I did not try to run as standalone application, I used it as PS plugin and it
ran well.
Neat Image, seems to have elobarate grain/noise profiling mechanism(at least I
see many controls).
In ASF's GEM, I see very few controls.
Regards,
Ramesh
-----Original Message-----
From: Alex Z [mailto:alexzfoto@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 1:33 PM
To: Nagaraj, Ramesh
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Nikon's GEM vs.NeatImage
Aga, well worth considering approach indeed.
Did you get the ASF's GEM software to run as a stand-alone application
?
I used to apply certain GEM on portraiture and other kind of
people-related stuff, while refrain from applying one in most cases on
other kind of images (landscapes, architecture, ...)
Alex
--- "Nagaraj, Ramesh" <Ramesh.Nagaraj@ca.com> wrote:
> When I archive full data(without GEM). So I do not use GEM of Nikon
> scanner.
> At post-scan stage, If needed, I use some s/w tool to remove the
> grains. In future, if somebody comes up with a
> tool that removes grains more efficiently(without or hardly loosing
> sharpness) then I can run it on my archived data.
> So, I would suggest using GEM tool at post-scan stage instread of
> scan stage.
> In my macro shots, I do see the reduction in the sharpness due to
> GEM. I have decided to stick to 100ASA
> and avoid using GEM.
>
> Thanks
> Ramesh
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex Z [mailto:alexzfoto@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 11:17 AM
> To: Nagaraj, Ramesh
> Subject: [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.
> >
> >
> >
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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.
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
