Filmscanners mailing list archive (firstname.lastname@example.org)
[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...