the best but wait a minute! Windows 7 is here and is already old but Nikon Scan does not support it. Anyone have any luck with Nikon Scan on Windows 7 or do I just count on getting Vuescan? I have looked at Silverfast but it does not seem to have support for the 4000. I was hoping to do some batch scanning so I would really like to get Nikon Scan working.
Pete
Click to expand...

Follow this thread and you will get your answer re:windows 7
It will work

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/film-forum/199675-nikon-coolscan-windows-7-a.html
 
Thank you Randy,
I checked it out., I am also 3rdtrick on that forum. So far I have downloaded Vuescan and it finds the scanner ok. I also downloaded Nikon Scan hoping to use the driver from Vuescan but NS does not find the scanner. Vuescan seems like it will work well and is current with the times so I will probably just use that but I would like to get NS working also. Guess I need to read the LUG thread again...
Pete
 
jja said:
I started reading Chris Crawford's page on scanning:

http://chriscrawfordphoto.com/technical/scanning.php

Chris is an rff member, and I hope he finds this thread. He has lots of experience in these matters!
Click to expand...

Thanks, jja.

I think Nikon Scan does better for color transparencies than Vuescan. I get nicer color. For black and white negatives, I like Vuescan better. I think both programs give equal quality for BW negs, but Vuescan is much faster. I don't have much experience scanning color negs, its been 10 yrs since I scanned one, so I can't really comment on them.

The big problem with Nikon Scan is that it has not been updated by Nikon in many, many years. On modern computers with modern operating systems it is excruciatingly slow and has a nasty habit of crashing at or near the end of a long scan, requiring you to redo the whole scan. It sucks because, as I mentioned above, NS gives better color when scanning slide film, so I tolerate it for that.

For BW I just use Vuescan. Someone posted a comparison of a BW neg scanned with Vuescan and Nikon Scan, and concluded that the Nikon Scan version was better. The grain looks sharper, but keep in mind that the Nikon Scan example he showed is much higher in contrast than the Vuescan one. Increase the Vuescan example's contrast and I bet they'll look near identical.
 
Can anyone comment on multi exposure in Vuescan is there any advantage of Vuescan over NS here when trying to get better shadows details using Coolscan V?
 
exlboy said:
How about color slides?
Thanks.
Click to expand...

I have just made the plunge and bought ColorPerfect, after getting some nice results from the demo version.

After scanning slides with Vuescan in "RAW" mode and then converting them in Photoshop with the ColorPefect plugin, I truly got color-perfect results (on screen that is, haven't tried to print yet). After conversion the scans look pretty much exactly as the slides on the light-table.

ColorPerfect is free to try, the demo version just adds a noise raster to the final output. So give it a try, you've got nothing to loose.

BTW, the slides I scanned were Profia 100F medium format, and my scanner is a Minolta Dimage Multi Pro. The image below had no further adjustments besides resizing and sharpening in Photivo:

colorperfect-american-classic.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom