ðòïåëôù 


  áòèé÷ 


Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

  óôáôøé 


  ðåòóïîáìøîïå 


  ðòïçòáííù 



ðéûéôå
ðéóøíá












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

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

[filmscanners] Re: NeatImage:



Hi Tony,

I just took a look at the web info you put up regarding Neat Image.

My wife just recently shot a stage presentation during a final
rehearsal, and like yourself, was given incorrect information on the
lighting quality and stage positioning of the client's performers.  She
used Fuji NPZ, shot at 2400 ISO and processed at 3200 ISO (pushed two
stops), because similarly to what happened to you, it was the only way
to get enough light for handheld medium zoom and hope for some
information outside of the highlights.

The results were miserable, but unlike your situation, there was no way
to get anything else out of the film, because it just wasn't there.

The part of your example that amazes me is how the digital camera
handled the very dark circumstances. It is one of the few reasons I've
been considering buying one.

I don't have Neat Image, but from your example, I'm not exactly
overwhelmed.  It looks like pretty much every grain reducing software
I've seen... softens the image and removes detail, adds a bit of edge
definition at transition points.  In fact, in the example you show, the
principal subject has skin that looks like a looks like it was generated
by a computer (they still can't generate enough polygons, I guess).  The
edge between her lip and the area between her lip and nose and cheek (I
forget the name of that part of the face), is where it really shows.  At
the size it was printed, it is acceptable, but at 200% it is more that
I'm comfortable with.

I am impressed with how the digital camera handled things, less so by
Neat Image.

Art


Tony Sleep wrote:


>
> I find Neat Image Pro+  stunningly effective on most files, especially
> eliminating CCD noise from digicam pics - see www.halftone.co.uk/10d/ for
> an  absurdly extreme example.
>
> I don't have that problem with scans but it also handles grain and  grain
> aliasing well. Although I initially bought it to try and deal with a
> particular image afflicted by both grain and grain aliasing. This it didn't
>  like. Filtering worked, but only up to a point and at  the cost of sharpp,
> squiggly artefacts across the image.

<stuff cut>

> Regards
>
> Tony Sleep - http://www.halftone.co.uk
> Online portfolio & exhibit + film scanner info & comparisons
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body



 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.