Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: filmscanners: GEM
At 04:20 PM 6/19/01 -0400, Norman Quinn wrote:
> "GEM and ROC do not require hardware, but have to be "tuned" to the
> So, in theory, any scanner could have GEM
> but it requires that Applied
>Science Fiction be hired to make the profiles, and that the scanner
>company pay a licensing fee to them."
>
>What scanners come with GEM and ROC. Is Nikon the only scanner with ICE?
I believe the Canon 4000 (or was it the newly
announced Minolta MF scanner?) that also had
ROC and GEM.
IMO, these two aren't nearly as useful as ICE.
They're OK if you want to fix a *really* bad
slide or negative in a hurry. But they don't
really accomplish anything that couldn't be
done by hand, by a skilled operator. If used
blindly, they can create ugly artifacts.
You could even argue that ICE is that way also
(ie., scans can be retouched "by hand.") But the
time required to do that, on a really mangled
image, would be prohibitive. What impresses
me most is that there seems to be little or no
penalty (in terms of image sharpness) for using
ICE.
rafe b.
|
