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 1/7/2000 -0800, Michael Greer wrote:
>  <big SNIP>
>today, the host applications can handle the high bit data. The host
>applications can color correct, sharpen, etc. in high bits. The one argument
>that is made is that the process is more efficient at the scan stage. This
may
>be true. But I contend that as long as the 2 qualifications are met, one can
>arrive at the same quality level.

You may well be right, but the high bit scans from both my film
scanners come out so dark and dingy looking that I'm reluctant
to use them--it takes huge amounts of correction before you start
seeing anything that looks like a useable image.  Also, a maximum
resolution high-bit scan from my Polaroid 4000 produces a 106 MB
TIFF file instead of 53MB, which is a royal pain to work with in
Photoshop for very long, especially since I then have to do all the
dust spot removal by hand.

Gary Hunt <glh@srv.net>

-
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