Raphael said:
The reason this image is smooth (well, one of the
reasons) is that it's not coming close to resolving
the grain. I have a hunch that when you get your
9000, you're going to want a copy of NeatImage
with that.
Sorry, not quite. This is what I've tried to explain before
and haven't been able to. The scanner resolved a LOT
of the grain in this film image. Look closer. So much in fact
that it went into grain aliasing, a typical event with the
current crop of scanners. That, was the problem.
Which I've found a solution to.
This:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/photos/2006-10-03.jpg
is EXACTLY and precisely the same scanned raw file out
of vuescan. I processed it into a 24-bit tiff with vuescan,
then sharpened with gimp with EXACTLY the same settings
as the first image. Indeed, the grain is there. So is the ugly
grain aliasing. Which is NOT in the original film frame, no
matter how strong a loupe I use.
This:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/photos/2006-10-02.jpg
is EXACTLY the same raw scanned file, but with the
grain aliasing removed. I did this by processing the raw
48-bit scanned file through NI and THEN vuescan it into
24-bit tiff and sharpened with the same settings as the other.
Ie, same workflow, same adjustments, only diff is I did filter
out the grain alias BEFORE I converted from 48-bit raw scan.
If you look closely, the grain is there allright in
http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/photos/2006-10-02.jpg
But it's now the true grain of the velvia emulsion, the so-called
"high-frequency" component of the NI folks. Which I don't
filter: I like it as it is!
That ugly "clumped" stuff in the oof areas of the first image
which is NOT in the film is nearly completely gone. This
is the "grain" that I object to in most scanned example images
I see in your pages and others: I know there is no way that
clumpy grain is in the original film, it's an introduced scanning
artifact. Assuming of course a modern 100ISO E6 film or K25!
Some folks hate the sight of grain. Me, I've always
taken it for granted. It's an old acqaintance, at least.
Same here. Grain aliasing is however something
that I've had to live with since scanning. It was
never there and I never saw it with enlargers.
This is the demonstration I intended to show you
folks before. This time done within the exclusive
realm of scanned images so it's easier to compare.
Both images are near equally sharp in the focused areas,
as should be expected: they come from the same
raw scan file! One shows the very fine grain in oof
areas expected out of a film like Velvia. The other is
the basic ugly grain aliasing that is the result of
scanning at a rez near the grain size.
It still doesn't resolve my major leftover problem
with flatbeds: not enough DR to "punch" through
a deep contrast image like Velvia produces.
I'm intensely curious as if these results will sustain
and keep with the 9k or if I'll be able to dig into the
dense spots more than with a 4990. I know the
raw scan will be a LOT sharper to start with - the
4990 has heaps of sharpness robbing glare.
This extra sharpness will make grain alias worse,
as 4000dpi is not enough to avoid it in the first
place. But I know how to get rid of that.
It's the DR that I'm deeply interested in comparing.