Re: Canon FS2710 slow scans with Canocraft FS - fast with Vuescan
- From: Don <phoney.email@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 13:46:12 +0200
On 29 Oct 2005 01:02:23 -0700, "larry07" <larry07@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>Have a FS2710 film scanner connected via the provided Adaptec SCSI card
>under Windows XP. The unit works fine. I usually scan using Photoshop
>and use the Twain interface to drive the Canocraft FS software. Scans
>work fine but just to scan one negative at full 2720 dpi resolution and
>24 bit color it can take up to 3 minutes before the image becomes
>available in Photoshop.
>
>Out of interest tried Vuescan. Using Vuescan at the same resolution and
>color depth a single negative scans in about 45 seconds! Even taking
>into account saving the scanned file and firing up Photoshop to edit
>the picture, the time difference is huge.
>
>Given that both pieces of software are using the ASPI layer to talk to
>the scanner can anybody help me out with why one should be so much
>faster than the other. The scanner is rated at about 45 seconds for a
>scan and that presumably is using Canocraft FS software. If I use the
>software directly, without going via Photoshop, there is no noticeable
>speed difference - it's still very slow
It's like jumping out of an airplane. You can do so with a parachute,
or you can do so without a parachute. If you leave the parachute
behind you'll reach the ground considerably faster! ;o) Using Vuescan
is just like that and Vuescan output looks about the same! ;o)
But seriously, there are several reasons for this.
One is that your native Canon software uses the recommended ("proper")
way of accessing the scanner i.e. TWAIN. Due to TWAIN's complexity
this takes longer but it will work on any system. Indeed, that's the
whole point of TWAIN i.e. to abstract the hardware. Vuescan bypasses
TWAIN and accesses the scanner directly which can speed things up.
That's how all scanners worked initially but people quickly realized
that was very messy and required custom programming for each new
hardware and system, which is why TWAIN was invented as a common
interface. That way programs only need to talk to TWAIN and let it
sort out low level hardware access.
Another reason is that native software is usually very careful about
access ("belt and suspenders") while Vuescan is notoriously sloppy.
One example of this was the Vuescan Minolta saga where native Minolta
software worked just fine while Vuescan struggled with it for over two
years with "stripes" appearing in scans. This was finally solved when
a knowledgeable contributor here explained (indirectly) to the Vuescan
author how this should be done.
In general, Vuescan is just too buggy and unreliable to be used for
any serious scanning. It may OK for a casual scan intended as a highly
compressed small JPG but that's about it. On the other hand, if you
don't care for quality it may be acceptable in which case find a
version with least bugs and stick with it. Avoid upgrading
automatically and let others debug the most blatant bugs first.
Don.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: color profile embedding (not conversion) utility?
- Next by Date: Re: color profile embedding (not conversion) utility?
- Previous by thread: Canon FS2710 slow scans with Canocraft FS - fast with Vuescan
- Next by thread: Re: Canon FS2710 slow scans with Canocraft FS - fast with Vuescan
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
