RE: Nikon Acknowleges Banding, Sort Of

["gary" <gsellani@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The differences are not that subtle, or is the word sublimiminal. ;-)

I wish a different photo was used in the demo. This one answers some
questions but creates new ones.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-scan@leben.com [mailto:owner-scan@leben.com]On Behalf Of
> rafe.bustin@verizon.net
> Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 6:05 PM
> To: scan@leben.com
> Subject: RE: Nikon Acknowleges Banding, Sort Of
>
>
> On 9 Apr 2002 at 10:10, gary wrote:
>
> > If you look around the rest of the image, more than just the banding was
> > improved. Look at the definition of the shadows on the floor or
> table where
> > the plant rests. There is a shadow near the point where the
> plant container
> > goes from a straight walled (cylinder) to a V-shape that is lost on the
> > normal scan and present on the superfine.
> >
> > There still seems to be a blur around the flowers in superfine.
> Is that due
> > to lens flare or the animal shaking the plant? Superfine removes the
> > horizontal bands, but I see vertical bands on the superfine to
> the left of
> > the lower flower. Not bands as much as a ghost of the flower edge.
>
>
> IMHO, you're reading WAY too much into two little JPGs.
>
>
> rafe b.
>
> -
> Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate
> subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.
>

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