In SF there is only a dozen or so tools and great options like real time preview so you can see effect of everything you do. But if you google things like how to use a histogram, you learn pretty fast. I think the biggest hurdle would be for someone (like me) who doesn't know that much about image processing. I'm actually quite surprised that neither Espon Scan or SF have thought to enable ability to do a preview and full scan in a single step - this seems like an especially useful process with SF using AI studio to HDRi format where there is really no tweaking to do except frame finding (which should just work!) I suspect if i had really great negatives then VS would be my choice because the workflow in VS is definitely superior. The videos are ok and I've gotten a lot of out some of the videos posted on this threadīased on my testing, my gut is that SF has far superior image manipulation algorithms. * You'd think with a $300+ software you'd documentation and much better support. * Very slow responses to support email (same is true for VS - in fact no response from VS) * Cost - I'm pretty sure this is the only scanner I'll ever have and I really don't know how much an "SW scanner change" would cost but it concerns me. * Lack of a single "Preview and scan" option (VS has this / Epson Scan does not ) * No support for hardware "Start" button such as on the Epson v850 ![]() * Find frames is unreliable (VS is much more reliable and Epson Scan is nearly perfect) - Folks at SF support indicated they were working on it This way I never need to worry that I'll need to go back and re-scan (Just re-process from the DNG files) - Thought it would be nice if the DNG files were interoperable so I don't need to worry that my HDR Studio is not compatible with a new OS and thus my originals become inaccessible. ![]() ![]() I'm pretty sold on the workflow with SF Archive Suite - being able to scan with IR and full dynamic range and then apply processing from those in batch. I think that's where SF really shines - likely I could do similar stuff in Adobe (which of would cost me another $120 a year and more "youtube training". Now in my case I'm dealing with negatives from 198x/199x cheap cameras and negatives that have been sitting in a draw for 30 years so I'm starting from a relatively low quality. Its possible that I still have not mastered VS and thus have not done a fair comparison. I'm a novice so I'm not exactly sure my opinion counts But in my testing I have been able to produce what I feel are significantly better results in SF than VS. I was hoping to see more folks doing an in-depth comparison of the quality between SF and VS.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |