Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 




      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: filmscanners: GEM, ROC compared to Vuescan

Digital ICE from Applied Science Fiction should not soften the image. It
identifies defects and corrects them. Even if there is a single strand of
hair on a models face, it should still be there after the defects are
removed. I have an example of an old Marilyn Monroe image taken by George
Barris. There is hair or lint that is in the original record. It is still
there. Only the surface defects are corrected. We don't "guess" at what is
under the defect or color it in for surrounding pixels, we correct the
surface defect.

Jack Phipps
Applied Science Fiction

-----Original Message-----
From: John Matturri [mailto:jmatturr@earthlink.net]
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 12:04 PM
To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
Subject: Re: filmscanners: GEM, ROC compared to Vuescan

Related: why in general does Ice-based dust removal soften the image.
The purpose of the IR channel is to identify the particular spots that
are dust / scratches. Shouldn't the software only affect those areas
leaving the rest of the image alone and sharp?

John M.


Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.