Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: [OT] Eps*n V700, was Zuiko 16mm fisheye...how much veiling glar

Subject: [OM] Re: [OT] Eps*n V700, was Zuiko 16mm fisheye...how much veiling glare should I expect
From: Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 07:25:21 -0500
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
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz