I've never used ICE. However, samples on the web of scans of the same
image on the same scanner with and without it showed a definite, if
sublte softening of the image. That's one reason I bought a scanner that
doesn't have it and has a light source that doesn't tend to accentuate
dust and other flaws. Maybe that's at least one reason why my upsampled
2700dpi scan seemed competitive in sharpness and detail to your 5400dpi
scan of an iris? Have you tried with and without ICE in detail
comparison for sharpness and detail?
Moose
Walt Wayman wrote:
>But dust bits on film is why God (a.k.a. Eastman Kodak) gave us ICE. And he,
>and we, saw that it was good. And verily, he and we were most pleased. "Hot
>diggity dog!" exclaimith we, in praise of him and it. And yet, even more
>verily, thereafter we useth it like the very devil. Vanisheth without our
>sweat and toil doth the dust from off our holy scans of truth, and we shall
>scanneth happily and with great rejoicing everafter! OMen.
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|