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: GEM



At 04:20 PM 6/19/01 -0400, Norman Quinn wrote:

>   "GEM and ROC do not require hardware, but have to be "tuned" to the  
>  So, in theory, any scanner could have GEM  
>  but it requires that Applied  
>Science Fiction be hired to make the profiles, and that the scanner  
>company pay a licensing fee to them."
>
>What  scanners come with GEM and ROC. Is Nikon the only scanner with ICE?  


I believe the Canon 4000 (or was it the newly 
announced Minolta MF scanner?) that also had 
ROC and GEM.

IMO, these two aren't nearly as useful as ICE.
They're OK if you want to fix a *really* bad 
slide or negative in a hurry.  But they don't 
really accomplish anything that couldn't be 
done by hand, by a skilled operator.  If used 
blindly, they can create ugly artifacts.

You could even argue that ICE is that way also 
(ie., scans can be retouched "by hand.")  But the 
time required to do that, on a really mangled 
image, would be prohibitive.  What impresses 
me most is that there seems to be little or no 
penalty (in terms of image sharpness) for using 
ICE.


rafe b.





 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.