Karl,
Here's what MR wrote in his test:
So, what I did was to apply what I considered to be the most appropriate
amount of USM to both files. As it turned out I had to apply about 1/3rd
more USM to the 6X7 scan than to the 1Ds' RAW file. This is consistent with
my previous experience with both
Paul,
I have half-heartedly tried to research JPEG2000 without reaching any
useful conclusions. Can you give a reference or a potted summary with such
useful but not readily findable info like what is the outlook for JPEG2000?
how good is it? is it only available for sale or are their free
I worked for Corbis back in the days when they were first setting up their
labs, and while I wasn't directly involved with the lab work or the image
taxonomy, a good friend of mine was the guy who designed their initial
scanning labs. The room was a restricted room, ventilated with prefiltered
Ed,
What I wonder is... how many of you do your adjustments
in 16 vs 8bit,
As a note, when you do tonal curves using your scanner driver, the curves
are done to high bit data, even though you save it as 8 bit data. That is
why I suggest that tonal curves be done in the driver (if the tools
I'm new to scanning, using a Nikon 4000ED on PC. I've been scanning in
14bit mode, doing some cleanup and adjustments, and resaving as 16bit
TIFF masters. What I wonder is... how many of you do your adjustments
in 16 vs 8bit, and does it matter for final quality either way? Also,
The slowness in adopting JPEG2000, from what I've read, is because no
major browser supports it yet.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Julian Robinson
Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 2:45 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners]
Most open standards documents cost money, but only to cover the costs of
administering the standardization process. I bought the C++ standard when it
came out--it was $85. A standard that needs to be licensed generally costs
wy more than that, because the patent holder is trying to make money
I wonder if anyone makes a decoder that spits out the lower resolution data
first, and then improves it as it gets to the higher resolution data. The
LuraWave plug-in doesn't do this, because it's only intended for loading a
file into Photoshop, not display it on the fly.
--
Ciao,
