Doug, Version 3.0 runs faster. Only a minute or two on my istD images. My machine though is a P4 2.6Ghz
Bill ----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 8:34 PM Subject: Re: Neat Image > On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:41:16 -0700, Larry Hodgson wrote: > > > Tell us some more about "Neat Image". Is it worth the money? What other > > software did you consider for noise/grain removal, etc. I am thinking of > > getting "Neat Image" and any help would be appreciated. > > I'm not Bill, but I've used Neat Image (hereafter, NI) a bit. > > IMO, it's good on some images and not on others. To really get the > most out of it, the image must have an area of maybe 400 x 300 pixels > that's a pretty darned uniform color (excepting the "sparkles" which > you're asking NI to remove). When you load an image into NI you have > to give it a baseline from which to calculate the "sparkle matrices" > that describe the "character" of the "graininess" in the image. > > The quality of the job NI does is directly related to the "character" > of the baseline rectangle you give it. On images where you can give NI > a clean baseline rectangle of pretty uniform color (excepting the > "sparkles"), it does a very good job. Some images don't have such an > area, and you can see it in the results from NI. > > Furthermore, NI is _S_L_O_W_. I'm running it on a Pentium 3 at 733 MHz > with 512MB of RAM. It takes more than 30 minutes to process a 6k x 4k > (4,000 ppi) scan. I've only used the demo version, though. Due to the > processing time, I haven't been enamored enough of it to plunk down the > cash for the full version, which might be faster, for all I know. > > > TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ > > >
