David_Manning
Well-known
Yep...I definitely like the 16-bit output better...maybe not for web scans, but it'll make a difference in a print.
I guess it's time to get more familiar with Vuescan. I'm not ready to shell out $100 for a software upgrade right now. Vuescan is in my price range, and SO many people like it...
Egor, thanks for taking the time out to do the scan examples.
--David.
I guess it's time to get more familiar with Vuescan. I'm not ready to shell out $100 for a software upgrade right now. Vuescan is in my price range, and SO many people like it...
Egor, thanks for taking the time out to do the scan examples.
--David.
egor
Member
Glad to help... I'm going through the process of finding the workflow that'll extract the best quality from the 7600, so I figured I might as well share what I'm finding.
Bob: I haven't downloaded the Silverfast Ai demo yet. I need to determine if it, indeed, allows me to output 16 bit grayscale TIFF files (not to be confused with 16 bit HDR grayscale TIFF files). I'm pretty sure it does. If, like me, you want to squeeze maximum quality out of the scan, Ai is the way to go (though, at the moment, I'm getting slightly better results with my all-manual, slow and fiddly VueScan/Photomatix Pro method, as described below).
David: Be careful about purchasing VueScan (for the 7600). As I've mentioned, I'm a big VueScan fan. With every scanner I've had (before this one), VueScan has been wonderful. Unfortnately, it's just not cutting it with the 7600. The main problem is Vuescan's multiexposure option isn't working with the 7600. I'm sure it's just a bug since Vuescan goes to the trouble of actually taking two scans at two exposures -- it just seems to then throw away the second scan without merging it. Hopefully, I'll eventually hear from Ed Hamrick and we can solve it. But, for now, using VueScan requires making two manually exposed scans (one of which takes a few prescans to determine the 'ideal' lengthy exposure), then using Photomatix Pro to do an exposure merge (also requiring a bit of per-scan parameter fiddling) to output a nice, full-range scan -- it can take me a half hour to get a scan I'm happy with! Right now, with SilverFast SE, you're not seeing the limited dynamic range too clearly (since SilverFast does a bit of pre-processing to help smooth out the contrast). I might not have noticed this had I not already made scans with my V600, which contained MUCH more highlight detail than the 7600 scans. VueScan doesn't appear to do any range compression (at least where the highlights are concerned), and it simply shows the blown highlights in all their unforgiving 'glory' -- making them VERY obvious in many scans, which dictate the necessity of multi-exposure scanning.
An important note for anyone: It's apparently not as simple as purchasing 7600i SE and upgrading to Ai later, if you discover you need it. The Ai version of the 7600 costs about $120 more than the SE. BUT, if you buy the SE version and try to upgrade to Ai, they want to charge you $240! I'm not happy about that! Particularly since I saw nothing in the literature that said Silverfast SE wouldn't output 16 bit grayscale scans. I feel like I've been hoodwinked. Before I bought the 7600, I read quite a bit about the two versions. It was rather apparent that the Ai version added lots of advanced color stuff -- I shoot B&W, so I bought the SE version. Then, after purchasing it, I discover that they disable the 16 bit grayscale output in SE! The penalty for this discovery? Upgrading to Ai costs DOUBLE what it would cost if I just bought Ai to begin with. Needless to say, I've contacted Plustek about this!
Bob said it best several posts ago: :bang:
-egor (http://photography.ultrasomething.com)
Bob: I haven't downloaded the Silverfast Ai demo yet. I need to determine if it, indeed, allows me to output 16 bit grayscale TIFF files (not to be confused with 16 bit HDR grayscale TIFF files). I'm pretty sure it does. If, like me, you want to squeeze maximum quality out of the scan, Ai is the way to go (though, at the moment, I'm getting slightly better results with my all-manual, slow and fiddly VueScan/Photomatix Pro method, as described below).
David: Be careful about purchasing VueScan (for the 7600). As I've mentioned, I'm a big VueScan fan. With every scanner I've had (before this one), VueScan has been wonderful. Unfortnately, it's just not cutting it with the 7600. The main problem is Vuescan's multiexposure option isn't working with the 7600. I'm sure it's just a bug since Vuescan goes to the trouble of actually taking two scans at two exposures -- it just seems to then throw away the second scan without merging it. Hopefully, I'll eventually hear from Ed Hamrick and we can solve it. But, for now, using VueScan requires making two manually exposed scans (one of which takes a few prescans to determine the 'ideal' lengthy exposure), then using Photomatix Pro to do an exposure merge (also requiring a bit of per-scan parameter fiddling) to output a nice, full-range scan -- it can take me a half hour to get a scan I'm happy with! Right now, with SilverFast SE, you're not seeing the limited dynamic range too clearly (since SilverFast does a bit of pre-processing to help smooth out the contrast). I might not have noticed this had I not already made scans with my V600, which contained MUCH more highlight detail than the 7600 scans. VueScan doesn't appear to do any range compression (at least where the highlights are concerned), and it simply shows the blown highlights in all their unforgiving 'glory' -- making them VERY obvious in many scans, which dictate the necessity of multi-exposure scanning.
An important note for anyone: It's apparently not as simple as purchasing 7600i SE and upgrading to Ai later, if you discover you need it. The Ai version of the 7600 costs about $120 more than the SE. BUT, if you buy the SE version and try to upgrade to Ai, they want to charge you $240! I'm not happy about that! Particularly since I saw nothing in the literature that said Silverfast SE wouldn't output 16 bit grayscale scans. I feel like I've been hoodwinked. Before I bought the 7600, I read quite a bit about the two versions. It was rather apparent that the Ai version added lots of advanced color stuff -- I shoot B&W, so I bought the SE version. Then, after purchasing it, I discover that they disable the 16 bit grayscale output in SE! The penalty for this discovery? Upgrading to Ai costs DOUBLE what it would cost if I just bought Ai to begin with. Needless to say, I've contacted Plustek about this!
Bob said it best several posts ago: :bang:
-egor (http://photography.ultrasomething.com)
Last edited:
user237428934
User deletion pending
I think this is just normal for most software products. Or take hardware. If you buy a notebook with enough RAM it's cheaper than buying the low cost version and upgrading later. Or buy some add on later into your car.
egor
Member
I'd be inclined to agree if:
1. SE to Ai was a hardware upgrade. But it's not. You're buying a serial number. They charge you $240 for a serial number if you realize you need an upgrade, but only $120 if you realized that before the purchase.
2. The fact SE doesn't support 16-bit grayscale TIFF files was easily found in the pre-purchase literature. It wasn't. I studied the differences between the two rather carefully (short of reading the massively dense owner's manuals) before choosing the SE... Given the complexity of SilverFast (and the fact that there's no additional cost to the developer for providing a serial number), I believe they should offer a time-limited upgrade: Something like, "if, within the first 30 days you discover your needs would be better met with Ai, then you can upgrade from SE to Ai for the $120 price differential."
Obviously, I can circumvent the problem if I sent back the Plustek 7600i SE (internationally from Canada to the US, I might add) and, instead, ordered the Plustek 7600i Ai... but this is a tremendous waste of everyone's time, effort, and resources when, in reality, all that's required is a different serial number.
-egor (http://photography.ultrasomething.com)
Last edited:
David_Manning
Well-known
I hate to sound wishy-washy, but I spent some time in Vuescan this afternoon, and although I can scan in 16-bit or 48-bit, I wasn't happy with sharpness, or the way I had to crush the histogram in Photoshop to get an image to my taste.
Granted, limited experience...
So, it's back to SilverFast SE Plus for me. The way I'm getting around the high-bit problem is just interpolating in Photoshop (I'm changing from 8-bit to 16-bit in Photoshop). Inelegant, for sure, but it interpolates enough bits for me to work the histogram without combing effects.
Quick Plustek/SilverFast color scan (Leica M6, Zeiss Biogon 35/f2, Fujicolor Pro 160S):
Granted, limited experience...
So, it's back to SilverFast SE Plus for me. The way I'm getting around the high-bit problem is just interpolating in Photoshop (I'm changing from 8-bit to 16-bit in Photoshop). Inelegant, for sure, but it interpolates enough bits for me to work the histogram without combing effects.
Quick Plustek/SilverFast color scan (Leica M6, Zeiss Biogon 35/f2, Fujicolor Pro 160S):
egor
Member
David:
Thanks for the update. I'm glad we're having this exchange... the more we can help inform future purchasers of our findings and expectations, the better.
Just as an aside: I wonder if the extra 'sharpness' you see in Silverfast is real or perceived? There are two things I can think of that make me say this:
1. Since SilverFast SE outputs 8 bits, there is significantly more contrast between any two adjacent pixels (maximum of 256 shades of gray vs. 65,000). Obviously, in a 16 bit file, pixels that are slightly different in luminosity will appear nearly identical to the naked eye. But, with an 8 bit file, there might be a more distinct and visible difference between the two adjacent pixels -- which increases the perception of sharpness but is, in fact, not 'real' sharpness. If you look at the 8-bit vs. 16-bit scan samples I sent earlier, the 8-bit version appears, at first glance, to be sharper -- it's not though. It's the illusion of sharpness given the fact that the transitions between shades of gray are smoother in the 16 bit version.
2. You mentioned somewhere further back that you let SilverFast SE sharpen the scan. Obviously, that will result in a scan that looks sharper than VueScan's unsharpened output. But, again, that's not 'real' sharpness, that's software-induced local-contrast maximizing. I always sharpen my scans, too -- but I prefer to capture as much 'natural' info in the scan as possible, then sharpen in LR or PS. Kinda like shooting RAW -- I want as much "real" data as possible in the file; that way I can extract what I need later.
Please don't misunderstand. I'm not trying to convince you to use one software package over another (and, frankly, neither package is working to my liking right now)... I just want to point out that this may not be an apples to apples comparison. In the end, though, the only thing that matters is what works best for each of us, personally. At least we still have choices. Given the declining demand for film (and, subsequently, scanners) I'm a bit fearful this won't always be the case.
-egor (http://photography.ultrasomething.com)
Thanks for the update. I'm glad we're having this exchange... the more we can help inform future purchasers of our findings and expectations, the better.
Just as an aside: I wonder if the extra 'sharpness' you see in Silverfast is real or perceived? There are two things I can think of that make me say this:
1. Since SilverFast SE outputs 8 bits, there is significantly more contrast between any two adjacent pixels (maximum of 256 shades of gray vs. 65,000). Obviously, in a 16 bit file, pixels that are slightly different in luminosity will appear nearly identical to the naked eye. But, with an 8 bit file, there might be a more distinct and visible difference between the two adjacent pixels -- which increases the perception of sharpness but is, in fact, not 'real' sharpness. If you look at the 8-bit vs. 16-bit scan samples I sent earlier, the 8-bit version appears, at first glance, to be sharper -- it's not though. It's the illusion of sharpness given the fact that the transitions between shades of gray are smoother in the 16 bit version.
2. You mentioned somewhere further back that you let SilverFast SE sharpen the scan. Obviously, that will result in a scan that looks sharper than VueScan's unsharpened output. But, again, that's not 'real' sharpness, that's software-induced local-contrast maximizing. I always sharpen my scans, too -- but I prefer to capture as much 'natural' info in the scan as possible, then sharpen in LR or PS. Kinda like shooting RAW -- I want as much "real" data as possible in the file; that way I can extract what I need later.
Please don't misunderstand. I'm not trying to convince you to use one software package over another (and, frankly, neither package is working to my liking right now)... I just want to point out that this may not be an apples to apples comparison. In the end, though, the only thing that matters is what works best for each of us, personally. At least we still have choices. Given the declining demand for film (and, subsequently, scanners) I'm a bit fearful this won't always be the case.
-egor (http://photography.ultrasomething.com)
Roberto V.
Le surrèalisme, c'est moi
Guys, do you have more examples in color? I'm looking for an affordable 35mm scanner, but the epsons have a reputation for being soft.
David_Manning
Well-known
Yeah, my Epson 4990 is soft.
Here is another color scan from my Plustek 7600ai...
Here is another color scan from my Plustek 7600ai...
Last edited:
David_Manning
Well-known
Roberto, here's another color scan...Fujicolor Pro160S from the Plustek 7600ai SE with SilverFast SE:
Roberto V.
Le surrèalisme, c'est moi
Thanks, David. It's between this or a Minolta 5400 right now, I guess money will be the deciding factor.
DNG
Film Friendly
Yes, I also scan a little flat with my Plustek 7300 SE, And I usually scan 2x or 4x (multiple-exposure), I find the noise reduction option destroys too much detail. I can do much better job in Neat Image Pro with grainy films.
For the money, (from $250.00 to $400.00, depending on the model and software package) it is a great value for the money.
user237428934
User deletion pending
After 4 month of use a lot of dust gathered inside the scanner. Scanning bw gets harder 
Thomas-Paris
Member
After 4 month of use a lot of dust gathered inside the scanner. Scanning bw gets harder
Have you tried blowing it out with compressed air? I'm wondering if I need to keep mine covered in the relatively dusty environment of my apartment.
user237428934
User deletion pending
You can't really blow the dust out because there is no real outlet. I blow with compressed air inside and hope that the dust moves away from the sensor to other parts inside. It's better after using air but not as good as in the first weeks.
Gray Fox
Well-known
Hmmm, I wonder if they still make the old fashioned toaster covers? Maybe there's an after market for a cover made of an anti-static material.
user237428934
User deletion pending
Normally you shouldn't need this because the scanner comes with a nice transport bag that can be closed completely with a zipper. I store the scanner in this bag when not needed but nonetheless some dust got in. Yesterday scanning was a mess because I couldn't get the dust away with the pressured air. Today I had no problem and scanning was done with very little dust.
damien.murphy
Damien
Hi Egor,
Reading the posts in this thread have been very illuminating, particularly yourself and David's findings and exploration in relation to the 7600.
I wonder if you've had any resolution from Ed Hamrick in relation to the issue of multiple-exposure scanning, as highlighted above.
As you, I am deciding between the SE & AI versions, and being a solely b&w shooter, this is the main deciding factor between the versions. I already own a copy of Vuescan however, and if the issue you had with regard to multiple-exposure scanning was sorted in Vuescan now, that would be great,
All the best,
Damien
egor
Member
Damien:
I eventually gave up on both VueScan and SE, and updated to Ai.
Ed and I exchanged a few emails, and his response was basically "if you want to scan negatives you should buy a Coolscan 9000." I suppose I can understand his lack of interest, since Plustek had already chosen to work with Silverfast. Note that I still use Vuescan with my Epson flatbed, just not with the Plustek.
Ultimately, after scanning the same few negatives about 1,000 times in multiple applications and with multiple different scan settings, I drew a few "conclusions." It's my opinion that the Plustek scanner may not be as linear as other scanners, meaning the scanning software needs to be 'tweaked' in order to get the best performance. Silverfast has done this custom 'tweaking,' while Vuescan has not. This is why highlights sometimes blow out in Vuescan no matter what you do, while Silverfast can massage the dynamic range into something scannable in a single pass.
Using Silverfast Ai, I'm able to extract full dynamic range from a B&W negative and get a nice 16-bit grayscale scan to chew on in Photoshop. The SE version only outputs 8-bit grayscale scans (unless you choose to purchase additional Silverfast software to read a special HD file).
I tried to save a few bucks by purchasing the SE version and using the Plustek with VueScan, but I would not recommend this path to others. The Plustek really only achieves its full potential when married to SilverFast Studio Ai -- even for B&W photographers like us.
I eventually gave up on both VueScan and SE, and updated to Ai.
Ed and I exchanged a few emails, and his response was basically "if you want to scan negatives you should buy a Coolscan 9000." I suppose I can understand his lack of interest, since Plustek had already chosen to work with Silverfast. Note that I still use Vuescan with my Epson flatbed, just not with the Plustek.
Ultimately, after scanning the same few negatives about 1,000 times in multiple applications and with multiple different scan settings, I drew a few "conclusions." It's my opinion that the Plustek scanner may not be as linear as other scanners, meaning the scanning software needs to be 'tweaked' in order to get the best performance. Silverfast has done this custom 'tweaking,' while Vuescan has not. This is why highlights sometimes blow out in Vuescan no matter what you do, while Silverfast can massage the dynamic range into something scannable in a single pass.
Using Silverfast Ai, I'm able to extract full dynamic range from a B&W negative and get a nice 16-bit grayscale scan to chew on in Photoshop. The SE version only outputs 8-bit grayscale scans (unless you choose to purchase additional Silverfast software to read a special HD file).
I tried to save a few bucks by purchasing the SE version and using the Plustek with VueScan, but I would not recommend this path to others. The Plustek really only achieves its full potential when married to SilverFast Studio Ai -- even for B&W photographers like us.
V
varjag
Guest
If you use Vuesan, I suggest scanning to RAW/DNG in 48 bit color and doing all adjustments in Photoshop.
steinzeug
Member
I hate to sound wishy-washy, but I spent some time in Vuescan this afternoon, and although I can scan in 16-bit or 48-bit, I wasn't happy with sharpness, or the way I had to crush the histogram in Photoshop to get an image to my taste.
Granted, limited experience...
So, it's back to SilverFast SE Plus for me. The way I'm getting around the high-bit problem is just interpolating in Photoshop (I'm changing from 8-bit to 16-bit in Photoshop). Inelegant, for sure, but it interpolates enough bits for me to work the histogram without combing effects.
Quick Plustek/SilverFast color scan (Leica M6, Zeiss Biogon 35/f2, Fujicolor Pro 160S):
Hi, nice photos,
however there seems to be quite a bit of grain (clearly seen in the childs face), this seems a lot for a 160 film? I am considering a Plustek but am worried about too much grain.