Lexa Software: Filmscanners@halftone.co.uk archive

		Apache-Talk @lexa.ru
		Inet-Admins @info.east.ru
		Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk
		Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru
		nginx-ru @sysoev.ru

СТАТЬИ

ПЕРСОНАЛЬНОЕ

ПРОГРАММЫ

ПИШИТЕ
ПИСЬМА

АРХИВ :: Filmscanners

Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: filmscanners: GEM, ROC compared to Vuescan

To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
Subject: Re: filmscanners: GEM, ROC compared to Vuescan
From: John Matturri <jmatturr@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 13:03:46 -0500
List-help: <mailto:majordomo@lists.cix.co.uk> 'help' as msg. text
Mailing-list: filmscanners; contact: owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
References: <NBBBKPAGMKMAMBDNLDGOMENMFGAA.michael@shaffer.net>

Related: why in general does Ice-based dust removal soften the image.
The purpose of the IR channel is to identify the particular spots that
are dust / scratches. Shouldn't the software only affect those areas
leaving the rest of the image alone and sharp?

John M.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: filmscanners: GEM, ROC compared to Vuescan
  - From: "Rob Geraghty" <harper@wordweb.com>
- RE: filmscanners: GEM, ROC compared to Vuescan
  - From: "shAf" <michael@shaffer.net>

References:
- RE: filmscanners: GEM, ROC compared to Vuescan
  - From: "shAf" <michael@shaffer.net>

Prev by Date: Re: filmscanners: OT: Any comments about Nikon bodies?
Next by Date: filmscanners: CD Writing Speed
Previous by thread: RE: filmscanners: GEM, ROC compared to Vuescan
Next by thread: RE: filmscanners: GEM, ROC compared to Vuescan
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread