batch scan file name bug, hardware resolution vrs interpolat

[Gregory C]

hello.

In your FAQ, there is this Q&A:

>Q: After I perform a batch scan, none of the images were saved except for
>the last.
>A: In the 'General" tab of the SilverFast main control panel under
>"Frame" a name can be provided for the images of the batch scan. Up to SF
>v4.0.9 the numbering of scanned images wasn't continued, and every image
>of a batch was overwritten by the next image (bearing the same name).
>This was solved in SF v4.1.9.


I'm using v5.5.2r02 of SilverFast NikonM and this problem can still occur.

In my case, I had the following settings:

A. General Tab - Batch Mode (File)

B. General Tab - Form Feeder (I'm scanning 6-frame strips)

C. Frame Tab - two frames.

Frame 1. Frame name set to 'Paris 800dpi ' (with a trailing space)
Frame 2. Frame name set to 'Paris 1000dpi ' (with a trailing space)

Both frames are set to a scale factor of 100%. The resolutions are hardware
resolutions set via the slider.


I was hoping that this setting would allow me to output two files per photograph, producing a total of 12 files; 6 at 800 dpi and 6 at 1000 dpi. Instead, all that was produced was a single file for the last photograph at 1000 dpi with the name 'Paris 1000dpi '.

During the batch scanning operation, only one of the frames was executed; the 1000 dpi frame.

During the scan, the suffix counter was not appended to any of the output files either.


The fact that SF only output one frame could be a limitation of the software. The fact that the counter was not appended to the file name would seem to be a bug.

If SF could support multiple frames across multiple photographs, that would be wonderful. It would allow us to quickly and automatically output photographs in multiple resolutions with a minimum of fuss. SF's auto-adjust feature and Negafix work extremely well and at last make automatic scanning a reality. Combined with SF's saved frame sets, nothing could be better.

One more feature would be really welcome. I sometimes want to append a file suffix to the file names. For example 'Paris.jpeg'. It would be great if SF supported a format such as 'Paris 0.jpeg' in which SF automatically substituted the counter for the 0 within the file name during batch scans. User defined padding of the counter would be nice too. A 4-digit counter will be overkill for almost 100% of my scans.



One inquiry regarding the scan resolution:

I didn't know that the slider could be used to select a hardware resolution (until I read about it in the forums) so I was using the Control Key and Control Shift keys to find the hardware resolutions supported by my Nikon scanner.

What I found was that SF always uses interpolation for any resolution which is entered directly into the resolution field, even if the resolution is supported by the hardware.

My Nikon supports 4000, 2000, 1333, 1000, 800, 666, etc. If I enter 800 into the field, SF uses a hardware resolution of 1000 and interpolates/samples down to 800. If I enter 1000, SF uses a hardware resolution of 1333 and interpolates/samples down to 1000. If I enter 999, SF uses a hardware resolution of 1000 and interpolates/samples down to 999.

Is this the ideal situation? Was this done intentionally to allow users to down-sample even when working with hardware supported resolutions?

Someone in the forum said that interpolation/sampling produces a 'smooth nicer' photo. Wouldn't a clean scan be better (and faster)?


regards
Gregory

[LSI_Support]

Dear Gregory,
sorry, I did not read through all your text, because a saw a mistake in your settings.
Please keep in mind that batch scanning is seen by SilverFast in two different main modes:
batch scanning several frames - from one image
and
batch scanning several images - from a document holder/feeder

you tried to merge these two ways of batch scanning which is not possible - unless you use the SilverFast JobManager.

[Gregory C]

Thank you for that quick answer. Can a batch scan operation be performed by the Job Manager though? So far, I've seen the Job Manager only enter scans as separate scans within a job. I tried this with v5.5.1 but found that SF was not setting the frame parameters according to my specified frame setting. The measurements were correct but the actual frame was wrong until I added a zero to each of the dimension fields. Has this bug been fixed?


Please also try to answer this part of the original post?

The fact that SF only output one frame could be a limitation of the software. The fact that the counter was not appended to the file name would seem to be a bug.

If SF could support multiple frames across multiple photographs, that would be wonderful. It would allow us to quickly and automatically output photographs in multiple resolutions with a minimum of fuss. SF's auto-adjust feature and Negafix work extremely well and at last make automatic scanning a reality. Combined with SF's saved frame sets, nothing could be better.

One more feature would be really welcome. I sometimes want to append a file suffix to the file names. For example 'Paris.jpeg'. It would be great if SF supported a format such as 'Paris 0.jpeg' in which SF automatically substituted the counter for the 0 within the file name during batch scans. User defined padding of the counter would be nice too. A 4-digit counter will be overkill for almost 100% of my scans.

One inquiry regarding the scan resolution:

I didn't know that the slider could be used to select a hardware resolution (until I read about it in the forums) so I was using the Control Key and Control Shift keys to find the hardware resolutions supported by my Nikon scanner.

What I found was that SF always uses interpolation for any resolution which is entered directly into the resolution field, even if the resolution is supported by the hardware.

My Nikon supports 4000, 2000, 1333, 1000, 800, 666, etc. If I enter 800 into the field, SF uses a hardware resolution of 1000 and interpolates/samples down to 800. If I enter 1000, SF uses a hardware resolution of 1333 and interpolates/samples down to 1000. If I enter 999, SF uses a hardware resolution of 1000 and interpolates/samples down to 999.

Is this the ideal situation? Was this done intentionally to allow users to down-sample even when working with hardware supported resolutions?

Someone in the forum said that interpolation/sampling produces a 'smooth nicer' photo. Wouldn't a clean scan be better (and faster)?


regards
Gregory