Thanks. I hadn't thought about the variability of performance based on
density. Makes sense.
Chuck Norcutt
Moose wrote:
> Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>
>>Can the ICE do anything with Kodachrome even though it might take hours?
>>
>
> ICE uses the IR channel and IR doesn't go through the dyes in Kodachrome
> and the silver particles in conventional B&W film (Chromogenic is
> different and should work fine.) Thus the software, ICE FARE, VueScan,
> whatever, Can't differentiate between dark parts of the image and dust
> particles.
>
> In a test using VueScan on Kodachrome, I found pretty much what I
> expected. It did a rather nice job with dust in the sky or other light
> portions where there isn't much dye. It created some odd little
> artifacts in some dark regions. One could combine the two versions and
> still probably save time on some slides.
>
> The non-IR software somebody (Epson?) bundles with their scanners for
> use with B&W is terrible.
>
> Only ICE is stone really slow. Canon's FARE and the VueScan IR dust
> removal software are much faster. From the Photo-i tests, ICE and FARE
> work equally effectively. Look at the review details to see he speed
> differences.
>
> Moose
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|