Andrew Dacey wrote:
>Well I did have time to play with the scanner tonight but not enough
>time to get the page up, should be able to put it up tomorrow.
>
>Ran into one problem with Vuescan. With the 9950F it uses a 2nd pass
>for the infrared dust removal (not sure if other scanners do it in a
>single pass).
>
I know this is true for the FS4000, and I believe it is generally true.
With only R, G and B sensors, the R has to do double duty for IR and it
can't separate the visible from invisible in one pass. Maybe it isn't
true for some others?
>That's not a big deal but it seems that if you choose
>multi-sampling it uses that multi-sampling setting for the infrared
>pass as well which I don't think does very much other than just
>slowing down the infrared pass. I've emailed Ed mentioning this so
>hopefully it can be fixed in later versions.
>
>
Good idea!
>I will say that batch scanning with all these options on is very slow!
>64-bit RGBI scanning with 4 samples on 24 frames (5 strips of 5 frames
>and 1 strip of 4 frames) has taken several hours to complete (still
>going as I write this).
>
I believe I remember you said multi-scanning does make a difference.
After much reading before buying the 2720, I decided I needed VueScan to
do multi scanning to get decent results. After some testing and learning
to set the various scan parameters, I found that it didn't make any
difference. I don't know if that will be true for the 9950, but I'll bet
you don't need more than two passes. photo-i certainly got some good
results without it. But then he was using Canoscan.....
>Granted I'm doing a few things that would
>impede the performance. For starters, I'm outputting both raw and tiff
>files because I want to play with different levels of dust correction
>for the page I'll put up but I want the tiffs for some scans to use. I
>think the best way to handle this level of batch work would be to just
>output the raw files and then run them all through colour correction
>and dust removal as a batch job later.
>
>
I'm not sure separateing the steps that way saves any time overall, but
it saves a LOT of time during the actual physical scan process. And one
may then play around with various options on only a few frames to see
what they do before setting it loose on the whole batch.
>That said, it's not that the scanner has poor performance when it
>comes to speed it's just that scanning a frame with these kinds of
>settings takes awhile and then scanning 24 frames with those settings
>in a batch just makes it that much worse. It's great that you can just
>leave the scanner going and do other things though while it plods
>through this. With the 2710 I'd have to be nearby to change frames
>every x number of minutes because it had no batch capabilities.
>
>
Yes. done lots of that! At least the 4000 does 4-6 at a time.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|