Sorry for the misinterpretation on sharpening. I was up too late,
blurry eyed and hadn't read all the posts.
As to scanner flare (bloom), this is a somewhat known problem. The scan
I was attempting was under-exposed so I had the gain cranked up, which
I believe in the Nikon's means higher LED output. I'm not sure if it
comes from the scanner optics or the fact that if you have a very
bright area right next to a darker shadow area, the CCD may bleed
through causing bloom when you over saturate part of the CCD. I suspect
if it is the CCD it would occur in the linear direction of the CCD
array, while if it were scanner optics, it would be unidirectional?
Here is a crop of the horse's head with bloom/flare (LS-4000ED):
http://www.zuik.net/om/horse_crop_rhp_0902_9b.jpg
At first I thought the problem was the film, but turns out to be the
scanner. The direction of the scanner array in this case would be the
worst for CCD bleeding, but I would not rule out the optics.
for reference, the overall shot is:
http://www.zuik.net/om/horse_rhp_0902_9b.jpg
I've heard that the Minolta scan multi pro is better than the Nikon
scanners in this regard. There is some discussion of the 'flare' at
http://www.imaging-resource.com/SCAN/DSMP/DSMPICS.HTM
Wayne
At 11:32 PM 9/14/2004, Moose wrote:
>Remember, this all started about resolution, not what looks better. C.H.
>has pulled it back from other directions a couple of times before
>talking about relative looks of the 2 media after I did this comparison.
>I didn't try to make anything "appear better" in any artistic sense. I
>just used PS tools to bring up as much detail as possible to make
>resolution comparisons between the 2 media sort of fairish.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
