Coolscan V ED software vs Vuescan

[rayfoxlee]

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!

[Mablo]

I tried them all with my Coolscan 5000 ED. I get the best results with Nikon scan software.

[tokengirl]

After reading enough similar threads here and other places, I am starting to think that all these fancy scanning software packages are like the Emperor's new clothes.

I am using an Epson V750 and after trying multiple films types with the Epson software, Vuescan and Silverfast, I have come to the conclusion that the Epson software gives the best results with the least amount of effort. I am willing to bet that if I had a a Nikon scanner, I would probably be using Nikon's software rather than Vuescan or Silverfast.

[Ronald_H]

I have the same scanner and use both SW packages. I prefer the Nikon SW for C-41 film, because the default settings provide good results. However, Vuescan gives you a lot more control over your scanner, so that is what I use for E-6 and traditional B/W.

However, Vuescan is much more stable and faster too, so you might want to wade through that manual and spend a day adjusting settings. The biggest problem I have with Nikon software is that it tends to blow out highlights, especially in B/W. The detail is in the negs (and with Vuescan I can get it out), but the Nikon SW settles for too much contrast.

[KenD]

I find that the Nikon software is much faster and produces good scans. Unfortunately it is terribly unstable with Windows XP. Vuescan is flexible once you learn it, has lots of options, tends to be pretty stable as far as Windows goes. It is very slow compared to the Nikon software.

[craygc]

A lot of this depends on what you expect as output from the scanner software. Vuescan is very good at extracting the most information and leave the adjustments to later in post processing.

Here is something I never do - show people the direct scan without processing. This is from a Nikon 4000ED + Vuescan

Post processed final...


...and this was the output from Vuescan. Black and white points arent set and the contrast is nowhere near what it should be but it contains a lot of information, which is my intent.

[Bob Michaels]

Originally Posted by rayfoxlee

<snip> 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? <snip>

Ray: are you making your judgment on "quality" based on the scans or on the final result after adjustment in an image editor? If based on what comes out of the scanner, not surprised you think the Nikon is better. That software is made for that. Sort of like a JPG from a digital camera. The final output is where you may see improvement with Vuescan. That is because you have the ability to insure the endpoints of the histogram are not clipped by the scanner software and you do all adjustments in your image editor.

I have been using Vuescan for about ten years and use settings that are very close to the defaults. I evaluate using the prints not what the scanner software outputs. I do make all adjustments in Photoshop, not Vuescan. I just insure the histogram is not clipped so the scan file is exporting all the data from the film.

Remember your scan quality is a function of the optics, mechanical alignment, and electronic noise of the actual scanner. The scan driver (Nikonscan / Vuescan) cannot improve on that, on degrade it. So you want to the scan driver to do as little as possible.

[keepright]

If your Nikon scans are miles better, then there must be something wrong with your Vuescan settings. There really shouldn't be that much difference in the results, although how you get to the best end point will be different.

I started using Vuescan when Nikon's software couldn't handle my OS, so it's been a while and I can't really give a direct comparison. One thing that I can suggest is to try turning off the multi-pass and multi-exposure scanning. The alignment is often very slightly off, and can soften the finished files. XP2 and the Coolscan V (hate that name…) are both good enough that you'll probably be happy with a single pass 98% of the time. It's also much, much faster.

[rayfoxlee]

Bob, I have been comparing the raw scans, rather than the final print. Frankly, I thought that this was a fair comparison, as I scan with the absolute bare minimum of options selected, like you preferring to post process in PS etc.

Having spent the afternoon running some tests, I have not changed my mind - the Nikon scans simply deliver a better (and bigger) file. When it comes to getting the blend between resolution and grain, Nikon scores. Having said that, I can see that there might be good reasons for the change, especially if there are are stability issues. Luckily, I don't seem to have that problem with XP.

So, perhaps I would agree with tokengirl comments about the emporer's new clothes!

Thank you all for your replies.

Ray

[Ade-oh]

My experience is that Vuescan is easier to use with both a Nikon Coolscan V and an Epson V750, in Mac OS X Snow Leopard. In terms of results it would be hard to pick, but the Vuescan has a much better user interface.

[Bob Michaels]

Originally Posted by rayfoxlee

Bob, I have been comparing the raw scans, rather than the final print. Frankly, I thought that this was a fair comparison, as I scan with the absolute bare minimum of options selected, like you preferring to post process in PS etc. <snip>

Ray

Ray: my experience is the scans that really look flat and crappy end up resulting in the best prints. My only evaluation is with the final finished product.

All those adjustments built into Vuescan are for those who do not want to later use an image editor such as Photoshop but simply want the best possible output from the scanner. I think Nikonscan is a bit like that as well except the adjustments are automatic and not controlable. Every adjustment be it in the scan driver software or with an image editor has potential to degrade the image. So the last thing I want is the scan driver to made adjustments which I cannot control visually or undo and find that I am later making some adjustment the the other way in my image editor.

Of course everyone has their own workflow that works for them. I have no problem if it differs from mine. Just try to conceptually understand what is happening along with way.

[kiemchacsu]

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

[exlboy]

How about color slides?
Thanks.

[bwcolor]

I don't understand how one can get different results with different scanning software. Of course, this assumes that you have each program setup correctly and the output is in a lossless format and that functions such as multi-scan are available in all software. That said, my workflow is Vuescan-->PS-->Aperture. I usually want a low contrast image with wide dynamic range and if color, good white balance. I always profile my film before scanning. ie.. lock exposure and base color. Where possible I do white balance and output TIFFs.

[Bob Michaels]

Originally Posted by bwcolor

I don't understand how one can get different results with different scanning software. Of course, this assumes that you have each program setup correctly <snip>

My Nikonscan and Minoltascan data is 8 years old as that is when I gave up and started using Vuescan. But back then Nikonscan automatically clipped the ends of the histogram in the belief that most people thought a better looking scan file would give better prints. That automatic adjustment did give a better looking file but it removed data from the scan file that could never be retrieved.

So that is how you got better looking scan files from one program and better looking final results after adjustments in an image editor from another.

[bwcolor]

I was assuming that modern programs would not corrupt the data. Do any of the major scanner software continue to truncate or compress data without the user selecting this in preferences?

[bensyverson]

I just recently switched from Nikon Scan to VueScan after having used Nikon Scan for over 10 years.

The short version of the story is this: VueScan does nearly everything that Nikon Scan can do, plus some great extras, but you need to already know what you're doing. Nikon Scan has more reasonable defaults and is more intuitive, but the problem is it's abandonware. You'll never see a Nikon Scan 5.0. There is NO quality difference.

I was having major problems with NS4 crashing when trying to scan negatives as positives. The software was just not having it, and given that it's PowerPC software running in OS X 10.6, I don't blame it. I opened up VueScan, and found that it's much more stable. The one practical advantage of NS is that if you adjust the analog gain, you don't have to re-scan the preview; it just updates. VS has to rescan, which can slow you down if you use analog gain a lot (I do).

However, VS has some extras, like better control over the infrared dust removal process, and amazing insight and control over the RGB exposure. Scanning negatives as slides in VS allows me to capture 100% of the HDR latitude of the negative in one pass. From there I can re-introduce contrast and do my color corrections.

Again, there is NO quality difference between VS and NS. I'm attaching a large view of a recent VS scan, along with a thumbnail version of the raw scan-as-positive, and a 100% crop of the finished file. BTW, that crop is from the bottom right of a Hexar AF frame. Try THAT with digital.

[hlockwood]

Originally Posted by tokengirl

After reading enough similar threads here and other places, I am starting to think that all these fancy scanning software packages are like the Emperor's new clothes.

I am using an Epson V750 and after trying multiple films types with the Epson software, Vuescan and Silverfast, I have come to the conclusion that the Epson software gives the best results with the least amount of effort. I am willing to bet that if I had a a Nikon scanner, I would probably be using Nikon's software rather than Vuescan or Silverfast.

About once a year or so, I switch over from NS to VS because of the most current favorable comments about VS. I always revert to NS, however, mostly because of the simpler default interface. The only change to the default values is to incorporate digital ICE when I scan XP2. All scans are done at max resolution and bit depth. All other adjustment are done in PS.

[System: Snow Leopard on iMac; Nikon 4000ED; CS3PS]

Harry

[StaaleS]

I find myself using NikonScan for my Coolscan V ED. It does all I need it to do, with minimal fuss... I used to use VueScan, but eventually gave up on it due to the hopeless user interface; not only CAN you fiddle with everything in VS, you pretty much HAVE TO fiddle with everything. NS is far easier to handle. Anyways, I scan to RAW and Lightroom takes it from there.

[Tim Gray]

I use Vuescan mainly for B&W. I find it's easier to get better flat scan there and it's also faster.

For color, I always found Nikonscan to give me better results. Vuescan does some funky things with color in my opinion. However, I'm gravitating towards scanning 'raw' in Vuescan and then inverting the file myself (but not in photoshop).

[craygc]

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

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.

[not_in_good_order]

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.

[Tim Gray]

Originally Posted by craygc

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

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.

[hlockwood]

Originally Posted by rayfoxlee

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!

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. 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

[katgut@earthlink.net]

[quote=kiemchacsu;1486811]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.