[filmscanners] Re: Neat Image with Nikon scanners?

["Alex Z" <alexzfoto@yahoo.com>]

I found NI to be a tad more effective then GEM in terms of smoothign
teh grain and preserving a little bit more details. The difference is
ceratinly subjective and often hard to tell, but nevertheless it is
what I noticed. Bear in mind I have yet learnt all the great
capabilites of NI to treat different color channels independently and
control noise in various aspects.

Having said that, I only use it for portraiture - I found it is great
for smoothing out the skin, especially a porous one or featured by a
small imprefections. Very attractive for women's skin.

Alex

--- Ed Verkaik <verkaik@sympatico.ca> wrote:

> From: "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com>
> My basic take is that high-res film scans need noise reduction, and
> NeatImage does a good job.
> >
>
> How does it compare with using GEM in Nikonscan?  I find GEM at 2 to
> be very
> effective for current E200 films,. and GEM at 3 for Provia400.
>
> What would Neatimage do that GEM doesn't?
>
> Ed Verkaik
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

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