Raw & Post Processing, Printing > Digital Image Processing
Silverfast 8 + Nikon 5000 + Kodachrome = scan lines/banding
syncrasy:
I have Silverfast 8 scanning software for my Nikon Coolscan 5000 scanner hooked up to my Mac Pro [OS 10.6.8]. I am scanning Kodachrome slides @ 4000 ppi, 48 bit, tiff output. The colors look great but when I zoom in to 100% in Photoshop or any other image viewer, I can see very narrow, but distinct, scan lines/banding throughout the image. The lines are most noticeable in darker areas, and create jagged edges where dark and light areas meet. I have spent literally dozens of hours trying to troubleshoot this, including corresponding with Silverfast tech support in Germany. They can't reproduce the problem on their test machines and so they deny there is a problem with the software. I have had to go back to Silverfast 6.6, which produces far superior results but only when I engage multi-scanning (set to at least 8x). Silverfast 8 dropped the multi-scanning feature, so I'm not sure if that's the cause of the problem, or if there is some other problem. The software appears to be designed to create scans at only one speed: very fast, with no options to improve scan quality. I wish I could go back to Nikon Scan, but as you know, it doesn't work on Snow Leopard.
Does anyone have any ideas on how to eliminate this problem? Am I not using the software properly?
Mark D Segal:
--- Quote from: syncrasy on March 15, 2012, 09:50:37 pm ---I have Silverfast 8 scanning software for my Nikon Coolscan 5000 scanner hooked up to my Mac Pro [OS 10.6.8]. I am scanning Kodachrome slides @ 4000 ppi, 48 bit, tiff output. The colors look great but when I zoom in to 100% in Photoshop or any other image viewer, I can see distinct scan lines/banding throughout the image. The lines are most noticeable in darker areas, and create jagged edges where dark and light areas meet. I have spent literally dozens of hours trying to troubleshoot this, including corresponding with Silverfast tech support in Germany. They can't reproduce the problem on their test machines and so they deny there is a problem with the software. I have had to go back to Silverfast 6.6, which produces far superior results but only when I engage multi-scanning (set to at least 8x). Silverfast 8 dropped the multi-scanning feature, so I'm not sure if that's the cause of the problem, or if there is some other problem. The software appears to be designed to create scans at only one speed: very fast, with no options to improve scan quality.
Does anyone have any ideas on how to eliminate this problem? Am I not using it properly?
--- End quote ---
I have EXACTLY the same set-up that you have, I have done tons of work with it, and I have not noticed this problem. I am not in a position to do so now, but come the end of the month (I know, not instant gratification) I shall be, and I would be pleased to run some tests to see whether I can reproduce the observations you've made here. My preliminary assessment based on what I've and seen before is that this should not happen.
Lasersoft Imaging eliminated multi-sampling because they introduced multi-exposure, as their testing indicated to them that multi-exposure achieves everything that multi-sampling did, plus the specific intent of multi-exposure which is to open up shadow detail in slides and highlight detail in negatives. I have no doubt that if they thought there would be value-added to preserving multi-sampling as a separate tool they would have done so.
Scanning speed depends on the scanner and the resolution you set in the software. The higher the resolution the slower the scan, so in your case, it would be scanning at the slowest speed. I don't think that's the problem.
syncrasy:
Thanks for the reply, Mark. I appreciate your offer to run a test. And no worries about the delay -- I'm using Silverfast 6.6 for now. Let me know if I can provide you with anything for your test. Would it be useful if I posted some samples here? Or should I wait until the end of the month?
--- Quote from: Mark D Segal on March 15, 2012, 10:01:18 pm ---Lasersoft Imaging eliminated multi-sampling because they introduced multi-exposure, as their testing indicated to them that multi-exposure achieves everything that multi-sampling did, plus the specific intent of multi-exposure which is to open up shadow detail in slides and highlight detail in negatives. I have no doubt that if they thought there would be value-added to preserving multi-sampling as a separate tool they would have done so.
--- End quote ---
I wish I had as much confidence in Lasersoft's tech team as you do. Upon launch of Silverfast 8, the tech support crew didn't believe me when I told them the software didn't work with the Nikon slide feeder. (Some time later they quietly released a bug fix.) And they tightly control their support forum so as to not allow any posts that might imply there is trouble with the software. I can't get even the most basic questions past the forum gate keeper. Maybe the developers are more on the ball than tech support, but the Silverfast 8 UI, while generally better than SF 6.6, still has some not-so-friendly elements (from a usability perspective).
Regarding multi-exposure. . . Yes, they also told me multi-exposure replaced multi-sampling. I tried it, but I don't see any significant improvement (perhaps 10% at best). The lines persist. I thought the problem was due to the age of the slides (1930s and 40s), but then I scanned some 1970s slides in great condition and still noticed the lines. A casual observer might not notice them, but once I saw them, they were hard to ignore.
Regarding speed/quality: My 4000 ppi scans take only about 10 seconds. Does that sound normal?
Thanks,
-- (another) Mark
Mark D Segal:
Hi Mark,
It would be best to receive your images when I am in front of a decent computer screen allowing me to evaluate them properly. When the time comes, I'll send you a PM with arrangements for uploading the full raw scan files so I can see the issues in full detail.
While the Nikon 5000 is a fast scanner, ten seconds for a 4000 PPI scan does seem a tad fast, but I have never really timed it, so that would also be something to verify when I have access again to my scanner.
Cheers,
Mark
syncrasy:
Thanks, Mark. I'll look for your PM in a couple weeks.
I should have mentioned that I also tried the VueScan demo and had similar problems (scan lines/banding).
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version