Re: filmscanners: Stellar ghosts and Nikon Coolscan IVED (LS40)
With exposures where you have a black background and very bright points of light you can get bounce back off film plate in the back of the camera that look like halos. Can remember what this effect is called. Halation? To the original poster: Do you smoke? Looks like you might have a residue of some type on the lens (like from smoke).Or maybe the scanner's assembler left their signature on your unit in the form of a thumb print on the lens. Todd
Re: filmscanners: A Good Epson Customer Service Story
Jerry Steve Thanks for setting me straight - may give this a try. Have either of you tried this? ô¿ô Mike - Original Message - From: Mystic [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 19:19 Subject: Re: filmscanners: A Good Epson Customer Service Story If I remember correctly, the 2000P Color Cart is 3 color vs. 5 for the 1270 MIke - Original Message - From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 21:40 Subject: Re: filmscanners: A Good Epson Customer Service Story Some of you 1270 owners might be interested in something I picked up at a web site which deals with ink refilling. Apparently, the 1270 and 2000P color cartridge (Don't know about the black) is the same shell. However, when if you normally try to put a 2000P cart into a 1270 it shows up as being empty (via info from the chip). One person claimed that by using the trick to re-write the chip using a brand new Epson cartridge, he was able to trick his 1270 to think it had a 1270 color cart in it, when actually it had the 2000P cart in it. He claims to be happily printing away with the 2000P cart in his 1270. Now, if this is true, it means you can get a pretty inexpensive archival printer by buying the 1270 and using the reprogrammed 2000P carts in it. To say I wouldn't be surprised that Epson might have made two basically identical printers, but charges over twice the price for the 2000P does not surprise me lately. As much as I like Epson's product line this thing with the chipped cart burns me. BTW, the same site had a rumor that Epson is re-writing the software so the chip trick to reprogram an empty as full, will no longer work. I stand by none of this info as accurate. Art Jeffrey Goggin wrote: With all the complaining we do about the hardware and software manufacturers, I felt a need to tell a good story for a change. To my surprise, when the refurbished 1270 I recently purchased proved DOA, they sent me a NEW one as a replacement instead of another refurbished one. So, for $261 delivered and a few days of downtime, I ended up with a new 1270 ... too bad they don't have any refurb 2000s or 5500s available yet. :^( Jeff Goggin Scottsdale, AZ
Re: filmscanners: Another Mission Completed
on 5/11/01 8:44 PM, Arthur Entlich wrote: How about wrap them in groups of say 10 in food wrap (cling film in the UK) and include some silica gel which could be replaced every couple of years. Should be very cheap and I dont see why it shouldn't work. A more expensive but more durable option would be to replace the cling film with air tight plastic food boxes - you'd still need the cling film. Actually, I'd think your idea would work using the heavier zip-lock freezer bags with a small silica gel pack. BTW, silica gel can be recharged with a microwave or regular oven. How 'bout doing all the above and putting it all in a closet or wardrobe with a humidifier in it. I wonder if putting CD's in a ziplock/tupperware thing and then the freezer would add to their longevity? Todd
Re: filmscanners: LS-2000 VS LS-40
Edwin Eleazer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Version 3.1 of NikonScan will be out in the next week Hmm... I wonder if this might include some attempt at fixing the jaggies problem? Rob
Re: filmscanners: What causes this and is there any easy solution ?
- Original Message - From: Laurie Solomon [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 5:13 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: What causes this and is there any easy solution ? As a preface, when you project the slide much of that grain is masked by the surface texture of the screen you are projecting on as well as by the distance you need to use to project to those projection sizes as well as to view the projected image; but the grain is probably still there just as it is in the scanned image ( this can be determined by looking at the transparency under a high powered loupe). When you scan at 4000 dpi, you are probably both picking up the grain as well as any other noise and exaggerating it so as to make it more sharply defined and apparent. So the projection effectively helps mask the grain what a happy coincidence. The point about the distance may be the main reason. In a normal room you switch on the projector (with no slide if you have a relic like me) and suddenly realise that you have dust floating everywhere. Over a longer distance there will be more dust that will effectively randomly filter the smallest details i.e. the grain. I wonder if you used the screen in a chip FAB unit (exceptionally clean environment) whether the grain would be more apparent. Why are you scanning at an optical 4000 dpi? Could you scan at a lower optical resolution if necessary? Lower sampling rates lead to higher noise to signal ratios. Whilst resampling down from 4000dpi will reduce noise to signal ratios. I am pretty certain that it is always best to scan at best optical and then resample down if you require a lower resolution. While for 35mm slides and negatives 4000 dpi optical resolutions may be good if you are going to engage in extreme enlargement and/or cropping, they may not be required ( and even be problematic in the case of some films and images) for prints 8x10 and under. I am hoping to archive the pictures in a form that will allow any one to be selected at random to be output at any size that I may require at that time. Perhaps I'm being a bit over ambitious, but I don't see a lot of point in archiving them digitally if I can still get better prints from the fading original. I have heard that one sometimes can scan materials that generate the sorts of problems that you are experiencing at lower resolutions and save them in Genuine Fractals' lossless mode to a .stn file, which upon opening can be both resized to almost any size as well as upsampled with the added bonus of frequently smoothing out the sharpness of the grain presentation being displayed via its use of fractal and wavelet technologies. I have not tried it for that purpose (e.g., to smooth out the sharp appearance of grain structure displays); but if you are having the problem it might be worth a try. None the less, I would reduce the scan resolutions and see how low you need to go to eliminate the problem versus the minimum resolution you need to output the portion of the image that you want at the size you want. I did try this by resampling a 4000dpi to 2000dpi and 1333dpi and then resizing back (without GF), but you have to reduce the pixel count too much and you are better off blurring the original. GF would have produced marginally better results, but in my experiene GF is slightly better in the 2x-3x range not a miracle worker so I still think a slight blurring would be better. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Steve Greenbank Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 6:15 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: What causes this and is there any easy solution ? Today I'm going for the dual prize of most boring picture (see attachment) and most dumb question ever on the list. Mark asked me about a problem in the background of some pictures http://www.grafphoto.com/grain.html The problem is that my sample (a bit of sky) from a slide projects with perfect continuous tones at any size even 40 inch by 60 inch and it still looks reasonably sharp (within reason) but yet when I scan it at 4000dpi I get a grainy effect that will show up in an A3 print and a soft image in general. The problem often gets worse with sharpening . I have found that a unsharp mask threshold 9+ usually avoids sharpening the graininess. Alternatively a gaussian blur removes it but if you do this to the whole image you end up with an even more soft image but on the plus side you can sharpen it more aggressively and use a threshold of 3-4 which means much more gets sharpened. Obviously carefully selecting the sky/problem area and blurring that separately is probably the best option but it takes ages to do this accurately and you still may get noise problems elsewhere. Am I right to assume the noise is grain, CCD noise and chemical faults on the film ? Does every see this noise ? Should I see less with SS4000/A4000 scanner
Re: filmscanners: Stellar ghosts and Nikon Coolscan IVED (LS40)
Harry, you have a very mild case of coma induced by the scanner..its very mild, dont worry about it. I have seen it when scanning astrophotos with an HP Photosmart scanner, but to a much worse degree..you can see an example at (turn up monitor brightness first): http://home.att.net/~hermperez/this_is_a_comparison_between_two.htm Herm Harry Lehto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 11 May 2001, shAf wrote: To me this implies the problem is with respect to the film ... a problem with the scanner, yes ... but the problem rotates with the film. If I were to guess, and try something different ... I would snip off the sprocket holes ... possibly all those edges are the source for the internal relections(???) The slides are framed. The ghost does not rotate with the film (it rotates in respect to the stars) - am I choosing the right words here? I have scanned two more pictures http://www.astro.utu.fi/~hlehto/nikontest/crop0041.jpg Here the slide is put in the scanner as should and when viewed with vuescan this image is at the bottom, somewhat to the right. You can see the ghosts below the two stars in the field. Then I turn the slide counterclockwise by 90 degrees. Now the scene is on the top edge of the vuescan window and again on the right side. Now I get http://www.astro.utu.fi/~hlehto/nikontest/crop0042.jpg. Now you can see the ghosts pointing up on the screen. Exposure is set manually on 1 sec. Gamma curves are used in processing. This image is taken with a 300mm lens, on EPH ISO 1600 - the other images mentioned earlier were taken with a 50mm lens and Kodachrome 200. Thanks for all the suggestions and tips I have had from this group. Regards Harry
Re: filmscanners: Stellar ghosts and Nikon Coolscan IVED (LS40)
On Sat, 12 May 2001, tflash wrote: points of light you can get bounce back off film plate in the back of the camera that look like halos. This should be visible in the original slides too. But it is not. To the original poster: Do you smoke? No. Looks like you might have a residue of some type on the lens (like from smoke).Or maybe the scanner's assembler left their signature on your unit in the form of a thumb print on the lens. Intersting theory. From earlier suggestions I made a test slide where I took a black slide (unexposed) and punched many needle holes into it and scanned it. So they are plain holes now in the film. You can see the result at www.astro.utu.fi/~hlehto/nikontest/tcrop0004small.jpg (or full resolution in the file tcrop0004.jpg). The green areas are just painted green to minimise information in .jpg format. The test is so easy to make that I would be interested in hearing somebody else's experiences (either privately or through the net) from other scanners. Finally, I made a similar test with a piece of cardboard with pinholes. No film here any more! Had to focus this manually in vuescan, but the result was the same. Regards Harry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: filmscanners: What causes this and is there any easy solution ?
Lynn said Howcome Polaroid users aren't seeing it? Or are they just not talking about it? Mines an Artixscan 4000T a (I'm told) SS4000 apart from the box and the software. You've seen my section of sky I don't know if its any better or worse than anyone elses, but it is definitely there. Incidentally I tried something suggested by Lynn (off list) involving A channel of LAB mode. A gaussian blur 1.0 followed by unsharp mask 200%,radius 1, threshold 1 and most of it was gone and the sharpness was retained. Later I will look in to this more and check for flaws and try different blurs and unsharp mask. Steve
RE: filmscanners: LS-2000 VS LS-40
Well, we just started using a production LS4000 on a Mac G4. I have to tell you, it is pretty cool. I am really proud of the job our folks did in working with Nikon to put Digital ROC and Digital GEM on this scanner. We just scanned in some bridal portraits. Even though we just had the film processed less than a week ago, we ran Digital ROC (and Digital GEM) on the scans. Digital ROC does an incredible job of setting the white and black points and making the color POP! The Digial GEM did a credible job of reducing the noise in the scan. We were breaking our arms patting ourselves on the back. Of course our programmers and developers have been using one for quite some time, but I've just witnessed their work second hand. This was the first time I've had to get some negatives scanned. Needless to say, the bride was very pleased with the output as well. All this to say, if I were choosing between a scanner with Digital ROC and Digital GEM or a scanner without it, I would choose the one with. And if I had any faded negatives (boy do I) it would make the decision even easier. Seeing is believing. Jack Phipps Applied Science Fiction -Original Message-From: DeVries [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 2:20 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: filmscanners: LS-2000 VS LS-40 I'm thinking about buying either a Nikon Coolscan IV (LS-40) or a refurbished LS-2000. Both nearly same price. What do you think? The current "little brother" model or the older "middle brother" model.Thanks for any comparisons or input. The specs are nearly identical.Dave
Re: filmscanners: What causes this and is there any easy solution ?
Be sure that you are using an *optical* mouse or trackball - it will track much more smoothly.. Maris - Original Message - From: Steve Greenbank [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2001 5:05 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: What causes this and is there any easy solution ? | I'll try this and see how it compares with gaussian blur. I was hoping | someone would have a solution that didn't involve carefully selecting | sections of a 20Mpixel image. It takes ages to get it right and I wish I had | a bigger monitor there just isn't enough room for the picture on my 17 inch | screen.Sadly there isn't enough room in the house for a significantly bigger | screen. | | Maybe, with practice I will be able to select sections better. Has anyone | tried adjusting their mouse movement settings (slow it down,reduce | accelleration) to make this easier ? | | Steve | | - Original Message - | From: Lynn Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2001 1:00 AM | Subject: RE: filmscanners: What causes this and is there any easy solution ? | | | The solution looks so easy that I probably don't understand the problem | completely. :-) There are two quick ways you can do corrections: | 1) make two scans the same size in Vuescan; one normally, the second with | a | slight positive offset of manual focus (about +1 to +1.5). The second scan | will have corrected much if not all of the g-a, and the subject will be | a | little blurred--but surprisingly little (you might even decide to stay | with | that one, unless you're doing large blow-ups). | 2) load the first scan into Photoshop or your favorite image processor. | Select All and copy it. Then load the second frame in (it's OK to delete | the first one without saving, since you have a copy). Paste the copy over | the second, blurry copy, and Erase the sky from the top layer down to the | blurred layer. | | If you can get a Selector to work, like the Magic Wand for example to | select | just the sky portions (I almost never can--I think the wand is | over-rated), | it's even simpler--select the sky only, and have-at-it with any or all of | the blur filters. :-) | | Another way is to use Channels (if they're available in your programs) | either to select and copy a mask, or--as I'd say in this case--to isolate | the redish pixels in the sky and eliminate them. | | | |
Re: filmscanners: What causes this and is there any easy solution ?
Even better might be a wacom (or other) tablet, which gives the additional benefit of pressure sensitivity. Holding a pen seems much more natural than a mouse for fine movements and raising the pen up and down is much better than clicking the mouse for cloning. Beyond all this I'm not subject to the backaches that used to come from extended photoshop use. With limited space even a 4x5 tablet works well. A better more expensive than a mouse but I think worth it. John M. Maris V. Lidaka, Sr. wrote: Be sure that you are using an *optical* mouse or trackball - it will track much more smoothly.. | Maybe, with practice I will be able to select sections better. Has anyone | tried adjusting their mouse movement settings (slow it down,reduce | accelleration) to make this easier ? | | Steve |
Re: filmscanners: What causes this and is there any easy solution ?
While there maybe some merit to your comments about dust in the air masking flaws in the slide being projected, I had the actual surface texture of the projection screen in mind as well as the actual viewing distance independent of any dust. Laurie Haven't been following this thread all that closely so this may have been covered. But what lens are you using for your projections? If it is a lens supplied with most projectors the poor quality might be a masking factor. The difference between one of these lenses and a Buhl or similar projection lens is pretty substantial.
filmscanners: Emoticons Assicons
-- From: Mystic To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Emoticons Assicons Jerry SteveThanks for setting me straight - may give this a try. Have either of you tried this?ô¿ôMike- AND THANKS TO MY 20-yo UK EPAL, THIS ONE (she has the complete dictionary of 'assicons'): ..oo*"""**oo.oo*""*oo.. oo*" "*o.o*" "*o. o" 'o" " o o *o o o 'o o o o. o o o o \o/ o o --0-- o o. /o\ o o o o o o o o o oo oo o oo oo. oo oo 'ooo. .oo. ooo o ""oo,, ,,oO-'Oo, ,oo"o o. "" oo " .o 'o oo o' *o oo o 'o o o* o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Mike, You have been e-mooned
Re: filmscanners: Stellar ghosts and Nikon Coolscan IVED (LS40)
Harry wrote: I made a test slide where I took a black slide (unexposed) and punched many needle holes into it and scanned it. So they are plain holes now in the film. You can see the result at www.astro.utu.fi/~hlehto/nikontest/tcrop0004small.jpg Roger replied: Harry, I tried the needle hole test with my Minolta Scan Dual II/VueScan and got no trace of the ghost imaging you are seeing. OK, Harry's been taking some ribbing here on a genuine problem, but his scan (above, and compressed attached here as StellartcropOrig--excuse spelling, please) shows it clearly. The light is definitely bleeding out from the horizontal center, as you can see from the top and bottom stars. Rob is right that the effect has a name, but it escapes me, too. I think halation is not quite it, but that's close enough. Anyway, using Harry's pin-prick method with a piece of black neg leader, I did the same thing Roger did with my Acer Scanwit at 2700dpi (Stellartest1). No ghosts, no bleeding. Actually, I expected quite a bit of noise, and got some, but it adjusted right out with the curve tool in MiraPhoto. But since Harry had used Vuescan, I tried that program, too, giving it full-tilt at 48-bits. VSstellarscan is the Raw scan, unadjusted. As you can see, Vuescan somehow pumps a lot more light through (notice the larger size of the same holes, and how it burns through the leader). For me, this is *great* and now I'm going to revisit some of my impossibly-dark slides with VS 7.x! For the last test, I adjusted the color controls in Vuescan to get a black background--which meant a gamma of 1.8 and a brightness of .3! You can see in VSstellarcrop that the stars are clean, with no ghosting--although at 72dpi and JPEGed they're not as sharp as the original tests. So I dunno, guys--is it the lens or the light-source? Is something wrong with the scanner? Seems like. Best regards--LRA --- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com attachment: StellartcropOrig.jpgattachment: Stellartest1.jpgattachment: VSstellarcrop.jpgattachment: VSstellarscan.jpg
Re: filmscanners: What causes this and is there any easy solution ?
Anything USB will track better because of the higher sampling rate. Unfortunately the MS USB mouse I bought didn't like the KT133 VIA chipset on the motherboard. This is a common problem with Via chipsets see: http://www.usbman.com . When I first installed the motherboard I couldn't use USB at all with my Epson 1270 and the USB mouse keyboard caused periodic crashes. Eventually I gave up on the mouse and keyboard but I managed to persuade the printer to work. It's not entirely Vias fault though has my Casio camera has had absolute zero problems from day 1. If you have a PS/2 mouse, AT YOUR OWN RISK, you can overclock the sampling rate. Never heard of anyone permanently damaging anything with this procedure but I am sure it can be done (I have tried it before myself). If you did permanently damage the PS/2 port you would have to use a USB or serial port mouse - you have been warned. Steve - Original Message - From: Maris V. Lidaka, Sr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2001 5:22 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: What causes this and is there any easy solution ? Be sure that you are using an *optical* mouse or trackball - it will track much more smoothly.. Maris - Original Message - From: Steve Greenbank [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2001 5:05 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: What causes this and is there any easy solution ? | I'll try this and see how it compares with gaussian blur. I was hoping | someone would have a solution that didn't involve carefully selecting | sections of a 20Mpixel image. It takes ages to get it right and I wish I had | a bigger monitor there just isn't enough room for the picture on my 17 inch | screen.Sadly there isn't enough room in the house for a significantly bigger | screen. | | Maybe, with practice I will be able to select sections better. Has anyone | tried adjusting their mouse movement settings (slow it down,reduce | accelleration) to make this easier ? | | Steve | | - Original Message - | From: Lynn Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2001 1:00 AM | Subject: RE: filmscanners: What causes this and is there any easy solution ? | | | The solution looks so easy that I probably don't understand the problem | completely. :-) There are two quick ways you can do corrections: | 1) make two scans the same size in Vuescan; one normally, the second with | a | slight positive offset of manual focus (about +1 to +1.5). The second scan | will have corrected much if not all of the g-a, and the subject will be | a | little blurred--but surprisingly little (you might even decide to stay | with | that one, unless you're doing large blow-ups). | 2) load the first scan into Photoshop or your favorite image processor. | Select All and copy it. Then load the second frame in (it's OK to delete | the first one without saving, since you have a copy). Paste the copy over | the second, blurry copy, and Erase the sky from the top layer down to the | blurred layer. | | If you can get a Selector to work, like the Magic Wand for example to | select | just the sky portions (I almost never can--I think the wand is | over-rated), | it's even simpler--select the sky only, and have-at-it with any or all of | the blur filters. :-) | | Another way is to use Channels (if they're available in your programs) | either to select and copy a mask, or--as I'd say in this case--to isolate | the redish pixels in the sky and eliminate them. | | | |
Re: filmscanners: What causes this and is there any easy solution ?
So the projection effectively helps mask the grain what a happy coincidence While there maybe some merit to your comments about dust in the air masking flaws in the slide being projected, I had the actual surface texture of the projection screen in mind as well as the actual viewing distance independent of any dust. The further away from the screen you view the image the less likely you are to see things like grain in that like a Surrat painting your eyes tend to blend the individual particles of grain into a single continuous tone structure even though under a loupe or standing up close you will still see theindividual grains. I thought I had covered this with some sort of statement like even when viewed quite close-up, but I must have rephrased this and removed it before I posted the message. Anyway I just tried it 40x60 inch projected onto plain white paper. With Velvia (circa 1990) (I used the slide from which the original sample of blue sky was made). I have to get within 16 inches to see it at all and even then it is so faint you might miss it if you weren't looking for it. Even from 3-4 inches it is minor. I then tried some early Fujichrome 400 (circa 1985) and you can see the grain easily from 15 feet on some slides. I can't wait to try scanning some of these! As for screen texture, most screens have a pebbled or/and rectilinear surface intended to gather and concentrate light so as to make them brighter (they are not smooth surfaces without any texture); this surface texture also tends to break up individual noise and grain patterns so as to mask the grain structure of what is being projected unless it is really very graining so as to have the appearance of an old newspaper 65 line screen halftone. I hadn't considered this and nor did I fetch my screen when I tried the slides tonight. But I can see that how this would work. Lower sampling rates lead to higher noise to signal ratios. I think there is probably a point at which there is NO PERCEIVABLE decrease in the signal to noise rations and further increased optical resolutions are of little practical point except to permit increases in output sizes while still maintaining a reasonably high quality non-interpolated resolution or to permit cropping and enlarging of small portions of the original while maintaining reasonably high quality non-interpolated resolutions. Most monitors cannot use resolutions over 100 dpi and most printers cannot use resolutions over 300 dpi. Since the less noise you have the more apparent the display of grain will be, it may be a good thing to compromise and allow some noise to be introduced in order to tone down the sharp appearance of grain structure. To some extent a little noise may help. Indeed some noise is sometimes added deliberately in some signal processing techniques. My sketchy understanding of digital signal processing tells me that you require 2x (a few experts insist 4x is better[just], but for the rest of this post I'm going to use 2x) the final output sampling rate to achieve an almost totally accurate output. Hence CD's sample at 44KHz to achieve accurate sound up to 22KHz. I think the 300dpi used in the best printers comes from the human eye being unable to see more than 150dpi so you need 2x150 or 300dpi to achieve the desired result. So for a 12x18 you need 3600x5400 which is just short of 4000dpi. I have seen Velvia printed well at 20x30 so I believe a scan of at least 6000x9000 (6000dpi) would be better still. In the case of the Fujichrome 400 you are probably right that 4000dpi and possibly 2000dpi is a waste of time. Something to try on a rainy day and there's plenty of them in the UK :-) Whilst resampling down from 4000dpi will reduce noise to signal ratios. I am pretty certain that it is always best to scan at best optical and then resample down if you require a lower resolution. Although resampling down from 4000 dpi may or may not reduce the appearance of noise but not the actual existence of noise, b it also will result in the loss of informational data that cannot be gained back later and the possible production of other troublesome artifacts. The reduction in resolution that does reduce signal to noise rations is not via the use of resampling but via the actual reduction in optical resolutions being used from 4000 dpi to some optical resolution under that if your scanner has an optical resolution of 4000 dpi. If it has a maximum optical resolution of less than 4000 dpi than any scan over that is an interpolated scan that has been upsampled by the scanner software and not an optical resolution, while any scan less than the maximum optical scan resolution is an optical resolution. Up sampling should generally be avoided if at all possible as it will always lead to some nasty artefacts. I tried it in the hope the artefacts introduced would be less noticeable than the noise removed in the down sampling. While it is true that
