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



Alex Z wrote:

> 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 don't know about your version of GEM, but in comparing ASF's GEM
separate tool, NeatImage, and Grain Surgery, I found NeatImage way
way ahead of the other two, with Grain Surgery second and GEM third
(not to mean it's bad, just less good).  But it also depends what it's
used on.  Neatimage also is the hardest to use because of all the
options, tuning, and multiple variable-sized sampling one can do and
all that.  It also runs by far the slowest.  So for sheer power
and flexibility in noise removal (not just grain) I find NeatImage
the one to use. A no-brainer.  For simpler uses either of the other
two can be used, and they certainly are easier to use, especially GEM.  But
if GEM doesn't do what you want, you can always use NeatImage as your
backup.  Just my opinion, obviously.

Mike

P.S. - In version 2, NeatImage fixed their user interface and it's
        tremendously easier to use.  Only real "problem" is that
        it doesn't use LZW compression within TIFF's due to the
        licencing issues of LZW.  Not hard to get around, but
        annoying. :-)





----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.