Thanks Mike.
I was only be able to try out the demo of NI that can only save JPEGs.
Then I opened it in PS7 aside to GEMed image that I compressed by JPEG
to about th same level.
Out of three images (portraiture though) I was only be able to notice a
barely discernable difference in sharpness between NI and GEM (at
setting 4) in favor of NI.
On two others I wasn't able to notice any difference in sharpness.
I wil anyway run a real comparison tests once the friend of mine owing
Pro full version will loan me the software for a few days.
However, what I already figured out to speak confidently, is that the
GEM incorporated into NikonScan 3.1.2 is more effecient then ASF's
pluging and also impacts image sharpness to lesser extent.
Now the battle will be between scanner's GEM and NI... :-)
Alex
--- Mike Kersenbrock <michaelk@aracnet.com> wrote:
> Alex Z wrote:
>
> > 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 don't know about your version of GEM, but in comparing ASF's GEM
> separate tool, NeatImage, and Grain Surgery, I found NeatImage way
> way ahead of the other two, with Grain Surgery second and GEM third
> (not to mean it's bad, just less good). But it also depends what
> it's
> used on. Neatimage also is the hardest to use because of all the
> options, tuning, and multiple variable-sized sampling one can do and
> all that. It also runs by far the slowest. So for sheer power
> and flexibility in noise removal (not just grain) I find NeatImage
> the one to use. A no-brainer. For simpler uses either of the other
> two can be used, and they certainly are easier to use, especially
> GEM. But
> if GEM doesn't do what you want, you can always use NeatImage as your
> backup. Just my opinion, obviously.
>
> Mike
>
> P.S. - In version 2, NeatImage fixed their user interface and it's
> tremendously easier to use. Only real "problem" is that
> it doesn't use LZW compression within TIFF's due to the
> licencing issues of LZW. Not hard to get around, but
> annoying. :-)
>
>
>
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
