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



Steve,

Just so you know since you're new to Vuescan, you can have multiple versions
of Vuescan on your machine - keep the one you have for the long exposure
(just rename it or move it to a different drive so it's not overwritten) and
install the latest one.  Then you'll have the best of both worlds.
Registration will unlock all of them.

Maris

----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Greenbank" <steve@gccl.fsbusiness.co.uk>
To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2001 5:33 PM
Subject: 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
| result
| > >  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)
:
|
| http://www.greenbank.themutual.net/artixscan4000_noise.htm
|
| 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
| Silverfast.
|
| Steve
|
|




 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.