I found NI to be a tad more effective then GEM in terms of smoothign teh grain and preserving a little bit more details. The difference is ceratinly subjective and often hard to tell, but nevertheless it is what I noticed. Bear in mind I have yet learnt all the great capabilites of NI to treat different color channels independently and control noise in various aspects.
Having said that, I only use it for portraiture - I found it is great for smoothing out the skin, especially a porous one or featured by a small imprefections. Very attractive for women's skin. Alex --- Ed Verkaik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: "David J. Littleboy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > My basic take is that high-res film scans need noise reduction, and > NeatImage does a good job. > > > > How does it compare with using GEM in Nikonscan? I find GEM at 2 to > be very > effective for current E200 films,. and GEM at 3 for Provia400. > > What would Neatimage do that GEM doesn't? > > Ed Verkaik > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe > filmscanners' > or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message > title or body > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
