Last consensus ended in that NikonScan was better than Vuescan.
And I do agree on this: despite the flawed results of my uploaded
.jpg, I pixel-peeped the ViewScan .tif and the NikonScan .tif - the
NikonScan was far better, 'though you'll not see that in these .jpg
The resulting files prove nothing, since I was exploring three issues
at the same time, hence the critique Carlos left.
But I tried ...
NikonScan - adobeRGB
<http://www.flickr.com/photos/fernando_gonzalez_gentile/3726128438/>
Vuescan - sRGB:
<http://www.flickr.com/photos/fernando_gonzalez_gentile/3725322611/>
Fernando.
2009/12/1 Ken Norton <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>
>> So what's the big deal anyway? When I used a Nikon film scanner, I found
>> Vuescan far superior in terms of image quality (if not the interface), and
>> in the end that's what counts, ¿no?
>>
>
>
> I prefer NikonScan for batch scanning. The software finds the leading edge
> of the frames better than Vuescan does. Also, there is that little issue
> with Vuescan always wanting to readjust exposure on you...
>
> AG
> --
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|