Page 2 of 2

Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2003 5:20 pm
by clivewade
I have checked the position of the switch and it is set to USB. Iwould also mention that I am currently using Canon's Filmget software successfully over the USB link. It would therefore seem that the silverfast software is not detecting the USB link, (which is USB 2) for some reason.
I hope that you can come up with a solution as I am very keen to try this software out!
Regards
Clive

lenghty downloadprocedure

Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2003 8:10 pm
by Paolo Angelico
Dear Clivewade,

There is a difference between the time it takes to download software and the time to install it. The installation procedure, as opposed to downloading, generally doesn't have anything to do with the internet conection that is available. Bye, Paolo :o

testing SF Ai

Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2003 8:27 pm
by Paolo Angelico
This time I managed to install SF Ai and make it actually work. Two minor things struck me as odd: the software seems to depict the scanned image mirror reverse by default.
Even though there is no filmholder inserted, it is possible to initiate a scanning procedure. Would this harm the CanoscanFS4000?
A more serious finding is that the software maybe is responsible for a colorfringe. I'm still running a few tests to find out where the fault could be. Basically I'm comparing the results between Filmget and Silverfast. I'll get back to you later with my findings.
Paolo

Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2003 9:57 am
by clivewade
Paolo
Is this the demo of the software that you have got to work or is it the actual purchased product? I have not been able to get the demo to work and neither have other people (see other topic thread), so what is your secret?

color fringe

Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2003 11:43 pm
by Paolo Angelico
As I promised I would go into more detail about the color fringe that appeared in the scans produced by the demo of SF Ai for the Canoscan FS4000.
I'm using a Macintosh computer with a SCSI connection, which seems to work just fine. Both Filmget and v**s**n work like a charm on this configuration.
When I scan with Silverfast demo however a green/red color fringe appears on the edge of high contrast objects. When I took a closer look I could distinguish a misalignment between the separate RGB channels in one direction. They were out of register by 1 pixel horizontally in relation to each other. When I manually re-aligned the separate color channels the colored edges disappeared. This misalignment naturally affects the sharpness as well. Since both Filmget and v**s**n don't produce these color fringes, I tend to blame the Silverfast software for their occurrence. On top of that along the edge of the scan there is a band of one pixel width where the pixels are totally off. It's a pity that such sophisticated software produces scans which seem to come from a cheap digital camera.

The minor things I already mentioned: the image is mirror reverse by default, the scanning procedure can be initiated without the filmholder inserted, it's unclear whether the scanner is being calibrated, can the gain be manually adjusted, why is the IR dust clean not supported?
All these findings make me feel like a beta tester, and can't persuade me yet to by the real thing. I hope Silverfast will come with a reaction. Regards, Paolo

Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2003 11:51 am
by Wurli
:cry: After a short test of the demo version I ordered and received this "sophisticated software" last week and already have put some effort in testing during the last two evenings/nights. Beside the points you already mentioned, I discovered some more, most annoying errors (apart from the whole scanning process being very slowly in comparison to Filmget) :
1. in version 6.0.2r33 it takes ages to discover the scanner (in version 6.0.2r36 discovery is faster), but both versions produce errors when I start playing with the option settings and do some prescans for comparison. First a "Could not send graditiation charts" and after resetting the scanner and a fresh prescan a "Could not send mode select command" (I translated both from German). Then the scanner "could not be found" anymore, also not by Filmget. Solution: Switch of the scanner and reboot the PC :x
2. Besides the missing calibration and the missing IR dust clean, every single frame of the filmholder must be previewed and scanned seperately.
3. During my software registration process I was asked to leave some improvement suggestions - I did, but received not any answer. Also, my yesterdays mail to the support remained unanswered until now. Not the niciest way to deal with customers who didn?t "buy" their software on warez sites...

AF for Canoscan FS4000US OS X lacks some essential features

Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2003 3:41 am
by db1975az
I am very disappointed with the SF v6.0.2r36 (Canoscan 4000) OS X demo.

As both Wurli and Paolo point out, the software doesn't appear to support the IR dust removal. This feature is the reason why I paid $800 for this scanner instead of buying a low end (~$400) scanner instead. The IR dust removal has easily paid for itself in the six months that I've owned the device.

Also, the image parity switch is a little annoying. It seems like this could be fixed in a few extra minutes of programming. (I don't know -- maybe this exists for some super-advanced reason that I don't understand?)

FilmGet takes a few seconds for "Calibration" whenever the scanner is used for the first time. It's not clear that this is happening with SF. The uncorrected images have terrible color balance (compared to v**s**n and FilmGet).

I am desparate to find an OS X solution for the FS4000. I'm not convinced that v**s**n is bug-free, and I think his user interface is very confusing. (Spending time learning scan software is the last thing that I want to do during the creative process. It's simply a means to an end.) It looks like SilverFast is off to a good start, but I'm not buying into anything until the above problems are fixed. Send me an email when it's working, and you'll have a new customer.

db1975az A@T yahoo

Posted: Sat Feb 14, 2004 3:12 am
by Paolo Angelico
June the 16 th I bothered to submit a fairly datailed report of my experience with the Silverfast software and its inadequacies. Hoping this would be translated into an update. Never got any reply, I'm still holding my breath. The thread concerning the FS 4000 seem to have faded! This really sucks. Bye, Paolo

Posted: Sat Feb 14, 2004 3:13 am
by Paolo Angelico
June the 16 th I bothered to submit a fairly datailed report of my experience with the Silverfast software and its inadequacies. Hoping this would be translated into an update. Never got any reply, I'm still holding my breath. The thread concerning the FS 4000 seem to have faded! This really sucks. Bye, Paolo

Posted: Sat Feb 14, 2004 3:13 am
by Paolo Angelico
June the 16 th I bothered to submit a fairly datailed report of my experience with the Silverfast software and its inadequacies. Hoping this would be translated into an update. Never got any reply, I'm still holding my breath. The thread concerning the FS 4000 seem to have faded! Bye, Paolo