Thanks for the link.
The GEM is basically softwware only solution, unlike ICE that indeed
requires certain hardware such as IR channel.
I'll try their demo as soon as time permits and will report back.
Alex
--- "Nagaraj, Ramesh" <Ramesh.Nagaraj@ca.com> wrote:
> There are two ASF GEM s/w, one is integrated with the Nikon scanner
> s/w and
> another is a plug-in to PS. In my previous mails, I was refferring to
> the latter and it can be purchased at
> . You can down load the trial version too.
>
> It will be interesting to know how the both versions compare.
> If you use it, please share your experience.
>
> Does GEM not need hardware support (like IR channel)?
>
> Regards,
> Ramesh
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex Z [mailto:alexzfoto@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 2:35 PM
> To: Nagaraj, Ramesh
> Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Nikon's GEM vs.NeatImage
>
>
> Yeah I understand, perhaps I didn't expressed myself well.
> I meant downloading the ASF GEM application as a PS plugin as
> opposite
> to using this as a built-in into NikonScan software.
> Can the pluging be purchased separately ?
>
> Alex
> --- "Nagaraj, Ramesh" <Ramesh.Nagaraj@ca.com> wrote:
> > 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
>
>
> __________________________________
> 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
