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: Re: Vuescan gripes



> PS. I don't want some long protracted argument over whether a digicam is
> like a scanner. My point is they use a lens, a CCD, an A->D
> converter and a
> computer to convert a physical image into a digital image. Given
> the vastly
> superior processing power available to most film scanners they should be
> capable of much better AUTOMATIC results. This is what Vuescan
> does so well.
>

I agree completely.  In scanning Negs, ROC set to 1 seems to do a very
useful job of auto-exposure/colour balance on the large majority of images
I've scanned.  If you want to keep a colour cast (e.g. a neutrally coloured
object totally bathed in evening sunlight) then ROC is no good to you.  It
also finds it hard to deal with very strong and relatively small highlights
and a colour cast across the whole image.

In many ways the results ROC 1 produces are quite similar to sample images
I've seen on the net with digicams and auto-white balance.

It is fair to say, though, that a digicam has an easier time.  It has the
scene to interpret.  A scanner has the film to interpret, as well as the
scene.  We're talking log-log with wrinkles, rather than simply log...

Jawed




 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.