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: VueScan Long Exposure Pass

----- Original Message -----
From: <EdHamrick@aol.com>
To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2001 7:55 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: VueScan Long Exposure Pass

> In a message dated 5/4/2001 11:06:17 AM EST, steve@gccl.fsbusiness.co.uk
> writes:
> > What about a slightly underexposed slide (this can produce a better
> >  when projected). I assume the long exposure  would help.
> VueScan already automatically lengthens the exposure to maximize
> the intensity of the scanned image without saturating the brightest
> pixels.
> However, the "long exposure pass" option did two passes, one with
> a properly exposed image and one with a significantly overexposed
> image (usually 6x).  This saturates all pixels above 1/6 of the maximum
> intensity, and then these two passes were being combined.
> The problem with this is that overexposed pixels will bleed charge
> into adjacent pixels, and the amount of bleeding is unpredictable
> (and it's also directional sometimes, bleeding mainly to either the
> left or right).
> Regards,
> Ed Hamrick
OK ed I've coughed upo my $40 as Ican't get Siverfast to behave but I am
less than convinced that long exposure isn't a useful option.

I've redone my tests and you can see the results at (refresh if necessary) :


Strangely 8x with long exposure is much better than 8x (with the echo). I
tried 8x 4 times with similar results - I tried 8x with long exposure twice
with similar improved (no echo) results.

Is this a coincidence ? - seems unlikely to me.

Why does 8x work better with long exposure?

To be fair the noise levels are much better than Scan Wizard Pro or



Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.