Vuescan vs Epson Scan -software

[stighenning]

Short story:

Scanner settings:
600dpi
48bit
10% jpg compression
target original (100% size)

1.) "Problem": the images seems to be better looking when scanning from Epson software. Agree?

I compared both images with the "compare button" using FastStone Image Viewer 5.5, zoomed in. I could see the difference in the images that where scanned with Epson software vs Vuescan.

The image is more rich in color and also abit more details.

I really like Vuescan, but I do want the best result (which Epson software is providing at the moment..).
I'm clearly doing something wrong, or not right/god enough settings in vuescan.
I will scan and upload an image so you might see for yourself.

Epson Sharpnes medium scan


Epson Color Correction Medium scan



Vuescan Normal scan


Vuescan Restore color scan



Really like your opinion on this.


long story:
I bought Vuescan back in 2010, after reading so much positive about this software, that I went for the professional edition. Also because it was able to save raw-format files.
And now that I have got a hold of all family photos, both paper and some negatives.. over 10000 pics, I'm ready to scan these. (and 10k prints is alot! :-))

[Shadowman]

There's an obvious difference in the two versions scanned, can you provide screen capture of the FastStone comparison?

[stighenning]

Epson VS Vuescan - Normal scan:



Epson Colorcorrection VS Vuescan Restore Color:

[stighenning]

I did try to run "default settings" on Vusecan.
Tried scanning.
Tried changing Auto settings to different for each scan..
but I see no improvements :-/

I'm using Vuescan 9.5.36
Epson Scan 3.9.2.1 (right click on the top left icon on the program-windows-frame)

I know there only been a couple of days,.. but hoping someone can help me with this.

[Manfred M]

You are asking some very specific questions regarding hardware and software solutions most of the members likely have little to no experience with. To a very large extent, most people at this site shoot digital cameras and use post-processing software to fine tune their images.

Photo restoration is a separate niche area of photography that I've dabbled in from time to time (usually at the request of some friend or family member who found an old photograph that they wanted restored). The first step is the image capture process, where you want to get the best quality capture of the old image and ideally at a high resolution / bit rate to give the photo restorer the best possible image to work with. What would be important to me is to get an image that is as close as possible to the image you are looking at, one I would use as the base to start the restoration work.

The second part of the process is to reverse the effects of aging, improper storage and chemical changes to the image itself. I am not aware of any automated software solution that does this particularly well, especially with colour images. The different dye layers deteriorate at different rates and trying to automate getting this to look right requires some high level assumptions in how the software tackles this. I would expect some rather mixed results, from a quality standpoint, regardless of which software you are using.

Vuescan is a "universal", third party, solution that works with many different scanners. I would not expect it to work as well as the the solution that a specific scanner manufacturer implements for a specific make and model of a scanner they produce. The scanner manufacturer has all the engineering specs and can produce a fine-tuned algorithm for a specific model. Vuescan has to "reverse engineer" each specific scanner that they produce by running test images through their software to come up with scanner profiles that deliver decent results (within the limitations of their software).

If you find you are getting better results with the Epson software, I would suggest you use it, regardless of what you have read / heard about the Vuescan software. If it's not working for you, why would you use it? I suspect that some of the images will come out okay and you will be pleased with them while others will not be as successful. Automation can only take you so far, unfortunately.

I suspect this is not the answer you are looking for, but with 10,000+ images, this is not a trivial project you are undertaking. Good luck.

[stighenning]

Thanx, GrumpyDiver,.. hehe nice alias.
Yes I might be in the wrong forum.. I wish to expand my knowledge and have both 2xEpsonV700 scanners to it would go abit faster..
We all want the best but its a matter of time/value too..

My plan was to use vuescan and save both to .jpg and "raw" .tiff formats.
That way I can browse the .jpg files and show to family and friends. And if I wanted to work on an image with photoshop/gimp I could just use the raw file format.
Epson scan is not possible to scan in raw and using two different software for scanning is not an option.

Only thing I see possible is that I can scan in best possible settings on the "epson scan" software, which would be 48bit and TIFF.

I also mailed Hamrick (vuescan) and only way is to test my way forward. And I believe that I already done that for long.. spending hours and hours..., specific to scanning photo-paper images. Got to a point that I believe that the best result is using the Epson scan software. (abit sad, due that I wanted to preserve a RAW format too..)

My conclusion:
Epson Scan to get best possible image. 48bit. Tiff.
If I want to RAW scan the image, I would use Vuescan with default settings to .dng files.
(https://www.rangefinderforum.com/for...d.php?t=117590)


btw;
I also have fantastic or above average photo enthusiastic as I would say...
Just bought a used Canon 7D MK2, and a brand new
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM. (still on down payment..) Having this said, I do belive this forum still applies to me :-)
Mainly to photo my family and kids playing soccer.

[Manfred M]

A few more thoughts for you:

1. RAW - the main advantage of raw for a photographer is that the white balance / colour temperature you are taking the photo at is not "baked in". With a scanner, the light source is fixed so I really see no advantage to saving raw files.

2. Epson native format = 48 bit (over 3 channels) = 16-bit colour. If it's really a true 16-bit, that's better than a 14-bit image image that you get out of a high end digital camera.

[Bobobird]

Just a point to note about Vuescan. It is the ONLY software that still supports almost any scanner out there.

In newer operating systems there is no longer generic support for the old scanners and the only option at this time is Vuescan.

[stighenning]

Lets me first say, I really appreciate all of your comments, it really helps me (and others reading I guess/hope) finding my way to scan the old paper photos.
Okey, so I now know that our monitor can't display 48bit.. only 24bit.
But in the future 48bit will be available. So why go for less ?
Harddrive space is cheap.
Time is limited.
I came across this; http://howtoscan.ca/scanning-tips/di...bit-scans.html - true?

When I'm first going to start the project of scanning all the photos, why should I not get the most "possible" information into the image with 48bit and TiFF. I'm going to use 2 scanners, so that I can "multitask" between them. Scanning one, while chaning the other and visa versa..

Or how about just do the scanning and not doing anything ICE or whatever.. with the image. Is this the best way to preserve as much data as possible ? http://howtoscan.ca/scanning-tips/na...tive-scan.html
(then I can use Gimp or photoshop later on to fix it the same way, and have it look nice ?)

...alot of questions

[stighenning]

So I did a scan without any adjustments to the left.
And another with "Unsharp Mask" and "Color restoration".

[Manfred M]

Some of the points you have made in your previous two postings, I will agree with. Others, I may or may not have opinions about.

I personally would tend to be more selective in my scans and would go for quality, not quantity. Images that are meaningful, I would put the extra effort into and get the best possible result. Others I would ignore, but that's just me.

Let's look at the images you have posted. Are they meaningful? Are they images of a family business or are they just a shot of a place visited on a road trip? If the image is not meaningful, why would you waste time and effort scanning it?

[stighenning]

This photo is actually from a restaurant in Lima. The image is about 5x5cm, so its very small, and it has a story to it, but I don't know it yet.. My whole plan is to scan all photos, use a DAM software and write down on the pictures/stories behind the images.. Yes, its a looong process but i'm planning to work and spread the work over several years..

I have alot of photos of friends an families which I would like to scan. This image is just to illustrate, and to also have me learn more from you and other experienced users. I don't like to post images of my family on the net, due to the fact that face recognision and other metadata search availabilities will be available in the years to come..

Quality/Quantity: I want all, and I want to scan it "as raw as possible". So I may play/work with histogram/levels later on.

But does this mean that I have to do the adjustment while scanning ? (I'm a bit confused about this)

[stighenning]

Quality/Quantity: I want all, and I want to scan it "as raw as possible". So I may play/work with histogram/levels later on.

Having said that; I really mean that on some photos I will pay more attention to the result, rescan/adjust if necessary.

[Manfred M]

Quality/Quantity: I want all, and I want to scan it "as raw as possible". So I may play/work with histogram/levels later on.

There is no such thing as "as raw as possible". Raw is simply the unprocessed native output of the scanner and if you are using a third-party software (Vuescan) to generate this, be very, very careful. As I posted in a previous reply, this is not a terribly useful data set for scanned data as you are using a constant light source. The main advantage of using raw in photographs is that it allows you to adjust white balance; i.e. set the appropriate colour temperature of the image. This should effectively be a constant in a scanner, especially in a modern unit that uses a LED light source.

If at some point in the future, Vuescan either goes out of business or no longer supports this functionality, you won't be able to open the files. A 16-bit TIFF is a much safer approach for what you are doing. You can certainly use histograms and other editing tools on this very standard file format.

The other thing that you need to do when scanning (assuming the scanning software allows you to do this) is to set the colour space that will be assigned to the files that is being generated. At a high level, a wide gamut colour space is usually preferable; sRGB is often the default and might be good enough for these faded images you are scanning. If AdobeRGB or ProPhoto are options, these might be better choices, especially if there are intense colours in the images. With extremely faded images, sRGB might be the best choice. Unfortunately, knowing either the scanner specifics or the quality / condition of the images specific advice is impossible.

But does this mean that I have to do the adjustment while scanning ? (I'm a bit confused about this)

Again. I believe I have already made some suggestions here. A "base scan" that produces an accurate, highest quality and unprocessed copy of image. Creating this reference scan should be the goal of your scanning work. This will preserve a high quality copy of the image for you to work with.

The other thing I would do is purchase an x-Rite ColorChecker Passport and start and end each scanning session with a scan of the colour target. That will allow you to "bookend" each set of scans with a known reference shot that can later be used to compensate for any scanning errors or deterioration of scanner elements. http://xritephoto.com/colorchecker-passport-photo

Any sharpening or colour correction you introduce into these scans will in effect compromise your reference image and you really should not do this. If in the future, so improved restoration technology comes out, you will want it to work on the scan that most accurately reflects the data in the image you are working with.

No issues at all if you want to use the existing automated technology to automatically clean up any of the images on any additional scans

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Manfred,

I'll ask this here as I suspect others may be thinking as I am ....

I can see the absolute validity of scanning a ColorChecker Passport if the scanner is being used to scan known samples with shades and that need to be reproduced accurately.

However, in this instance, the colour balance errors in the originals (due to ageing) are likely to be so far off and need individual correction 'to taste' anyway - and doesn't this make any small inconsistency due to the scanner illumination irrelevant?

It obviously won't do any harm to scan them, apart from take a little extra time, but I'm not sure I see the point - I am willing to be educated if I am wrong.

Trying to guess what I might be 'missing'; will it help Stig with later post processing?
e.g. can he process the ColorChecker Shot identically as he has a given photo and use that to determine some parameters that will help with other scans? Does this bring any benefit over just using the same settings on a given batch?

Cheers, Dave

[Dave Humphries]

Hi again Manfred,

Another thing that's bothering me about discussing such things as bit depths is that if these are paper prints being scanned, isn't the dynamic range of the images produced limited to around 4-5 stops? i.e. the reflective range of light on paper

Which implies 8 bits per channel (24 bit for RGB) will be plenty - and 8 bit TIFF sufficient?

Or is there some Dynamic Range stretching occurring during the scanning process (that I've never considered before)?

I can see that during/after processing, you might need more bit depth, due to multiplication of values to avoid posterisation, but for capture alone, I'm not sure I see the benefit here either.

e.g. if the scan produces a 'pint', it will fit a 'pint' jug, a 'quart' pot, or a 'gallon' drum, so why use the drum? Surely it just wastes storage space.

Thanks, Dave

[stighenning]

Good point with the ColorChecker passport..
I did purchase this color calibration from Mr W.Faust. http://www.targets.coloraid.de.
Did calibrate the vuescan with it, but it did not do any difference in the scanned-image-result..
Have not used/testet the it8 profile for Epson scan program.

btw; I used faststone image viewer 5.5, and it calculated that the image scanned with "Unsharp Mask" and "Color restoration" had 783.147 colors. (my last post, image on the right side.. )

So I tried scanning it with 24bit, and it gave me an image with 730.144 colors.

Bits Pixel Number of Colors Available Common Name(s)
1 2 Monochrome
2 4 CGA
4 16 EGA
8 256 VGA
16 65536 XGA, High Color
24 16777216 SVGA, True Color
32 16777216 + Transparency
48 281 Trillion
(https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tu.../bit-depth.htm)

[Manfred M]

Dave - my thought process here is that the scans and restorations are going to potentially happen over a period of years. He is also looking at using two different scanners for the process.

Depending on what happens over time the light sources and read head can change / deteriorate over time through either internal influences (defects in manufacturing or components or even having to replace a failed scanner with a new one) or external influences (exposure to pollutants, such instance tobacco smoke). Having a reference scan to provide will provide an absolute control so that any of these variables can be compensated for.

This may be over kill or it may not be. I have noticed slight colour differences in the output of my two scanners (same brand, different model).

[Manfred M]

Hi again Manfred,

Another thing that's bothering me about discussing such things as bit depths is that if these are paper prints being scanned, isn't the dynamic range of the images produced limited to around 4-5 stops? i.e. the reflective range of light on paper

Which implies 8 bits per channel (24 bit for RGB) will be plenty - and 8 bit TIFF sufficient?

Or is there some Dynamic Range stretching occurring during the scanning process (that I've never considered before)?

I can see that during/after processing, you might need more bit depth, due to multiplication of values to avoid posterisation, but for capture alone, I'm not sure I see the benefit here either.

e.g. if the scan produces a 'pint', it will fit a 'pint' jug, a 'quart' pot, or a 'gallon' drum, so why use the drum? Surely it just wastes storage space.

Thanks, Dave

Dave - Good point and I might have not thought this one through well enough.

For restoration I would want as much data to work with as I manipulate the image, so long as the data was in-gamut. For faded colour prints, sRGB is probably the most appropriate choice, as it gives you the maximum number data points within the colour space.

I ran into a situation early last year where someone asked me to redo a colour wedding photo that was both faded and stained and all they had was someones jpeg scan for me to work with (no original available). If I recall correctly, the scan was using sRGB.

I this kind of work, there can be some fairly heavy duty adjustments, to bring back the colours by working on a channel by channel basis. These adjustments are definitely more extreme than what one would encounter in normal day-to-day PP work from a digital camera capture (unless the exposure was totally blown). I found I had to spend a fair bit of time cleaning up artifacts, that I suspect might have been the result of using an 8-bit image. I expect that the issues were likely due to pushing the PP software to extremes and building on additive errors of the various incremental steps I was taking.

I suspect that an 8-bit jpeg will be more than sufficient for 95% of the images I've worked on. The problem is that other 5%, and frankly I can't tell by just looking at the image if problems are going to arise in the restoration work. With storage being relatively cheap, I would tend to scan to TIFF and stick with 16-bit sRGB data.

[Manfred M]

Good point with the ColorChecker passport..
I did purchase this color calibration from Mr W.Faust. http://www.targets.coloraid.de.
Did calibrate the vuescan with it, but it did not do any difference in the scanned-image-result..
Have not used/testet the it8 profile for Epson scan program.

btw; I used faststone image viewer 5.5, and it calculated that the image scanned with "Unsharp Mask" and "Color restoration" had 783.147 colors. (my last post, image on the right side.. )

So I tried scanning it with 24bit, and it gave me an image with 730.144 colors.

Bits Pixel Number of Colors Available Common Name(s)
1 2 Monochrome
2 4 CGA
4 16 EGA
8 256 VGA
16 65536 XGA, High Color
24 16777216 SVGA, True Color
32 16777216 + Transparency
48 281 Trillion
(https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tu.../bit-depth.htm)

A couple of points. The purpose of a calibration scan is to ensure that you have an "absolute" reference of how your scanner is working over the long term as well as being able to ensure that the output of both scanners you are using will be able to be normalized. I discuss this in thread #18.

This being said, you need to store your colour reference properly and keep it away from contaminants that can affect the reference colours.


I don't want to get a lot of detail concerning colour theory as applied to what you are trying to do here. Suffice it to say that the 700+ colours you are reporting can be explained by faded look you see in the images you are trying to restore. The restoration process should be able to push that into something far higher to get it to look more like it did when the picture was first printed. This means creating colours where none exist today by remapping what you get out of the scan into the new image and using additional colours to make it look more normal.

The cleaner the scan data, the more room we have to fill in with additional colours, but we can also create "artifacts" that do not look right. This is where Dave is coming from in his comment about 24-bits being sufficient when making the scan, and I suspect he is right in that assumption. The reason I might want to push to 48-bit is to provide additional gaps in the colours that will be used in the restoration process, which should result in fewer artifacts being generated; just because 24-bit image tend to be more prone to this issue.

As I've said before, I've done some photo restoration work, but not a ton of it, so while I am quite experienced in image editing, I can only tell you what I've run into, but have no idea if this is typical or if I have worked on very problematic images.