Thanks Sonny, I've upgraded to v6.4.1r3 (I was on r2). I've done a few scans and appear to be having the same problems as before.
RAG, yes a good point and thanks for the post. I did check this, I'll come on to that...read on if you're feeling strong!
Perhaps my understanding of how Silverfast should operate is in fact different to how it DOES operate (and how it was designed to operate)? Maybe I want it to do something it cannot?
In terms of the second problem of output resolution, here is my experience/experiment of how Silverfast works...
- To set the input resolution I use the 'Original' resolution boxes. I unclick the chain so that it is broken and unlock the locks on the Output resolution so that I can change the width:height ratio. As this is a 35mm frame, I enter 300x:200y =1:1.5 (pixels). Now that will set the ratio correctly.
- Next I enter the Actual (Output) resolution I require in the Output boxes to 3600x2400. My dpi is set to 300 (q=1.5, screen=200). This will therefore give me an image (I hope) of EXACTLY 3600x2400. Printed at 300dpi this is 12x8. Pretty standard I think?
- Now I lock the two little lock icons + the chain to LOCK the final output to 3600x2400 and also LOCK the width:height ratio so that it remains at 1:1.5. Obviously my input is only 300x200, but I think that I should be able to alter this by entering values in the Original res boxes, or by resizing the frame in the preview window. I don't do this just yet though!
- Next I save my settings by going to Setting>>Save (dropdown box). I save it as 3600x2400 so that I can recall it any time. So to recap, I've got 300x200 (1.5:1), 3600x2400 - all locked down. Scale reads 1200% for both x and y as it should. Perfect so far. Now saved these settings. Double check there's nothing funny going on by clicking on that saved setting. None of my inputs change - great!
- I click on the frame selector (in the Preview window) to select one of my six (neg) frames for a prescan and hit the prescan button. Image prescans. My settings are still the same.
- I now scan the frame using these exact inputs as a test. Remember I've got : 300x200 (1.5:1), 3600x2400 so in theory I should get a 3600x2400 image. No, I get a 2412x3618 image
. Oh! Incedentally I've scanned a lot of frames like this - sometimes I get less than 2400x3600, which is really annoying if you want to print at 12x8. I don't want to have to interpolate up! I've got a 5400 optical res scanner! So in other words, what you see and what you expect are not the same as what you actually get.
- Anyway, I continue - the fact that I get the wrong sized output according to what it is telling me it is going to give is only part of the saga. Here is where I am unsure whether Silverfast has been correctly scoped. I think that when you select the frame and resize it using the handles, only the input res should change right? Well, I resize the frame to 400x267 input (that's 899.9% scale in both x and y). The output stays the same (3600x2400). Perfect it would appear. Just like it should work... Now then, as a test, as I'm not happy with my selection and I want to go back to my previously saved one, I select it from the menu.
I EXPECT to get one of two settings back:
- Either 300x200 input, 1200% scale, 3600x2400 output.
- OR 400x267 input, 899.9%, 3600x2400 output.
Why do I expect this? Because I scan a lot of film, I want to be able to store my resolution settings in the software and pull back my output res, along with the aspect ratio..
I GET back: 400x267 input, 1200% scale, 4801x3201 output!
Now that is just plain dumb! Surely the software should store the scale, and output (and perhaps even input, but that isn't really important). It looks like it stores ONLY the scale and picks up the input from the last frame setting before you click on a saved setting, then does the following: output = (original * scale) and thus gives an output that bears no resemblance to the one saved. (Incedentally I scan this and I get back 4824x3216! Umm is it me or does that not equal 4801x3201? Well I know I wanted 3600x2400 but that is besides the point and just highlights that WYSIWYG is just not the case with this software!
So, in summary:
1. - Silverfast says it is going to give me one output resolution, yet gives me another! Now to be honest that is totally useless to me. The Minolta software that came with my scanner gives me what it says it is going to give me 100% of the time. Silverfast should give me the same!
2. - I have an assumption about how Input, scale and output resolution should be set and recalled. It looks like Silverfast has been designed and coded in the following way:
- Set input, scale and output, lock and save. When recalled, software sets scale to whatever you had before, but takes input resolution from the dimensions of the frame rectangle in the preview window (or the input boxes) that were specified in the preceding scan, then calculates (or I think DICTATES is a better word) what OUTPUT res should be.
Now I just think this is either a) WRONG and someone has coded it incorrectly or b) a bad methodology.
I think that when you set your resolution and scale, you should be able to save that FINAL OUTPUT RES as a setting, then when you recall it, Silverfast should populate the Scale and Output boxes with whatever you saved and leave the input res boxes to whatever the last frame was. This is important for photography because as a photographer I want to make prints at a specific size. Software should allow me to store this final size, not dicate it to me based on input and scale - that's just the wrong way around in my view!
This is a really long post - apologies, but I've tried to be as scientific as possible with my testing and write-up. Hopefully someone can read this and either correct Silverfast Ai, or tell me where I'm going wrong. I think I have a logical arguement here for my second summing up point - even if someone dreamt up the really strange functionality that exists now, is there any chance of getting my functionality that is based on final output size built as an option into Silverfast? As for my first summary point, well that just needs fixing!
This is a pretty important feature especially when trying to scan a whole photo-shoot that I want printing at an exact size at 300dpi...
