It would seem to me, reading this thread (and others), that the industry would be very well-served by contracting with a real-life scanner user to monitor this and other web-sites. Cost in dollars--relatively insignificant (who wouldn't accept a free scanner, updates, and a few hours of their time?). If I were a design engineer, like someone else on this list, I'd almost think it *essential* to listen to users (and I'm pleased to say, he does). If anyone on this list can make that happen for the other scanner and software companies, the industry will have a lot to thank you for. An old Cleveland baseball pitcher once said, "Don't look back--someone might be gainin' on you." I can't think of another industry where that's more appropriate than it is here. Best regards--LRA -- On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 19:25:43 Dave King wrote: >From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> In a message dated 6/10/2001 4:13:40 PM EST, >[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >> >> > The T-2500 scan (agfsnipVS) is a bit softer and flatter than the >LS-30 >> > scan (niksnipVS). After sharpening and correcting tone on both >scans, >> > I thought the T-2500 scan rendered image detail slightly better >than >> > the LS-30 (maybe), but these files not sent as Ed requested only >the >> > default result. >> >> You need to show the .tif files, not the .jpg files. The .jpg files >> are full of jpeg artifacts. It's best to put these on a web site >> instead of e-mailing them to this list. >> >> In spite of this, it appears clear that the T-2500 doesn't focus >> as well as the Nikon scan, and this is most of the reason that >> the dust spots are different. >> >> Regards, >> Ed Hamrick > >Ed, as you know by now I've sent you tiffs of slightly larger crops >directly. The crops have more image detail areas which help me make >comparisons of image detail rendering. The Agfa is definitely softer, >no argument there, but when I apply unsharp masking to the Agfa scan >on the order of 75%, 0.8 radius, 0 threshold to the Agfa scan, which >is my normal amount to sharpen grain with the T-2500, it is about as >sharp as the unsharpened Nikon scan. Now the Nikon scan is >interesting in that if I apply the same amount of sharpening it looks >oversharpened to me, with more "chunky" and coarse grain than in the >sharpened Agfa scan. It appears to me that the LED light source (or >is it the infrared channel, or both?) is at least partially >responsible for the increased "raw" sharpness and grain. Nikonscan's >ICE has the effect of decreasing sharpness a bit, and Nikonscan's >default sharpening has the effect of bringing sharpness back to >approximately the original level with no ICE, but of course with less >dust etc than either of the "raw" scans. > >Anyway, if I tweak and correct both files in PS as well as possible, >each according to individual requirements, the differences between >them are reduced quite a bit, and most telling to me, the corrected >Agfa scan will often exhibit greater image detail, grain sharpness, >and smoothness than the corrected Nikon scan. > >I would be happy to post these tiffs to a web site for others to see >and play with, but someone would have to volunteer the space. > >Dave King > > Get 250 color business cards for FREE! http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/