Scanning in Win 64 bit

[Ray]

I haven't done any scanning of film for a while, but someone recently gave me a few slides of her deceased husband taken 50 years ago or so, or shall I say I volunteered to restore the worst of them, as a friend, with a view in mind that this might be an interesting challenge.

So I downloaded the latest version of Silverfast and Vuescan and set about relearning all the tricks that I didn't methodically write down the last time I was involved in a serious session of scanning.

The latest version of Vuescan is amazing. All those spidery, mosaic-like cracks in the emulsion, which are a nightmare to remove with the clone tool, or even spot healing brush, are got rid of with Vuescan's infra red cleaning and grain reduction, yet resolution is hardly diminished, or at least restored with Vuescan's sharpening.

What's also pleasing is that Vuescan now includes generic drivers for Win XP 64 bit (and Vista 64 bit, I presume). These drivers happen to work with my KM Scan Elite 5400 II, which was a big surprise and much appreciated.

However, in trying to set the monitor profile in the Vuescan software, I discovered a most puzzling situation, which doesn't appear to be related to Vuescan, but to my 64 bit system. I just can't figure out what's the cause of the problem.

Perhaps some computer expert reading this can help me.

On a PC, color profiles are usually found in C:\Windows\system32\spool\drivers\color. I couldn't find it. I checked to see if the 'hidden folders' was on or off. It was off, so I turned it on. I also turned on viewability of all system files. I still couldn't see any 'spool' folder under Windows/system 32.

So I did a search on the monitor profile file name, which is listed in video card properties/ color management. Sure enough, the search threw up the exact name of the monitor profile in C:\windows\system32\spool\drivers\color. I can open this folder and see lots of color profiles there.

Yet when I go to Windows Explorer, I can't find the path. There's no 'spool' folder under 'system32'. What the f**k is going on? Pardon the language.

[Ray]

Well, it seems Windows XP 64 bit requires a reboot after changing folder views to 'show hidden files'. I don't recall that being the case with other operating systems. It's tough being a computer illiterate.

However, that didn't solve the problem. Although Windows Explorer can now see the color profiles, the Vuescan software still cannot. I tried uninstalling all components of the Vusescan program and re-installing, but that didn't work either.

The only way I could get Vuescan to see my monitor profile was to create a separate folder in the C:\ drive, and copy the monitor profile found in C:\Windows\system32\spool\drivers\color, to that new folder.

Unless I can use my calibrated monitor profile when making adjustments in the scanning software, I've got no reference point. The colors end up being off.

I'm very impressed with the latest Vuescan upgrade. I see Ed Hamrick continues to be busy and productive. The simple controls yet amazing results make scanning rotten old slides almost a pleasure   .

[Kirk Gittings]

Ray, I don't think the monitor profile will help. It is not what the scanner needs. A monitor profile and a scanner profile are not interchangeable. There should be a set of scanner icc profiles that set the internal scanner data (and a set tagged to Adobe RGB 98, Prophoto, sRGb for output. etc.) available to your scanner that came with the scanner software or on their website (maybe not up to date for your purposes however). I removed Vuescan from my system so I can't tell you how they are named. In Silverfast they are named SF_T (Epson Perfection V700). Silverfast, like Vuescan, is usable on many scanners and needs a scanner specific profile, not a monitor profile. OR of course get some scanning calibration software like Monaco and do an IT8 calibration, but come to think of it these do not superceed the need for the basic scanner profile.

I may have misunderstood your question. Are you are talking about the Image Color Matching (ICM), but that too is a scanner specific profile that interprets scanner data to display it accurately on the monitor. This too comes with the scanner software. If it is not readily available, you are in upgrade hell. Run or wait for a fix.

I am not a Vuescan fan, I used it for along time and hugely prefer Silverfast, but regardless Vuescan, like SF, provides these profiles with the software.

Email Ed Hamrick with your problem. He is very good about getting back to people.

Good luck.

[Ray]

Ray, I don't think the monitor profile will help. It is not what the scanner needs. A monitor profile and a scanner profile are not interchangeable. There should be a set of scanner icc profiles that set the internal scanner data (and a set tagged to Adobe RGB 98, Prophoto, sRGb for output. etc.) available to your scanner that came with the scanner software or on their website (maybe not up to date for your purposes however).

Kirk,
I also use Silverfast (Ai Studio) which definitely has a whole range of sophisticated tools that Vuescan lacks. Silverfast seems to be able to automatically detect one's monitor profile, whereas Vuescan needs to be told where it is.

As I understand it, if the scanning software cannot find your monitor profile (the calibrated profile that matches your print output), then the scanned image, when later opened in Photoshop, will not match the colors of the scanner's preview screen where all your careful and precise adjustments were made.

Below is a screen shot of Vuescan's 'color output' settings. There would appear to be a bug in the software which prevents the program from accessing the color folder in Windows\system32. I had to create another folder and copy/paste the profile to it. This has fixed the problem, but I will mention this to Ed Hamrick.

[attachment=2441:attachment]

What I like about Vuescan is that it produces very acceptable results with the minimum of fuss. If I need to remove serious scratches and emulsion cracks, in Vuescan I have just 3 levels of infrared scratch removal; light, medium and heavy.

In Silverfast I have an enormous number of different combinations of 3 sliders dealing with 'detection', 'intensity' and scratch width. I feel I could spend all day on one image trying different combinations in an attempt to even match what Vuescan can produce with one click. So far I haven't been able to match the naturalness and clarity of the Vuescan result. Maybe I just need to take a course in scanning, but maybe not.

Below are example crops of a Vuescan scan, with and without maximum infrared scratch removal and grain reduction. There should be no need to tell you which is which.

[attachment=2443:attachment]  [attachment=2442:attachment]

I could also show you the same crop areas from Silverfast scans, with various SRD settings, but they are all worse, believe me.

[Kirk Gittings]

I don't know what version of SF you are using, but if your scanner has Digital Ice (infrared pass) SF will support it and it is simply a matter clicking a setting of high quality or low. In side by side comparisons up to about a year ago, SF did a better job because it had a better algorithm than either Vuescan or Epson, but not better than Nikon. SF cleaned up the artifacts but didn't soften the detail anywhere near as much as VS. SF took a little longer, because it was doing some serious number crunching. I ran a comparison of the native software, SF and VS on a Nikon 8000, Epson 4990 and V750 Pro and a Microtek 1800f (which does not support DI but has its own lame software). Vuescan may have caught up. Ed is always tweaking it.

Monitor profile is not the monitor profile you develop when profiling your monitor with a puck, at least in SF it isn't. Or maybe the "profile" setting--Image Color Matching (ICM)--is telling it to go look for the usual assigned monitor profile.

But try Ed Hamrick. He is accessible.

[Ray]

I don't know what version of SF you are using, but if your scanner has Digital Ice (infrared pass) SF will support it and it is simply a matter clicking a setting of high quality or low.

Hmm! My scanner certainly has Digital Ice and I see the Silverfast option for either Digital Ice or SRD, but I cannot find any reference in the Silverfast manual to a high quality or low quality setting for Digital Ice. As far as I can see, it's either off or on. When it's on, it certainly doesn't produce a result as good as Vuescan with heavy infrared filter and automatic sharpening. My SF version is 6.4.4r6.

Monitor profile is not the monitor profile you develop when profiling your monitor with a puck, at least in SF it isn't. Or maybe the "profile" setting--Image Color Matching (ICM)--is telling it to go look for the usual assigned monitor profile.

That's the only monitor profile I know of, the one I developed with my puck. That's the one I'm using in Vuescan. Without it, I don't get a good color match between the Vuescan preview and the scanned image opened in Photoshop. Makes perfect sense to me   .

But try Ed Hamrick. He is accessible.

I'll mention it to him, but I no longer have a problem. I've fixed it.

[Kirk Gittings]

By version of SF, I meant SE(basic) or AI6, AI6.5, AI Studio etc. If you have SE I have not looked at it in years, and it may not have different levels. The top shelf version, AI Studio, has two settings.

By the way those are some of the worst slides for scanning I have ever seen. Good luck.

[Ray]

By version of SF, I meant SE(basic) or AI6, AI6.5, AI Studio etc. If you have SE I have not looked at it in years, and it may not have different levels. The top shelf version, AI Studio, has two settings.

By the way those are some of the worst slides for scanning I have ever seen. Good luck.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=115767\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Kirk,
I mentioned before, I have AI Studio. It was quite expensive and I used it mostly for my own Kodachrome slides taken many years ago, which are in much better condition than the one shown above. I'm scanning a batch of slides for a friend and for the challenge of seeing how well I can restore something this bad.

Vuescan seems to give me a better starting position. A lot of the fungus cannot be removed by either Silverfast of Vuescan. I'm using selections and the healing brush a lot in PS, but Vuescan does a better job in removing the micro blemishes, spots and emulsion cracks, with minimal loss of resolution.

[Ray]

I don't like boasting, but just as a matter of interest here's a 'before & after' comparison of one the slides, by no means the worst. I'm not entirely happy with the gravel on the left, but that's as much as I'm going to do with this slide.

[attachment=2446:attachment]

No, it's not as much as I'm going to do. That gravel's just not right. It's such a chore being a perfectionist   . I think this is better.

[attachment=2447:attachment]

[Kirk Gittings]

I don't evy you with those.

By the way, your SF version is one upgrade behind. The new 6.5 version is really worth the cost. Amongst other things, the multi-exposure feature really does increase DMax and shadow separation, plus I guess maybe it is the 6.5 that has the two levels of DI.

[Ray]

I don't evy you with those.

By the way, your SF version is one upgrade behind. The new 6.5 version is really worth the cost. Amongst other things, the multi-exposure feature really does increase DMax and shadow separation, plus I guess maybe it is the 6.5 that has the two levels of DI.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116002\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The great thing about Vuescan, Kirk, is that the professional version, which is a lot less expensive than the most basic Silverfast version, provides a lifetime of free upgrades, as well as the flexibility to be used on virtually any scanner.

I've already paid twice for Silverfast, once for a Microtek scanner and again for the Minolta 5400 II. I've got a Nikon 8000ED which would probably benefit with Silverfast, but Silverfast is ridiculously expensive for the Nikon. I'm not sure I want to pay a third time for either a 3rd scanner or another upgrade for an existing scanner. However, the one feature I would be willing to pay more for is effective scratch removal for B&W silver grain negatives; that is, something as effective as Vuescan's infrared filter that will remove crazy-paving emulsion cracks with minimal loss of resolution.

[Kirk Gittings]

As I said, I used it for some time, it ran my Nikon 8000 better than SF, the scanner had quirks and stalled with SF or Nikon sw. Aside from that, I have always found Sf to have superiors tools for extracting the most from a trany or neg. I don't do retouching of damaged film, I have no interest in it. I know from teaching scanning for 8 years at universities and workshops that both programs have difficult to learn interfaces, but the tools in SF are simply superior. We have both Sf and Vuescan on the scanners where I teach. For myself I do not mind the expense. It is worth every penny.

But, I haven't tried VS in a little over a year. I still have a license I will update it and check it out.

[Ray]

As I said, I used it for some time, it ran my Nikon 8000 better than SF, the scanner had quirks and stalled with SF or Nikon sw.

Kirk,
You mean, in spite of the higher than usual price for the Nikon 8000 version of the Silverfast sw, Vuescan was still better. Wow!  

The reason I didn't like to use Vuescan with my Nikon 8000ED is that it prevented me from using the analogue gain feature of this scanner which I found very useful for extracting the maximum dynamic range from the film, particularly underexposed negatives where the shadows are represented by almost clear emulsion. As I understand it, this analog gain feature is like an exposure setting on a camera that allows one to increase the dynamic range of a scene through exposure bracketing and digital blending of 2 or more images.

I have always found Sf to have superiors tools for extracting the most from a trany or neg.

I tend to agree. The controls are so sophisticated one could really dispense with Photoshop for all further editing, at least with normal film that has not been degraded.. The argument here might be, it's always better to make adjustments at the scanning stage if possible.

BTW, does your version of Silverfast allow use of the ProPhoto profile when scanning negatives? This was a confusing issue I remember when I last did a scanning batch of my own film. With slides, ProPhoto was okay, but negatives were restricted to Adobe RGB.

[Kirk Gittings]

BTW, does your version of Silverfast allow use of the ProPhoto profile when scanning negatives? This was a confusing issue I remember when I last did a scanning batch of my own film. With slides, ProPhoto was okay, but negatives were restricted to Adobe RGB.

Yes I just tried it and it allowed me to install ProPhoto with color negatives. I did not run it however. It is 1:30 in the morning, I have been working since 6:00 pm and I am going to bed. Nothing like owning your own business.

[Ray]

Yes I just tried it and it allowed me to install ProPhoto with color negatives. I did not run it however. It is 1:30 in the morning, I have been working since 6:00 pm and I am going to bed. Nothing like owning your own business.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116095\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

 

Ah! Thanks for that. Perhaps when you get the time you can run it. I think this was the issue. One thought one was using ProPhoto when scanning, but the images opened in Photoshop, in the Prophoto working space, with ARGB numbers, requiring that one assign the ARGB profile for the image to look right.

I'm away from my studio for a few days so can't test this on the latest SF version.