Re: why is silverfast better than generic scanning software?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



At 06:43 PM 1/7/00 -0800, you wrote:
>
>Good question Jerry. One in which has gotten me into a few debates. I contend
>that today, scan software is less critical than a few years ago with 2 big
>assumptions. ASSUMING that the scan software can return high bit data
(greater
>than 24 bit data) back to the host application. And ASSUMING the host
>application can handle the high bit data. There is very little if anything,
>scan software can do that applications such as Photoshop and Photo Paint
can't
>do.


But there's more to the story than high-bit data,
particularly if you're scanning negatives.

Inversion of negatives, and removal of the base
color, is generally done in the scanner driver,
and rather tough to do properly in Photoshop.
(I believe there's a commercial plugin designed
to do this, but I haven't needed it or tried it.)

Mike -- you didn't say a word about the user
interface in the scanner driver.  In my experience,
it can make or break a scanner.  That said --
I'd trust either Epson or Lasersoft to do a very
good job of it.

A few basic adjustments (like exposure) have to
be done right at scan-time, or all else is
garbage.  If the analog electronics are allowed
to go either to zero or full-scale, in any color
channel, then information has been be lost, forever.

So there's no getting around certain basic 
operations in the scanner driver.

Reflective media will always be easier to scan
than negatives and transparencies -- but I see
the gleam in your eyes with the Epson 1600, 
and you'll be working with the latter.


rafe b.


-
Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate
subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.


[Index of Archives]     [Yosemite News]     [Yosemite Photos]     [Scanners]     [Gimp]     [Gimp Users]
  Powered by Linux