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: Dust in Sprintscan 4000?


I just did a comparison between ICE and Photoshop's Dust & Scratch Filter.
I was hoping that the Photoshop filter would work, but, the results favored
ICE.  Viewing an image scanned without ICE, I applied the Photoshop Filter
at a variety of settings.  It was my impression, based on what I saw using
'Preview' at a variety of settings, that the Photoshop Dust & Scratch Filter
is practically worthless.  Using very sharp images and using the "Print &
Acutal Pixels' Views, it was my impression that any softening of spots and
dust resulted in an extreme softening of the image.  There is no question
but that Digital ICE is much, much more effective at dust and spot removal
while at the same time it softens the image much, much  less that does the
Photoshop Filter.

> From: DaleH <dhoff@margnat.com>
> Reply-To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 15:19:29 -0400
> To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> Subject: Re: filmscanners: Dust in Sprintscan 4000?
> Doesn't anyone use Photoshop's Dust and Scratch filter?
> I find it useful in cleaning up dirty scans, and automated selections
> using the magic wand and color range tools. There's a preview window
> and the concept of choosing pixel tolerance relating to defect size
> is straight forward. I usually restrict clean up to areas which
> particularly need it. I've never had a Nikon scanner so don't know
> how ICE compares to this but I would rather have the option of seeing
> how bad the mess is before applying any rememdy.
> DaleH


Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.