Hi Bill,
Thanks for responding to my enquiry. However, I am afraid it is the sordid
details that I am lacking.
I have not been scanning Kodachrome, although at some point I will want to
do that, as I have many, if you include the Agfachrome, which may fall into
the same class (?).
For my
Laurie,
I sent that reply to someone on another list who was using large-format film
but then scanning it at one-quarter of the optical resolution of his scanner
since he didn't want large files. There was some doubt as to whether I was
correct, so I thought I would see what this filmscanners
Sam McCandless wrote:
At 4:03 AM -0800 12/9/04, Arthur Entlich wrote:
[snip]
A small bit of technological information to perhaps clarify some issues.
[big snip]
A nice explication, Art.
Did you not deal with DVD because you agree with Brad?
No, I left out DVD because I haven't bought
Fellow filmscanners,
I have a Canon 8000F which boasts a 48bit output, but I have not yet
been able to figure out how to use it. I have the 48/16 bit output
option checked in the preferences dialog box and use it via Photoshop
CS. However, on scanning the image, Photoshop claims that the image is
HI Berry--
I bought a Nikon SC4000ED filmscanner a couple of years ago and have
used it with Macs running MacOS 9 and MacOS X. In neither case did I
have any real trouble getting it to attach a ColorSync profile to
scans and have the scans look right in Photoshop or in print.
Although I did
Hello,
I believe the functionality of the disks in terms of DVD-+R verses
DVD-+RW is similar. DVD-RAM is based upon Phase change also, in fact
it's precursor was PD, also invented by Panasonic, and PD disks are
readable on many DVD-RAM drives.
Concerning the differences between DVD+R and
Hello Navjot,
Friday, December 10, 2004, 3:32:48 PM, you wrote:
Fellow filmscanners,
I have a Canon 8000F which boasts a 48bit output, but I have not yet
been able to figure out how to use it. I have the 48/16 bit output
option checked in the preferences dialog box and use it via Photoshop
Arthur Entlich wrote:
And even if a neg was to get scratched or damaged, that is repairable.
However, a slight scratch on a CD may make it completely unreadable.
Note that there are software utilities for reading CD's that have
errors to extract the files anyway. One I've seen (can if
Yes, I did understand that; but I did not think that too many scanners out
there used this approach except to produce low resolution preview scans. But
I could be wrong. What I did not get and may have been a terminological
confusion was his reference to large format scanning with respect to the
Thanks, that clarifies things a great deal.
- Original Message -
From: Bob Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 4:40 AM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: scanning at less than optical res
Laurie,
I sent that reply to someone on another list who was
Take a look at Fred Miranda's B/W Workflow Pro at
http://www.fredmiranda.com/software. It's a Photoshop plugin for ver. 6, 7 and
CS (Win and Mac).
Also, here's a link to several threads on b/w conversion on the DPreview forum:
There are several good techniques with Photoshop. Here are two advanced
techniques that are my favorites:
http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/ps_pro_primers.html This is John Paul
Caponigro's technique of creating individual layers from each color channel.
This works well. He has an action
What's PD?
Brad
On 10/12/04 2:50, Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sam McCandless wrote:
At 4:03 AM -0800 12/9/04, Arthur Entlich wrote:
[snip]
A small bit of technological information to perhaps clarify some issues.
[big snip]
A nice explication, Art.
Did you not deal
What software are you referring to Mike? And what limitations are there -
e.g. Which OS, interface (SCSI Vs. USB 1.1 Vs. 2.0).
I have both PC (windows 2000) and Mac (Mac OS X) available to me.
Brad
On 10/12/04 8:33, Mike Kersenbrock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Arthur Entlich wrote:
And even
Is anyone on the list using any special tools for converting color images
to black and white? I've heard of work flows where you convert to LAB
space and throw away the A and B. I'm looking for a plug-in or stand alone
program that converts the image in a specific way.
Any ideas are appreciated!
I sell CDs on the internet and have used several burners and numerous
software programs to burn them. Have to admit that I have just about
given up trying to burn at the optimum speed if I want full data fidelity,
and have resigned myself to burning at 2X or perhaps 4X to get valid
data transfer.
Most big banks use tapes as backup medium. I am not sure if
that is because they are more reliable, or just cheaper.
DDS tapes (essentially a data version of DAT) are about £2.50 each in the
UK.
Ebay yeilds a fair few DDS tape units for sale (SCSI).
DDS units have 2 capacities - the first
Hi Brad,
Interesting posting, and something most of us can certainly relate to.
A small bit of technological information to perhaps clarify some issues.
The CDs you get which are pre-written with things like software (and
music or images, for that matter) are not at al the same process as the
Arthur Entlich wrote:
Misumi and Kodak gold sputtered disks are some of the better types for
archival storage.
That was supposed to read: Mitsui and Kodak gold sputtered disks are
some of the better types for archival storage.
Art
Art,
Thanks for the info, especially on the CD-RW disk, Your comment that they
should be more reliable fits your description well. I'm going to look into
purchasing them - are you aware of any that are considered better. It would
seem that all of these are subject to how well the coatings are
At 4:03 AM -0800 12/9/04, Arthur Entlich wrote:
[snip]
A small bit of technological information to perhaps clarify some issues.
[big snip]
A nice explication, Art.
Did you not deal with DVD because you agree with Brad?
[snip]
I've been considering DVD's, but reading about the problems they
Art,
Thanks for your post. That is some of the best info I have seen on the
subject. I learned a lot!
Jim Couch
Arthur Entlich wrote:
Hi Brad,
Interesting posting, and something most of us can certainly relate to.
A small bit of technological information to perhaps clarify some issues.
...
Brad and others,
Your expereince points to a tip I have heard elsewhere - keep your older
CD drive on hand to read old discs. I did so and am very thankful I did.
I have about 20 archived discs at work that our new computers will not
read. I am in the process of recopying them to new discs. I
If you scan at 1200dpi, the scanner usually either samples all the 4800
possible data points per inch and throws three out of every four away, or
only samples every fourth possible point. So you are only getting one
quarter of the possible data from the film. So why scan at large format if
you are
Hi folks,
My problem persists. I am wondering if others who use Nikon scanners on Mac
(assuming there are some) are using Colorsync.
hm. I let Nikon use its own colour management and generate an
AdobeRGB-profiled/embedded file and take it from there with other apps. Seems
to work fine.
Hi . . . I seem unable to figure out how to scan a slide and achieve a
specific size and dpi (or spi).
Specifically, I would like to end up with pixel dimensions of
2040X1530 at 180 dpi.
I am using Vuescan 7.6.50 and a Polaroid SS4000. I have no problem
scanning and can produce results, more or
Hello Brad,
I haven't been archiving on this media personally (I still have
everything on a huge internal HDD), but do have some idea from forums
etc. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/hd-back.shtml points
out that putting lables or writing on CD can cause the data to be
lost. There are
Mike Johnston addressesd the issue of CD quality just recently. Here is
a link: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-05-09-04.shtml
I have run into the same problem with some data files from work. A
couple of tips, good quality CDs do seem to help. Burn AT LEAST two CDs
and check them to
From: Brad Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Someone must have a solution, must have found way to reduce the losses. The
only way I can see to reduce my losses is to write everything on my old HP
burner and make multiple copies - perhaps 4 copies each. That seems a bit
much as it reduces the effective
Ed Verkaik wrote:
From: Brad Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Someone must have a solution, must have found way to reduce the losses. The
only way I can see to reduce my losses is to write everything on my old HP
burner and make multiple copies - perhaps 4 copies each. That seems a bit
much as it
Polaroid have exited the scanner business. For 13x19 you will need min.
3600dpi.
Consider the 7200dpi (optical resolution) dedicated 35mm scanner Plustek
OpticFilm 7200.
magazine reviews summarised here: http://tinyurl.com/6k76b
You can crop 35mm by 3/4 and still get 13x19 at 7200dpi
Chris
Brad Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
But, as I try to access older CD's, I consistently find files that I can't
open -
[snip]
I'm sure books have been written on this subject, but I'll put in my 2
cents:
You didn't say which 'name brands' you used. I would only use Mitsui Gold
CDRs.
My Polaroid Sprintscan 4000 Plus has died. Polaroid has quoted up to
$650 to repair it. I'm strongly considering buying a new scanner but
don't know what the prime contenders are (non-flatbed). Seems that
I've not paid any attention to prior posts for 35mm scanners since I
got this one when it
Frank K-F wrote:
Tony . is this list still active? I lost contact when my new Thinkpad
arrived .. have been mostly a lurker .. and wish to add my name to the
daily summaries.
Active, but no msgs for a while. I see you've moved yourself to the digest
OK, but obviously don't expect any
Thomas Maugham wrote:
There seem to be many flatbed scanners on the market that offer very high
resolution, in the 4000dpi range. The Epson Perfection 4180 is
representative. Can anyone offer an opinion as to how well they scan 35mm
slides and negs versus dedicated film scanners?
TIA,
Tony . is this list still active? I lost contact when my new Thinkpad
arrived .. have been mostly a lurker .. and wish to add my name to the
daily summaries.
Frank K-F
Brighton, MI/USA
Unsubscribe by mail
It's time to archive about 10 gb of images from the hard drive.
I mistakenly purchased a box of DVD+RW discs rather than the DVD+R discs. I
recall there was an issue with CD-RW media not being as durable as CD-R media.
How about rewriteable DVD media? Does the same difference hold for DVD?
wrote:
I mistakenly purchased a box of DVD+RW discs rather than the DVD+R
discs. I recall there was an issue with CD-RW media not being as durable
as CD-R media. How about rewriteable DVD media? Does the same difference
hold for DVD?
AIUI CD-RW media are actually slightly _more_ stable,
The view on RW media has flip flopped several times. I have always
believed the technology use din RW media is superior to that of the R
media., and some agree with me.
Here's how they differ:
R (write once) media has a dyes layer which is burned off by the laser
to crete on or off bits. The
Sadly the big problem with Luminosity channel in LAB is it is a very coarse
control.
Incredibly, in Adobe's infinite wisdom (similar to the fashion that PSCS is
the first product to fully support 16-bit operation throughout, as far as I
understand it) the L channel operates on a scale of 100,
Date sent: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 15:12:13 -0600
Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Laurie Solomon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:[filmscanners] RE: Genuine fractals?
I use the program frequently; and
Well, I do not own that camera and am not familiar with it; but I assume
that if you look in the manual you will find that you can capture your
images at around 300 dpi and save them to a tiff format; but capturing them
at a high resolution around 300 dpi as a RAW file would also be good, as
long
The dpi setting of a digital camera file is utterly irrelevant here.
Different cameras output their files (no matter their format) at fixed dpi
settings. Different manufacturers of digital cameras have different norms
for dpi, but it has no impact whatsoever on resolution or print size.
A
LAURIE SOLOMON wrote: Well, I do not own that camera and am not familiar
with it; but I assume that if you look in the manual you will find that you
can capture your images at around 300 dpi and save them to a tiff format;
but capturing them at a high resolution around 300 dpi as a RAW file would
I beg to differ with you; but I am not going to get into a food fight with
you over it. In the case of RAW, you are correct the dpi is somewhat
irrelevant in that raw files do not contain any reference to resolution per
se only to the size of the image X x Y pixels; however, if you save to a
Preston, technically you are correct in saying failes do not have resolution
and even in saying that their contents do not either; but standard non-RAW
file formats do contain metadata which furnish rendering instructions which
tell the program to render the 3000x2100 pixels or what have you in a
Put simply, you're confused by the way that certain software applications
(e.g. Photoshop or scanner software such as Nikon View) allow the user to
specify the pixel-dimensions of a destination image by specifying dpi and
linear dimensions (in units that are not pixels - e.g. by requesting an 8
From: LAURIE SOLOMON
Preston, technically you are correct in saying failes do not have
resolution
and even in saying that their contents do not either; but standard non-RAW
file formats do contain metadata which furnish rendering
instructions which
tell the program to render the 3000x2100
The difference is noticable. The Minolta delivers sharper
pictures with more contrast and more details. If you want I
can upload a test picture to my homepage to show the difference.
Yes please.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
Bill Fernandez wrote:
My Nikon LS4000 has analog gain controls accessible through the Nikon
scanner driver. I can sometimes turn down the anaalog gain to get
more detail in light areas. Does your software and scanner have such
a feature?
Don't remember exactly the options on VueScan (have
Al Bond wrote: Unfortunately, as I am still using PS6, I don't have the
luxury of the Shadow/Highlight tool in PS CS. Because the images need a lot
of adjustment, it really has to be done in 16 bit so I am limited to the 16
bit tools in PS6.
-
Dan Margulis has been writing
Well, if there ARE details in the highlights captured with VueScan,
then you can use masks in Photoshop that let you apply one set of
curves to the highlights and other curves to the rest of the image.
If you search the web or your Photoshop for photographer-type books
I'm sure you'll find
There seem to be many flatbed scanners on the market that offer very high
resolution, in the 4000dpi range. The Epson Perfection 4180 is
representative. Can anyone offer an opinion as to how well they scan 35mm
slides and negs versus dedicated film scanners?
TIA,
Tom
Hello Thomas,
Tuesday, November 23, 2004, 10:45:01 PM, you wrote:
There seem to be many flatbed scanners on the market that offer very high
resolution, in the 4000dpi range. The Epson Perfection 4180 is
representative. Can anyone offer an opinion as to how well they scan 35mm
slides and
Sorry, the two images are:
http://www.pbase.com/pderocco/image/36593399
http://www.pbase.com/pderocco/image/36593400
--
Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco
Paulmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Paul D. DeRocco [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I've posted a pair of examples, both involving blowing up by 10x a small
piece of an image that had some architectural edges as well as some non-edge
detail. You can see what I mean:
http://www.pbase.com/pderocco/image/36593399
Paul,
Help me with the math here. What would be the final dimension of the image
whose snippet you are displaying here? And for reference, your 10D captures
an image of about 3K pixels on the long dimension, right?
Stan Schwartz
Paul wrote:
I've posted a pair of examples, both involving
on 11/18/04 9:41 PM, Dieter Henkel at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Friday, November 19, 2004, 3:43:29 AM, Mike K. wrote:
Dieter Henkel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote :
The main downside is the extremly slow speed if ICE is turned on. You
can't turn off the grain dissolver which might add to this.
Paul,
Again I have no complaint with your description of the differences between
GF and Bicubic and potential artifacts and byproducts of each. I looked at
your two examples and for the life of me I cannot see any differnces between
them and do not see the artificial elements in the foreground
From: LAURIE SOLOMON
Again I have no complaint with your description of the
differences between
GF and Bicubic and potential artifacts and byproducts of each. I
looked at
your two examples and for the life of me I cannot see any
differnces between
them and do not see the artificial
From: Stan Schwartz
Help me with the math here. What would be the final dimension of the image
whose snippet you are displaying here? And for reference, your
10D captures
an image of about 3K pixels on the long dimension, right?
The 10D is 3072x2048. The magnification in both those test
My Nikon LS4000 has analog gain controls accessible through the Nikon
scanner driver. I can sometimes turn down the anaalog gain to get
more detail in light areas. Does your software and scanner have such
a feature?
Don't remember exactly the options on VueScan (have it and use it...)
but isn't
From: Bill Fernandez [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My Nikon LS4000 has analog gain controls accessible through the Nikon
scanner driver. I can sometimes turn down the anaalog gain to get
more detail in light areas. Does your software and scanner have such
a feature?
I use gain changes now and then to push
Anybody using Genuine Fractals as a way to up sample images? My scanner
provides very high resolution compared to my (current) digital camera, but
there are times when I have taken an image with the digital camera that I
would like to enlarge. I've had some success with Photoshop's BiCubic - it
I have a Polaroid Sprintscan 4000+ . It has become invisible to my
computer. My Mac (G-4, OS 10.2.8 running Photoshop 7) can't recognize
that it is connected, either to firewire which I've always used or to
USB. I've contacted Polaroid tech support and their things for me to
try haven't come up
I use the program frequently; and find that for most upsampling within the
normal ranges, it is not all that much different from Photoshop's Bicubic
methods. It is in the extreme ranges of upsampling that the difference may
begin to appe arandGFmaybegintoshine.
What I do not understand is,
Hi,
Sometime ago some one here was kind enough to get the instructions for
cleaning a Polaroid SprintScan 4000 - it was probably Tony. The
instructions were originally posted by Thomas Maugham about 2 years ago and
they are excellent.
Two things surprised me when I got into the scanner. First,
Hello,
I have about 1000 - 2000 framed slides that I like to archive in digital
form.
Plastic frames, no glass. Partly Agpha amateur slide film partly Koda
Ektachrom, partly Fuji.
Quality of the scanned slides should be good enough for A3 prints.
I have tried this already a few years ago with an
I had the same problem with my Sprintscan 120 for quite a while and
while it lasted it was maddening. Often I could get the computer to
recognize the scanner by disconnecting and reconnecting the Firewire
attachment. Sometimes starting and restarting the computer did the
trick. Finally a tech
On 20/11/04 13:12, Laurie Solomon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I use the program frequently; and find that for most upsampling within the
normal ranges, it is not all that much different from Photoshop's Bicubic
methods. It is in the extreme ranges of upsampling that the difference may
begin to
As it happens, I can get a pretty good 8X10 from such a file, but
then I go to 12X18 (if I can live with no cropping),
Well, I did a commercial job using as an experiemnt a point and shoot 4.3Mp
Nikon Coolpix camera captured at maximium resolution of 240ppi into a TIFF
format just to see what
From: Brad Davis
Anybody using Genuine Fractals as a way to up sample images? My scanner
provides very high resolution compared to my (current) digital camera, but
there are times when I have taken an image with the digital camera that I
would like to enlarge. I've had some success with
Paul, thanks, that's a useful piece of information.
Brad
On 20/11/04 17:44, Paul D. DeRocco [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Brad Davis
Anybody using Genuine Fractals as a way to up sample images? My scanner
provides very high resolution compared to my (current) digital camera, but
there
Paul,
If you overuse it, say beyond 4X in each dimension, it starts to look
artificial
I think if you overuse any tool, it starts to look artificial; but that
being said, I think that your 4x guideline needs to be qualified by the
proviso that it depends on the type and content of the image. As
From: LAURIE SOLOMON [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have even seen comparisions of sections of 35mm images blown
up to billboard size by GF and Photoshop where GF has come out ahead in
terms of lower numbers of artifacts and averaging errors.
Just to clarify, though... this refers to pre-CS versions of PS
Yes, the tests were done prior to PSCS and I know of none done since. I am
not sure if Adobe made significant improvements to the basic Bicubic
formulation as much as they made its implementation more sophisticated by
furnishing two subtle variations on the basic formulation. As in the past,
it
From: Laurie Solomon
Yes, the tests were done prior to PSCS and I know of none done
since. I am
not sure if Adobe made significant improvements to the basic Bicubic
formulation as much as they made its implementation more sophisticated by
furnishing two subtle variations on the basic
Hi,
When my wife went on a trip to Spain, a problem with her camera meant that
most of her slides were 1-2 stops overexposed. I have been trying to scan in
and recover some of the shots but with limited success.
Although the slides are very thin, there is still some detail in the
highlights,
On 11/19/04 3:03 PM, Al Bond [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When my wife went on a trip to Spain, a problem with her camera meant that
most of her slides were 1-2 stops overexposed. I have been trying to scan in
and recover some of the shots but with limited success.
Although the slides are very
on 11/19/04 4:03 PM, Al Bond at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
When my wife went on a trip to Spain, a problem with her camera meant that
most of her slides were 1-2 stops overexposed. I have been trying to scan in
and recover some of the shots but with limited success.
Although the slides
While the Plustek has a very cheap price, it DOES NOT have infrared defect
correction. I have not used the software version of dust and scratch
removal that comes with this scanner, but I doubt it works as well as
infrared.
While infrared surface defect correction is critical, the unique way
Hello jphipps,
Tuesday, November 16, 2004, 11:37:22 PM, you wrote:
While the Plustek has a very cheap price, it DOES NOT have infrared defect
correction. I have not used the software version of dust and scratch
removal that comes with this scanner, but I doubt it works as well as
infrared.
Hello,
Since my old Dimage Scan Elite is pushing the daisies I have to look
for a replacement. Unfortunately my budget is quite limited and
doesn't allow a Minolta Dimage Elite 5400 of a comparable Nikon which
would be my first choice.
I was searching the internet for a solution that provides
Consider the Plustek OpticFilm 7200dpi dedicated film scanner £170.
http://tinyurl.com/6k76b AP raves about it and PP compares to scan elite
5400 etc. Opticfilm has SilverFast SE with SRD scratch and dust removal.
Chris Street
DataMind
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dieder--
Have you tried the same experiment with Digital ICE set in the Normal
setting rather than Fine? I find virtually no image information when I
do a difference between a No Digital ICE scan and a Normal Digital ICE
scan.
I have been looking for some Nikon documentation on when to use Normal
Although I'm not a big fan of some versions of dICE (due to the fact
that it can tend to soften the whole image due to residual silver
removal (which it infers is dust or dirt)), or if the IR is not exactly
tuned to the dye spectrum frequencies, it does work on most E-6
developed slides, and some
I found NI to be a tad more effective then GEM in terms of smoothign
teh grain and preserving a little bit more details. The difference is
ceratinly subjective and often hard to tell, but nevertheless it is
what I noticed. Bear in mind I have yet learnt all the great
capabilites of NI to treat
on 11/10/04 1:32 AM, Arthur Entlich at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Although I'm not a big fan of some versions of dICE (due to the fact
that it can tend to soften the whole image due to residual silver
removal (which it infers is dust or dirt)), or if the IR is not exactly
tuned to the dye
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You might want to try Digital GEM Professional. It works as a Photoshop
plug-in and you can make several adjustments, including controlling the
grain in the shadows and highlights. It also contains an excellent
sharpening/softening algorithm that is very useful.
Yow!
I suggest you look for any detail removed with Digital ICE because there
will probably not be any detail removed. The reason the image may look
less sharp is because the eye is being tricked by the surface defects
(dust, scratches, etc.). There shouldn't be any residual silver in C-41
processed
Hi All,
Further to my previous messages I have obtained a Scan Dual I on trial. I
have tried it with the Vuescan trial version (and also the Minolta drivers -
so this must be a later model that works on XP).
Although my negatives were clean and visually dist free, there must be a
fair amount of
on 11/9/04 2:46 AM, Chris Aitken at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi All,
Further to my previous messages I have obtained a Scan Dual I on trial. I
have tried it with the Vuescan trial version (and also the Minolta drivers -
so this must be a later model that works on XP).
Although my negatives
Chris Aitken wrote:
Hi All,
Further to my previous messages I have obtained a Scan Dual I on trial. I
have tried it with the Vuescan trial version (and also the Minolta drivers -
so this must be a later model that works on XP).
As an alternative to blasting air at the negative before
Two points need to be made. One deals with one of your comments concerning
getting ICE. ICE only works with color negtives or chromgenic black white
films. It does not work with silver halide films like true bw films. The
second point, which is not one that addresses anything that you have
May I also recommend Edwal anti-static film cleaner. My computer store
sells very soft disposable material for cleaning CD's/DVDs, and combined
with Edwal's anti-static cleaner, it is easy to reduce the amount of dust to
a minimum - near zero. I've been using Edwal in tandem with the
From: David J. Littleboy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My basic take is that high-res film scans need noise reduction, and
NeatImage does a good job.
How does it compare with using GEM in Nikonscan? I find GEM at 2 to be very
effective for current E200 films,. and GEM at 3 for Provia400.
What would
NI allows you to create profiles for devices, emulsions, etc, and gives you
controls over color noise, luminance etc.
Les
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Verkaik
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 6:41 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Les Berkley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
NI allows you to create profiles for devices, emulsions, etc, and gives you
controls over color noise, luminance etc.
Another advantage of NeatImage is that (since you store the unmodified scan)
you get to try again if you don't like the results. GEM
on 11/2/04 4:40 AM, Al Bond at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Berry Ives wrote:
It seems like I have
heard of grain aliasing issues, or somesuch. I am printing at 1440
dpi on watercolor paper with an Epson 2200.
A couple of points. Firstly, the Elite 5400 has a grain disolver feature
which
Since there is now a Mac version of the Neat Image plugin, I have been
looking at their product info page
http://www.neatimage.com/mac/index.html
They don't provide a noise profile for the Nikon film scanners. I would be
interested in reading comments from any Wintel users who have tried Neat
701 - 800 of 17967 matches
Mail list logo
