Vuescan + LS40 : grain reduction compared to Nikon Scan GEM

Hello,

I've always scanned my negs with my LS-40 using Vuescan, and did
not even try Nikon scan so far. I was concerned about my images
being a little "grainy".

I've now discovered ;-) the "Grain reduction" feature of Vuescan,
and compared it to the Nikon scan Digital GEM...

I am disappointed to discover that Vuescan's grain reduction:
1. is far from GEM in terms of results
2. does not even seem to have any effect on my scans

For point 2, I see no difference between a scan without grain
reduction, or with "Grain reduction" set to medium...

This is unfortunate for 2 reasons:
1. I scan under Linux, therefore with Vuescan
2. Vuescan is much faster that Nikon scan in all other aspects,
and I find it more intuitive.

Ed, can you comment on that?

Kind regards,
--
Dominique Deleris
http://potatoworld.tuxfamily.org

Dominique Deleris wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I've always scanned my negs with my LS-40 using Vuescan, and did
> not even try Nikon scan so far. I was concerned about my images
> being a little "grainy".
>
> I've now discovered ;-) the "Grain reduction" feature of Vuescan,
> and compared it to the Nikon scan Digital GEM...
>
> I am disappointed to discover that Vuescan's grain reduction:
> 1. is far from GEM in terms of results
> 2. does not even seem to have any effect on my scans
>
> For point 2, I see no difference between a scan without grain
> reduction, or with "Grain reduction" set to medium...

This is a known issue. As it seems, it is not an easy to match
performance of GEM. Personally I always make "raw files" processed
by ICE and GEM and than I "scan" them with Vuescan to achieve
good color fidelity.

For me of all ASF products GEM has a unique standing.
ICE has a few comparable software solutions, including also
Ed's IR cleanup in Vuescan, which albeit enormously slow,
also seem to make a nice job with Kodachromes, while ICE is
failing completely. Canon made their FARE system. ROC has
also a few nicely performing competitors, including Vuescan
fade and color restorations.

But I found nothing performing even close to magnificent
smoothing results of GEM, with its relatively nice preservation
of edges and sharpness. Vuescan's grain reduction seem to work
like one of the averaging filters, while GEM works like a pattern
analyzer, according to the description.

Thomas


>
> This is unfortunate for 2 reasons:
> 1. I scan under Linux, therefore with Vuescan
> 2. Vuescan is much faster that Nikon scan in all other aspects,
> and I find it more intuitive.
>
> Ed, can you comment on that?
>
> Kind regards,
> --
> Dominique Deleris
> http://potatoworld.tuxfamily.org

In article <4016E642.1D5C1E@oracle.com>, henrymot@any.net says...
> snip>>
> But I found nothing performing even close to magnificent
> smoothing results of GEM, with its relatively nice preservation
> of edges and sharpness. Vuescan's grain reduction seem to work
> like one of the averaging filters, while GEM works like a pattern
> analyzer, according to the description.
>
> Thomas
>
I haven't used GEM because I have a canon FS4000 scanner and I use
NeatImage when I need to reduce grain. Does GEM do a similar job to
NeatImage?

Bruce Graham

"Bruce Graham" <jbgraham@nowhere.com.au> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a823b1cbf35bd19896bb@news.optusnet.com.au...
> In article <4016E642.1D5C1E@oracle.com>, henrymot@any.net says...
> > snip>>
> > But I found nothing performing even close to magnificent
> > smoothing results of GEM, with its relatively nice preservation
> > of edges and sharpness. Vuescan's grain reduction seem to work
> > like one of the averaging filters, while GEM works like a pattern
> > analyzer, according to the description.
> >
> > Thomas
> >
> I haven't used GEM because I have a canon FS4000 scanner and I use
> NeatImage when I need to reduce grain. Does GEM do a similar job to
> NeatImage?

I find NeatImage vastly superior to the GEM trial version I downloaded from
ASF.

Bart

Bart van der Wolf wrote:
>
> "Bruce Graham" <jbgraham@nowhere.com.au> wrote in message
> > In article <4016E642.1D5C1E@oracle.com>, henrymot@any.net says...
> > > snip>>
> > > But I found nothing performing even close to magnificent
> > > smoothing results of GEM, with its relatively nice preservation
> > > of edges and sharpness. Vuescan's grain reduction seem to work
> > > like one of the averaging filters, while GEM works like a pattern
> > > analyzer, according to the description.
> > >
> > > Thomas
> > >
> > I haven't used GEM because I have a canon FS4000 scanner and I use
> > NeatImage when I need to reduce grain. Does GEM do a similar job to
> > NeatImage?
>
> I find NeatImage vastly superior to the GEM trial version I downloaded from
> ASF.

I find NeatImage a fully different kind of product.

All examples which I saw so far look... filtered.
By myself I failed to achieve any respectable results.
My conclusion: NeatImage is a freeware because nobody
wants it as a product, rightfully so.

Thomas

>
> Bart

ThomasH wrote:
>> ...
>> I find NeatImage vastly superior to the GEM trial version I downloaded from
>> ASF.
>
> I find NeatImage a fully different kind of product.
>
> All examples which I saw so far look... filtered.
> By myself I failed to achieve any respectable results.
> My conclusion: NeatImage is a freeware because nobody
> wants it as a product, rightfully so.
> ...

NeatImage is not a freeware. It is $60 for Pro edition. And from what I
can see, the product is extremely successful form commercial point of view.

From my experirnce, when properly used NeatImage's produces results that
are incomparably superior to anything GEM can offer at this time.

--
Best regards,
Andrey Tarasevich

In article <4017F4CF.C614BFC@comcast.net>, henrymot@some.net says...
> Bart van der Wolf wrote:
> >
> > "Bruce Graham" <jbgraham@nowhere.com.au> wrote in message
> > > In article <4016E642.1D5C1E@oracle.com>, henrymot@any.net says...
> > > > snip>>
> > > > But I found nothing performing even close to magnificent
> > > > smoothing results of GEM, with its relatively nice preservation
> > > > of edges and sharpness. Vuescan's grain reduction seem to work
> > > > like one of the averaging filters, while GEM works like a pattern
> > > > analyzer, according to the description.
> > > >
> > > > Thomas
> > > >
> > > I haven't used GEM because I have a canon FS4000 scanner and I use
> > > NeatImage when I need to reduce grain. Does GEM do a similar job to
> > > NeatImage?
> >
> > I find NeatImage vastly superior to the GEM trial version I downloaded from
> > ASF.
>
> I find NeatImage a fully different kind of product.
>
> All examples which I saw so far look... filtered.
> By myself I failed to achieve any respectable results.
> My conclusion: NeatImage is a freeware because nobody
> wants it as a product, rightfully so.
>
> Thomas
>
> >
> > Bart
>
I paid $30? for the home edition of NeatImage which allows writing tiff
files (the free version is restricted to jpeg output). There was a
learning curve and it is time consuming but I have been very happy with
most of the results I have achieved. The trick is to carefully profile
the noise and then don't get too agressive with the filters. Sometimes
need to treat different parts of the image differently too (layers).

I didn't realise that GEM was available standalone. Given the polarised
opinions from respected posters above, I think I need to download and
experiment and find out which works best for me!

Thanks everybody.

Bruce Graham

Bruce Graham wrote:
>
> In article <4017F4CF.C614BFC@comcast.net>, henrymot@some.net says...
> > Bart van der Wolf wrote:
> > >
> > > "Bruce Graham" <jbgraham@nowhere.com.au> wrote in message
> > > > In article <4016E642.1D5C1E@oracle.com>, henrymot@any.net says...
> > > > > snip>>
> > > > > But I found nothing performing even close to magnificent
> > > > > smoothing results of GEM, with its relatively nice preservation
> > > > > of edges and sharpness. Vuescan's grain reduction seem to work
> > > > > like one of the averaging filters, while GEM works like a pattern
> > > > > analyzer, according to the description.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thomas
> > > > >
> > > > I haven't used GEM because I have a canon FS4000 scanner and I use
> > > > NeatImage when I need to reduce grain. Does GEM do a similar job to
> > > > NeatImage?
> > >
> > > I find NeatImage vastly superior to the GEM trial version I downloaded from
> > > ASF.
> >
> > I find NeatImage a fully different kind of product.
> >
> > All examples which I saw so far look... filtered.
> > By myself I failed to achieve any respectable results.
> > My conclusion: NeatImage is a freeware because nobody
> > wants it as a product, rightfully so.
> >
> > Thomas
> >
> > >
> > > Bart


A reminder: the primary question was about Grain Removal
of Vuescan versus GEM, not about NeatImage, but lets
conclude about this anyway :-)


> >
> I paid $30? for the home edition of NeatImage which allows writing tiff

Thanks for the hint, yes, indeed it is not a freeware now,
I stand corrected.

Maybe I gave up too quickly before I managed to use the tool
properly? Partly though because I do not see the need for it
in my particular setting: I am getting perfect results with
GEM as I scan. I do not need to work on images, analyze their
noise, tune filters etc etc. Result is as smooth as it gets
under most detailed visual scrutiny, images are tack sharp
on the screen and also after I print them on my Canon S9000.


> files (the free version is restricted to jpeg output). There was a
> learning curve and it is time consuming but I have been very happy with
> most of the results I have achieved. The trick is to carefully profile
> the noise and then don't get too agressive with the filters. Sometimes
> need to treat different parts of the image differently too (layers).
>
> I didn't realise that GEM was available standalone. Given the polarised
> opinions from respected posters above, I think I need to download and
> experiment and find out which works best for me!

Good choice. GEM is now available as a Photoshop plugin, not as
a standalone application. As far I recall from my communications
with ASF (before they became a part of Kodak,) GEM bundled with
scanners uses though somewhat hardware during scan and that's
why the plugin is not precisely the same software...


To summarize: the subject here was *OBTAINING SMOOTH SCANS*
from the scan process, not working extra on images to remove
grain or noise because the scanning software failed to do so!

Thomas


>
> Thanks everybody.
>
> Bruce Graham

"ThomasH" <henrymot@any.net> wrote in message
news:40186BDC.7AE2325B@oracle.com...
SNIP
> To summarize: the subject here was *OBTAINING SMOOTH SCANS*
> from the scan process, not working extra on images to remove
> grain or noise because the scanning software failed to do so!

Looking at the subject line, I thought the subject was grain reduction?
A good scan with the LS40 will show the grain structure in film, thus the
need to post-process. Whether VueScan Grain reduction, GEM, NeatImage or
another tool is used seems unimportant to me, as long as the result is good.

Do I hear someone calling for a shoot-out on grain reduction?

Bart

Bart van der Wolf wrote:


> Do I hear someone calling for a shoot-out on grain reduction?

For those who might not have seen this before...

http://www.michaelalmond.com/Articles/noise.htm
GEM is missing, but most other apps/actions are tested.

-Greg