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: scanner dilemma

Gordon wrote:
>Second, I do not think that anyone without an IR channel will get optimal
>dust and scratch removal from Vuescan and that is not a major reason for
>separating them.  Separating them lets people know that Vuescan has a GEM
>capability, will reduce confusion, and will allow a user to NOT use the
>dust and scratch filter if it is not needed, and vice versa.  Even if
>dust and scratch filters do nothing if there aren't any dust or
>scratches, some feel that implementing GEM will soften an image more than
>is desires when cleaning the dust or scratches.  Whether their feeling
>are justified or not is immaterial.

I see your point - all I was saying was that separating them allows people
without an IR channel in their scanner to ensure that the dust and scratch
removal has no effect on the result.  It also gives users whose scanners
*do* have an IR channel the option of using grain reduction without dust
and scratch removal.

>Third, I knew that ICE (dust and scratch removal) required the IR channel
>and that GEM did not.  However, this supports my reasoning above on
>separating them.  It reduces confusion and senior moments.

I think we're in agreement here.  Probably just a semantic boggle. :)


Rob Geraghty harper@wordweb.com


Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.