With the most recent Nikon scanners (and a fast PC) I've started using ICE
even on slides, and the results are excellent. Not that my slides are
filthy to begin with (they are usually pretty clean, which is why I skipped
ICE in the past), but ICE saves a bit of time in PS and seems not to affect
Is there any difference between the dICE or performance - supplied with the early
Nikon
Scan say 2.1 and the later NS 3.1.2 - when using a Nikon LS2000 scanner?
Has it changed? Improved or stayed the same?
Rob
Is there any difference between the dICE or performance - supplied with
the early Nikon
Scan say 2.1 and the later NS 3.1.2 - when using a Nikon LS2000 scanner?
Has it changed? Improved or stayed the same?
Can't say about the LS2000, but with the newer Nikon scanners ICE does not
cause any
I, naively perhaps, have often thought that simple things like 'sensor
motion blur' and 'scanner shake' might have something to do with it. When
looking and listening to my LS4000 scanning, I start to wonder
how long the
sensors actually stays still, and how this relates to the length
of
Austin Franklin wrote:
I, naively perhaps, have often thought that simple things like 'sensor
motion blur' and 'scanner shake' might have something to do with it. When
looking and listening to my LS4000 scanning, I start to wonder
how long the
sensors actually stays still, and how this
Now that is interesting. I understand the principle, but my experience, is
that drum scanners actually require more sharpening than high end CCDs...at
least that's what I've seen in scans I've done on both a Howtek 4500 and a
Leaf 45. Though I agree, what you say makes sense
-Original Message-
From: Preben S. Kristensen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 3:58 AM
To: Jack Phipps
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Digital ICE
and Digital PIC our new process for scanning exposed undeveloped film.
Jack,
This sounds interesting
Jack Phipps wrote:
Good morning Art!
Thanks for your comments and expansion of the information. I understand
that you're not the principle inventor, or even on of the engineers, and
you are trying to translate the info to us in a lay fashion as you
understand it.
I enjoy seeing how your
Now that is interesting. I understand the principle, but my
experience, is
that drum scanners actually require more sharpening than high
end CCDs...at
least that's what I've seen in scans I've done on both a Howtek
4500 and a
Leaf 45. Though I agree, what you say makes sense
Jack Phipps wrote:
Hello Bob!
I checked out your site. It has some great work on it! I'd like to meet
Sidney some time. I've always been fond of birds.
ONE patent is US6195161. There are many other patents pending (well over
100). I recommend you search on Applied Science Fiction or
and Digital PIC our new process for scanning exposed undeveloped film.
Jack,
This sounds interesting, but how will it work??
Preben
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe
Hi Jack,
Okay Austin, I've got the Doctor looking over my shoulder right
now. He says
that with MOST scanners (especially ccd) because of the pixels sensor
density, there is light piping between sensors causing a loss of
sharpness.
I don't believe it's light piping, but electronic
I'm sure he isn't going to tell you (if he did he'd probably have to
kill you ;-))
You might take the time to read the info from the link Jack supplied.
It goes through the process, as much as they are going to release.
The process is fascinating, and I'm very impressed with the results they
PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 8:17 PM
To: Jack Phipps
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Digital ICE
Digital ICE is unique (and patent protected)
in that it looks through the surface defects and identifies
the underlying information in the film.
Not sure I understand this. If the defect
Digital ICE is unique (and patent protected)
in that it looks through the surface defects and identifies
the underlying information in the film.
Not sure I understand this. If the defect is, say, a speck of a
substance (talc, eg) that cannot be penetrated by anything the scanner
can throw at
I'm sure Jack Phillips can give much more info on this, since his
company created dICE and licenses it. Also, as I understand it, there
is more than one version of dICE, and the newer version has apparently
been improved upon over the original.
As I understand it, dICE uses some type of
16 matches
Mail list logo
