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]

[filmscanners] Re: VueScan FIY (was: Polaroid's future)


  • To: lexa@lexa.ru
  • Subject: [filmscanners] Re: VueScan FIY (was: Polaroid's future)
  • From: "Julian Vrieslander" <julianv@mindspring.com>
  • Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 18:39:10 -0500
  • Unsubscribe: mailto:listserver@halftone.co.uk

On 3/14/02 11:30 AM, Mikael Risedal <risedal@hotmail.com>, wrote:

>1. The Nikonscan 3.12 are now  stable if you have  enough  memory .

That may be true, for all I know.  I have 3.1.2 installed (Mac version),
but I have only used it a few times.

>2.  In what way   and when are Vuescan superior to  NikonScan ? speed?
>colors? handling? CMS?
>     Mikael Risedal

There are some aspects of NikonScan that I actually prefer to VueScan.  I
prefer the NS user interface design.  I like the way NS histogram
displays are integrated with the level and curve controls.  I think that
the VS grain reduction feature does not work as well as GEM in NS.  Many
people complain about the NS color management system.  I have found that
it works fine, insofar as the screen display images in NS match what I
see when I open a scan in Photoshop.  VS screen displays are not as
accurate, since it does not go through my custom monitor profile.  But NS
color management, when turned on, causes a really significant slowdown in
throughput.

I have not run timed comparison tests, but it seems that NS (with its CMS
on) takes much longer than VS for the complete sequence: preview,
crop/adjust, scan, save file.  Perhaps with CMS off, the NS workflow
would be quicker.

But maybe not.  One of the reasons I prefer VS is that its usually
produces better exposure and color balance for the initial, unadjusted
previews.  Often the "automatic" results from VS are good enough for my
final scan.  With NS, I almost always need to make significant
adjustments in color balance, and sometimes the color casts are very hard
to correct.  And with NS I frequently need to manually override the
autoexposure value (with "analog gain").  VS usually sets exposure
conservatively, to retrieve most of the useful information from the
image.  Sometimes this produces a flat looking image, but it can be
corrected with the level and curve tools in Photoshop.  VS offers several
alternatives for its automatic whitepoint computation.  VS also contains
built-in profiles for the more common negative film stocks.

The bottom line for me is that for most shots, it takes less work for me
to get the result I want from VS.  I tend to use NS only for those cases
where GEM will help to reduce some really nasty film grain.

--
Julian Vrieslander <mailto:julianv@mindspring.com>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body



 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.