It would seem to me, reading this thread (and others), that the industry would
be very well-served by contracting with a real-life scanner user to monitor
this and other web-sites. Cost in dollars--relatively insignificant (who
wouldn't accept a free scanner, updates, and a few hours of their time?).
If I were a design engineer, like someone else on this list, I'd almost think
it *essential* to listen to users (and I'm pleased to say, he does). If anyone
on this list can make that happen for the other scanner and software companies,
the industry will have a lot to thank you for.
An old Cleveland baseball pitcher once said, "Don't look back--someone might be
gainin' on you." I can't think of another industry where that's more
appropriate than it is here.
On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 19:25:43
Dave King wrote:
>> In a message dated 6/10/2001 4:13:40 PM EST,
>> > The T-2500 scan (agfsnipVS) is a bit softer and flatter than the
>> > scan (niksnipVS). After sharpening and correcting tone on both
>> > I thought the T-2500 scan rendered image detail slightly better
>> > the LS-30 (maybe), but these files not sent as Ed requested only
>> > default result.
>> You need to show the .tif files, not the .jpg files. The .jpg files
>> are full of jpeg artifacts. It's best to put these on a web site
>> instead of e-mailing them to this list.
>> In spite of this, it appears clear that the T-2500 doesn't focus
>> as well as the Nikon scan, and this is most of the reason that
>> the dust spots are different.
>> Ed Hamrick
>Ed, as you know by now I've sent you tiffs of slightly larger crops
>directly. The crops have more image detail areas which help me make
>comparisons of image detail rendering. The Agfa is definitely softer,
>no argument there, but when I apply unsharp masking to the Agfa scan
>on the order of 75%, 0.8 radius, 0 threshold to the Agfa scan, which
>is my normal amount to sharpen grain with the T-2500, it is about as
>sharp as the unsharpened Nikon scan. Now the Nikon scan is
>interesting in that if I apply the same amount of sharpening it looks
>oversharpened to me, with more "chunky" and coarse grain than in the
>sharpened Agfa scan. It appears to me that the LED light source (or
>is it the infrared channel, or both?) is at least partially
>responsible for the increased "raw" sharpness and grain. Nikonscan's
>ICE has the effect of decreasing sharpness a bit, and Nikonscan's
>default sharpening has the effect of bringing sharpness back to
>approximately the original level with no ICE, but of course with less
>dust etc than either of the "raw" scans.
>Anyway, if I tweak and correct both files in PS as well as possible,
>each according to individual requirements, the differences between
>them are reduced quite a bit, and most telling to me, the corrected
>Agfa scan will often exhibit greater image detail, grain sharpness,
>and smoothness than the corrected Nikon scan.
>I would be happy to post these tiffs to a web site for others to see
>and play with, but someone would have to volunteer the space.
Get 250 color business cards for FREE!