Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Silverfast 8 + Nikon 5000 + Kodachrome = scan lines/banding  (Read 8417 times)
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6767


WWW
« Reply #40 on: April 04, 2012, 09:15:40 AM »
ReplyReply

You've noticed it with both Vuescan and SF8. Recall, sadly Nikon stopped producing these scanners some time ago. You could try contacting them - it would be interesting to see what kind of support they are still offering. I wouldn't rule out the possibility of some kind of minor hardware issue that your former use of SF 6.6 with a heavy overlay of multisampling compensated.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
syncrasy
Newbie
*
Online Online

Posts: 38


« Reply #41 on: April 05, 2012, 09:24:12 AM »
ReplyReply

You've noticed it with both Vuescan and SF8. Recall, sadly Nikon stopped producing these scanners some time ago. You could try contacting them - it would be interesting to see what kind of support they are still offering. I wouldn't rule out the possibility of some kind of minor hardware issue that your former use of SF 6.6 with a heavy overlay of multisampling compensated.

Nikon still maintains basic troubleshooting documents for scanner hardware and software on its Support website. But as I suspected, they only go so far, and they can't troubleshoot issues that appear isolated to SilverFast or VueScan. My scanner passes all the nominal hardware tests (basically limited to making sure the green light blinks as expected when powering up with no other devices attached and the USB cord connected to the rear USB jack). My scan results from Nikon Scan are the same now as they were six years ago.

I opened a ticket with Nikon tech support and, after I told them my scanner was working properly with Nikon Scan, this was their final response:

Quote
"As long as your scanner is working properly with Nikon Scan, that would indicate that your scanner is working properly. While we recommend that you try third party software, unfortunately, we cannot guarantee that they will work properly or provide support for those programs."

As I think about this more, I guess I'm not convinced that my use of multi-sample scanning would be considered "overcompensation" for a hardware problem as you suggest. It would seem that multi-sample scanning is simply "compensating" for difficult circumstances. In other words, it's working as intended. I understand that in your experience you never needed more than 2x multi-sample scanning to produce acceptable results. But as this thread has suggested, you and I have different reactions to the same image. Recall that you didn't see jagged edges on my 100% images where the jagged edges were obvious to me. We have different monitors, different eyes, and perhaps different thresholds of acceptability.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2012, 11:35:39 AM by syncrasy » Logged

-- Mark

Camera & Computer: Nikon D300 Mac Pro Mac OS 10.6.8
Software: Nikon Capture NX 2 Photoshop CS2 Expression Media 2
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6767


WWW
« Reply #42 on: April 05, 2012, 01:25:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Nikon still maintains basic troubleshooting documents for scanner hardware and software on its Support website. But as I suspected, they only go so far, and they can't troubleshoot issues that appear isolated to SilverFast or VueScan. My scanner passes all the nominal hardware tests (basically limited to making sure the green light blinks as expected when powering up with no other devices attached and the USB cord connected to the rear USB jack). My scan results from Nikon Scan are the same now as they were six years ago.

I opened a ticket with Nikon tech support and, after I told them my scanner was working properly with Nikon Scan, this was their final response:

As I think about this more, I guess I'm not convinced that my use of multi-sample scanning would be considered "overcompensation" for a hardware problem as you suggest. It would seem that multi-sample scanning is simply "compensating" for difficult circumstances. In other words, it's working as intended. I understand that in your experience you never needed more than 2x multi-sample scanning to produce acceptable results. But as this thread has suggested, you and I have different reactions to the same image. Recall that you didn't see jagged edges on my 100% images where the jagged edges were obvious to me. We have different monitors, different eyes, and perhaps different thresholds of acceptability.

Just to be accurate about this, at 300% we are seeing the same issues. At 100% we are not. I'm using an NEC PA271 at resolution of 2560*1440. with L calibrated at 100. Recall I examined your images in Photoshop in Screen Blend Mode to make sure I could see detail that may be otherwise smothered in darkness. When I wear my computer glasses my vision is very well corrected and I've been examining image detail in photographs over a time span of 50+ years, so I am quite confident that I know whato to look for and whether I am seeing properly. That doesn't mean I can't miss a trick or two, or that your problem isn't real - it is.

It is good that Nikon is willing to examine your scanner, but I understand your reluctance to send it in, because it really isn't clear yet whether the root cause of this problem is hardware or software. Even with no multisampling and no multiexposure you should not be getting those artifacts, so let us sweep that issue aside. I am inclined to think there could be a hardware issue simply because two different scanning applications are producing similar effects with the same unit. But if you are not experiencing this problem with Nikon Scan, that could mean there is something in Nikon's driver that controls the scanner in a manner that neither SilverFast nor Vuescan got right. So that would point back to software - see what I mean? Back to the drawing board.

I'm working on a good candidate image just now - has the kind of contrast that would show up such problems. The left side of the bottom image is the whole frame showing the small white rectangle that becomes the content at 300% display magnification, shown on the right side and larher in the upper image. The bright vertical material, being part of a window ledge and a drain pipe on the building wall do show vertical stripes. Not clear, however, whether these are display pixelation artifacts, or image artifacts. To assess that, one needs to print the image, so the display magnification is no longer in contention. I printed the 4000 PPI scan from LR4 on a US Letter size sheet in my Epson 4900 on gloss paper, and examined those sections under a 7x aspherical loupe. No artifacts showed.

Pushing this further, I downsized (not downsampled) the image to 180 PPI so I could make a letter size print of the area in the yellow box, then examined those same vertical brights using the 7x aspherical loupe, and guess what - those lines are there loud and clear as I see them on display; hence the issue not due to display pixelation. So correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I've now replicated your problem; to see it however, requires extreme kind of magnifications and close-up inspection that would seldom figure in most photographic work most people do, indicating that your requirements are quite exceptional, but of course no less real or legitimate. I think I've taken this as far as I can - i.e. I don't know the causes or how abnormal.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2012, 01:30:24 PM by Mark D Segal » Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
syncrasy
Newbie
*
Online Online

Posts: 38


« Reply #43 on: April 05, 2012, 02:15:31 PM »
ReplyReply

So correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I've now replicated your problem; to see it however, requires extreme kind of magnifications and close-up inspection that would seldom figure in most photographic work most people do, indicating that your requirements are quite exceptional, but of course no less real or legitimate.

I interpret your samples as depicting normal pixelation at 300% enlargement, not the artifacts that I witness in my scans, so I would suggest this test has not replicated my problem.

I think I've taken this as far as I can - i.e. I don't know the causes or how abnormal.

Well, I appreciate your sticking with me this far, and all of your time and effort to try to help me figure it out. I'm done too.

I will post just one more image to illustrate my SF 8 artifacts in normal viewing (100%), and to put a cap on the thread (obviously, leaving the mystery still unsolved).
« Last Edit: April 05, 2012, 02:46:41 PM by syncrasy » Logged

-- Mark

Camera & Computer: Nikon D300 Mac Pro Mac OS 10.6.8
Software: Nikon Capture NX 2 Photoshop CS2 Expression Media 2
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6767


WWW
« Reply #44 on: April 05, 2012, 03:02:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Mark, true, what we've each observed is somewhat different. That said, the reason I did the print tests was to isolate whether or not what I found was due to display pixelation and I demonstrated that it is not. Those lines exist in a print of a non-interpolated image simply resized within normal bounds, and they become visible when seen with a loupe on the print. Nothing to do with display pixelation from 300% magnification. The lines are very feint but they are in the image and the Epson 4900 can reproduce them (I tell you, this printer is UNCANNY). I attach minimal practical significance to my findings for the reasons I mentioned. Soooo, onward and upward..........

:-)
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
degrub
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 247


« Reply #45 on: April 05, 2012, 10:41:28 PM »
ReplyReply

One way to try to replicate what SF8 is doing is to make two separate scans of the same slide and create a differences layer in PS to see if there is a pixel registration error.

You could also make two different exposure scans and combine them in PS to get the multi-exposure effect

If you want to track it down to the driver software, see if you can use a windows machine and install the demo of SF6.6 on it. The windows version uses the Nikon Maid driver  (which is the same as NS) whereas the MAC version uses the re-written driver.

If this is color moire being created ( the grass examples reminded me of it, BTW reply #34 triple it is visible to me on all three - the color balance is hiding some on the left 2 i think), try scanning at different resolutions -and/ or  at non-divisible by two of 4000 ppi to force interpolation which will act as a filter.

Bart Van der Wolf on these forums (BartvanderWolf) is expert in this area.

Frank
Logged
Oldfox
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 76


« Reply #46 on: April 14, 2012, 03:49:43 AM »
ReplyReply

In my case, the support assistant couldn't answer the problem, and further correspondence with their team came up empty. One might think they would let forum members post difficult cases to the wider community (i.e., leveraging the value of a true forum, like Microsoft and Phase One did/do with Expression Media/Media Pro). Instead I got shut down and my question never was answered. Very peculiar company, LaserSoft.

There is a thread about this:
http://forum.silverfast.com/disgusted-with-this-forum-t9023.html

Very peculiar indeed.

Logged
degrub
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 247


« Reply #47 on: April 14, 2012, 12:22:16 PM »
ReplyReply

in my observation, there were a couple things i saw about the SF forum before the switch.
- they were having a very difficult time getting bugs accounted for since many were using the forum instead of the reporting utility
- a few started rants and were being unprofessional if not downright rude and harassing  and LS shut it down by switching to a moderated forum
- it was consuming a lot a time and effort basically trying to answer support questions that should have been in the bug reporting system or already had answers in the FAQs.

So though i disagreed with what they ended up doing, i can sympathize with their plight.
Frank
Logged
apd
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #48 on: July 03, 2012, 12:13:06 PM »
ReplyReply

I am new to the forum (registered today) but have a few comments to add to the mix, since I had a similar experience with SF 8.

I purchased SF 8 recently and had no experience with SF 6.6.  I immediately noticed the banding problem after some test scans.  It is not obvious but readily visible at 100%.  It is most noticeable in areas of strong contrast-a white flower edge on a dark background, for example.  I have been scanning Velvia so the problem is not isolated to Kodachrome.  I didn't mess with multi-exposure either.  I at first tried to get help on the Silverfast forum but was promptly ejected and my case was dealt with behind the scenes.  SF first suggested that the problem was with the hardware (sensor).  I downloaded the trial version of VueScan and scanned the same slide-no banding, then went back to an old scan made with NikonScan and sent them all back to SF.  There was noticeably more detail in the Nikon and VueScan scans and no banding.  The tech attributed the problem to over sharpening and claimed the SF version was delivering the true information from the scanner.  I respectfully disagreed and to test the idea I suggested that I "upgrade" to version 6.6.  The tech agreed and allowed me to download.  The scans I made with 6.6 were fine-sharper than version 8 and no banding.  I think SF 8 is a work in progress and is still a bit raw.  At the time I purchased it they didn't even have documentation.

I am currently scanning happily with SF 6.6 and see no reason to go back to SF 8 at this point.
Logged
sniper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 571


« Reply #49 on: July 05, 2012, 03:53:49 AM »
ReplyReply

It sounds to me like it might be worth starting a proper forum about it.
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6767


WWW
« Reply #50 on: July 05, 2012, 04:54:10 AM »
ReplyReply

I don't understand - LULA isn't a "proper forum"? What more or different is needed to discuss this?
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad