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: Nikon's GEM vs.NeatImage



Thanks Ramesh.
>From my very limited experience with NI demo (comparing JPEGs :-( )
one image showed a very slight difference in sharpness giving an edge
to NI (while producing about the same level of smoothness), while on
several others I wasn't able to distinguish any discernable difference
in terms of sharpness. And yes, GEM is considerably faster then NI.

I think I'll borrow a PRO version from the friend of mine and will run
a real test on TIFFs.

Regards,
Alex
--- "Nagaraj, Ramesh" <Ramesh.Nagaraj@ca.com> wrote:
> I have used trial versions of Neat Image and ASF's new Digital GEM
> Plug-in.
> I found that both produce almost same results and latter is fast.
>
>
>
> Thanks
> Ramesh
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex Z [mailto:alexzfoto@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2003 3:42 PM
> To: Nagaraj, Ramesh
> Subject: [filmscanners] Nikon's GEM vs.NeatImage
>
>
> This is for Nikon scanner users that have ICE3.
> I used to enjoy my IV ED and besides of ICE that is tremendous tool
> got
> used to apply GEM to most of my portrait/people-related stuff.
> The smoothness appearance it produces gettign rid of grain is just
> terrific, though the effect is most prononced on GEM 3 and 4 (I use 4
> quite often) but at teh expence of sharpness.
> Setting GEM to 4 indavertantly makes certain impact on sharpness
> (nothing terrible, but still discernable once observing the image at
> 100% on the screen).
> I was wondering how Neat Image software (there is a lot of talk about
> one in the net - specifically in the field of digital cameras noise
> reduction) would be compared against the GEM.
> I tried the demo version and the JPEGs processed (demo saves JPEGs
> only
> even while processing TIFFs) and the image looks really nice and
> clean
> - just on pair with GEM set to 4.
> Having said that, I have yet ran the real test of GEM against NI,
> though intend to do it soon.
> Meahwhile I'm curious whether there is somebody who have his
> personal,
> real life proven experience with both and is able to draw his
> conclusions (would NI make less sharpness impact with similar level
> of
> grain reduction as GEM at 4) ?
>
> Regards, Alex
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
> http://search.yahoo.com
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
> filmscanners'
> or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message
> title or body
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
> filmscanners'
> or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message
> title or body


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.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.