[filmscanners] Re: Color Misregistration (EspeciallyPolaroidSprintscan 120)

["Arthur Entlich" <artistic-1@shaw.ca>]

I would think that the main bottleneck in these equations is indeed dICE
calculations.

dICE requires a fourth capture per line, R, G, B, IR.

Under the normal scan there are three lines being captured at a time,
but they still each have to be interpreted in dICE. In the superfine
mode only one line is captured at a time.  The dICE takes over two times
the time as the scanning operation, so they pretty much balance out.

Art

David J. Littleboy wrote:

> "Arthur Entlich" <artistic-1@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>
> The reason for this is simple, it does indeed over double the scan time
> from 1:30 to 3:25 min.  The reason it seems less is because the dICE
> process so slows the process (1:30 to 3:40) that the superfine mode
> doesn't seem to make a big difference between the regular scan with dICE
> and the super fine mode with dICE (3:40 to 4:30).  The dICE process goes
> on in the background while the scanner is slowed down for the superfine
> scan mode.
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> That makes sense. It's clear that something's going on in parallel. That
> means it's surprising that dICE slows down normal scan so much. Oops, no its
> not. Presumably there's only one row of IR sensors, so the dICE time should
> be about the same as superfine mode.
>
>
>>You also obviously have a quite fast computer based on these numbers.
>>
>
> Yes. 2.2 GHz. Although it's "only" 1GB, and it's maxed out at that. Works OK
> for 645 48-bit images, but I suspect that 6x9 would be seriously painful.
> (Picture Window Pro crashed when I tried to do a 6x6 scan at 48-bits.)
>
> David J. Littleboy
> davidjl@gol.com
> Tokyo, Japan
>


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