Siverfast vs. Photoshop

[albqphotog]

I have a theory question that has been often asked and answered probably.

Early in my digital learning, I read that it is best to leave some things to Photoshop because it can do them better than scanner software. Examples of such things are USM and upsizing (i.e., increasing the file size by interpolation). What I read is that a scanner sees only one narrow line of film at a time which it converts to pixels. So, to do upsizing the scanner software needs to rely only on pixiels next to each other NOT the ones above and below because it has not yet seen the one above yet and it has converted, written but then "forgotten" the ones below.

That sounded reasonable at the time but maybe scanning software is smarter than that. Do Silverfast and other programs analize an entire image file post-scan and look at all surrounding pixiels just as PS does? And if so has anyone experimented with both methods of, say, interpolation and visually determined SF is better than PS?

Regardless of the answer to that, I don't see how USM could be done better by SF because it could not know what to mask out of the USM process. I spent hours or at least minutes deciding what to exclude from USM in PS and sometimes make masks or sometimes use an elaborate edge-finding action I learned from Bill Aktinson.

Maybe the answer is that since I work on one image at a time as opposed to high-volumne production, I have no need for the USM and other automation possible in SF.

Any thoughts?

[LSI_Kratzenstein]

SilverFast is able to resize a picture with an interpolation regarding to all pixel around, cause SilverFast hold several lines in memory. The USM could be done very easy in SilverFast, cause a preview window in full resolution.

kind regards