I use Vuescan myself, I like it very much. Don't get confused here, Vuescan is NOT a TWAIN driver, nor does it use one, it is an independent program that has its direct communication with the scanner, and it is not called from another program. A TWAIN (Technology Without Any Interesting Name) driver is used to access a scanner from within another program, like Photoshop, Paint Shop Pro, etc. The communication between your program and the driver is the standardised TWAIN interface. Vuescan itself is communicating with the scanner and applying color corrections, dust removal, etc., and then saves the result on disk in a TIF file, or JPG, and it can open an additional viewer if desired (Like Photoshop), but is doesn't have to do it. Vuescan has a lot of film corrections build in, you select your film and you have a good start.
On Thu, 2004-02-19 at 04:22, David Miers wrote: > I'm not using Photoshop or grainsurgery for scanning itself. But actually > the scanning program does make a difference IMHO. VueScan gets much better > shadow detail then the Minolta software that comes with the scanner no > matter how manually I've tried it. VueScan also focuses the scanner much > faster then the Minolta software and I've yet to notice any loss of sharp > focus there. To a point the scanning program can make a difference as well > because of some compensation built into the manufacturers software for the > hardware created noise. I think I do get a bit more noise out of VueScan, > but usually better overall results in the end. But as for this post it only > refers to after scanning processing, not scanning itself. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 9:14 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Grain Surgery for PS > > > i don't understand why the scanning program should make any difference. they > are using the same TWAIN drivers and that controls what goes into your > program. i have all of the programs and plugins you name and Grain Surgery > is pretty good at removing noise, but it's on the expensive side. NeatImage > is cheaper and better in some ways. Digital GEM by ASF is good at some > things and not so good at others. you can read all about noise reduction at > http://www.michaelalmond.com/Articles/noise.htm. > > Herb... -- Frits W�thrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
