Better than dust n scratches

Hello, can you please give me a hint on how to get rif of dust that is visible when making very high quality scans? Iam aware of the "dust n scratches" filter but im not very happy with its outcome results, it kinda degrades quality and yes i know one cannot have it all but maybe there is some other way to do it more effienltly.
Here is a zoom of the situation http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/840/screenshot20111221at709.png/ as you can see these dust are big

I use it a lot when scanning my 10+ years old slides, and rarely need to do much spotting.

Similar Messages

PS CS3 Noise Filter better than PSElements 6 Noise Filter ?

PS CS3 Noise Filter better than PSElements 6 Noise Filter ?

I appreciate very much you responding and clarifying to see if somebody else does know.
Actually the Noise Filter has five selections to choose from.
I'm most interested in the Dust & Scratches tool. And, very surprised not to find a lot of 'discussion' about it, in fact almost none.
This whole Dust & Scratches Removal thing has got me scratching my butt trying to figure out if any of it by any software is NOT mostly hype.
(long reply follows)
"Retouching" tools like Dust & Scratches Removal seem to be useable only on a 1-by-1 file basis, with lots of 'manual' tweeking required, not as an Auto function to batches of lots of files at the same time.
Which in hindsight from experiences and what I've learned from those, makes sense, but, does not help me.
I have now concluded that 'retouching' some things like Dust & Scratches can only be done on a 1-file-at-a-time basis and takes quite a bit of 'manual' tweeking effort. And works IF one is capable of understanding how to do it. Otherwise, it - meaning me - only seems to make things worse instead of better.
My journey started last year when I got a German Braun Slide Scanner that included ICE, as well as Noise Reduction, which, like the included GEM and ROC only seemed to make things worse instead of better, especially worse when applying the same settings to every slide being scanned.
I have to process 100s or 1,000s of slides, and soon old photos too, at a price that most people can or are willing to pay, which is very low because of the numbers of slides and photos involved, so it's imperative for me to have Auto Tools to apply to batches of files, instead of spending a lot of time 'manually' tweeking each and every file one at a time.
With the scanner, the ICE and other tools can only be used during the actual scanning of each slide, not after scanning on the resulting file. And those 'tools' invariably remove too much, details of faces and other stuff one wants to preserve, and fuzzy the focus.
The settings that work on the very first slide or photo do not work for any other. So, I had to turn off those tools altogether.
There was a software suite recommended for the scanner for after-scanning work, which was a European version of Photoshop, costing about as much as PS, but from the Trial version I couldn't see any benefit to getting it.
I tried various Retouching programs for much less money, many not worth even trying, and again, even for those that did do what I needed to any degree, ran in to the same thing. Way too much time required for 'manually' tweeking each and every file 1 at a time, and never getting a good result because I'm no good at doing that.
THEN I recently got a Kodak Photo Scanner that does photos like the German scanner does slides, only, it does photos a LOT faster. It will scan up to 20 pre-loaded standard thickness photos of various sizes and orientations - in about 25 seconds.
But again, the problem with Dust & Scratches.
There's a program suite for after-scanning 'retouching' available for the Kodak Photo Scanner - but they want $ 700 for that, and it's pretty much a clone of Photoshop.
SO,
when I saw the comparison list between PS CS3 and the Extended version saying the Extended has a better Noise Filter,
It got me wondering..........

Dust and Scratch Removal PSE 6 3rd Party Programs ?

I've currently got PSE 3.0, going to upgrade to PSE 6.0, but also looking for even better Dust and Scratch Removal than PSE 6.
Any suggestions ?
[email protected]

Yes, "Dust and Scratches" does work on PSE5. I've used this filter on the two pictures at: http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f244/cooper213/dustscratch.jpg
On the left is the original of a scan of a 40s snapshot. On the right is that image with one pass of the Dust and Scratches filter.
You can't just apply D&S without some experimenting with the Radius and Threshold. The higher the R & T, the more the noise is removed, but the more the image is blurred. I used a very low figure for both Radius and Threshold. I would not stop here with the editing process.
I'd use the Healing Brush tool to remove some of the remaining noise on the black coat. I'd do some sharpening, and possibly sharpen only the figures by creating a Selection so the clapboards on the house don't start to look wonky.

Removing dust and scratches?

I just had some of my parents' old home movies digitized (homemoviedepot.com) to Digital8 format, and as I write this I'm importing them into iMovie. Eventually they'll have a soundtrack applied and it'll move into iDVD.
However, since some of these movies are more than 45 years old there's a fair amount of dust and scratches and such from them. Home Movie Depot did a fantastic job at converting them to digital format (far better than the old VHS transfer that my sister had done ~12 years ago) but there's still room for improvement -- not only with the dust and scratches but also with color restoration.
What's the fastest/best/easiest way to clean this up? Is there a "De-Age Film" iMovie plugin somewhere that'll get me started?

every tried to accomplish that with a still?
Yes, all the time. But the rules regarding a still are quite different from the rules regarding video.
how should the software know, what is dust, what is grain?
By comparing median values of the previous and following frames. Mathematically speaking, it's actually pretty darned easy to figure out if there's dust in a video frame or not. All you have to do is compare color and texture values from one or more preceeding and proceeding frames. If there's "blue" in a given range of ten frames, then there's "black" in a frame, then "blue" in the next ten frames, odds are that "black" section is dust. Have the computer interpolite the color and texture values for that region based on the frames immediately before and after it.
geethree.com offers in Slick9 some more elaborated hue & stauration adjustments then iM does....
Yes, I already have that and will be experimenting with it eventually. I would like to remove the dust and such before playing with color, however.
isn't it wonderful, to see with a blink of an eye, that "recording" ist 45 years old? let it be old....
This is just a matter of opinion. IMO, removing excessive dust and debris from the frame is not robbing the film of its age. I'm not colorizing a b&w film; I'm restoring the color that was lost to age.
I mean, you could go even further back with that argument. Doesn't converting the film to a "sterile" DVD and watching it on a TV screen rob the film of its "old-time charm" of setting up a projector and video screen?
IMO, this is exactly the sort of thing that iMovie was made to do.

Its the nano better than the mini?????

why is the nano better than the mini?? if it is???

well, it IS smaller! I find the Mini's screen easier for my old eyes to read. I have NO personal experience (other than holding and playing with a Nano in the store) with a Nano, as I'm waiting for Apple to improve scratch resistance before I buy one. IF they don't, I won't. Other than a minor problem of distortion when using the bass boost EQ on a Mini, I'm not aware of any pervasive issues with them. My wife's works like a charm. I'm a 40GB iPod owner myself. It works great, also. having said that, I'd still like a Nano IF APPLE TOUGHENS UP THE CASE.

Burning speed x16 better than x2?

Hello, everyone. I know the topic is too common, but
I cannot help asking an advice for my situation;
a dvd burned at slower speed is believed to be better than the one burned
at faster speed. But it happens to me that the one I made at x16 (simply with
BURN botton) has almost no problem,
while another one that I burned at x2 from "disc image" made through
Build/Format, has more problems. In both cases the problems are really
minor and I must say that I checked them only with one player.
But since I am making a Master copy for sending to a Replication stuido,
I want to be really sure about the quality. (The DVD itself is NTSC, so I
am sending 2 copies to Japan to have them check by my friend with 4 -5 players.)
If the x16 one goes better than the x2 one, I would surely feel like
handing in the x16 one. But isn't there any risk that with other
players it won't work out? Does someone has a similar experience?
I appreciate any suggestion, Thank you!
Minobu

minobu wrote:
Hi Drew, Thank you for a long consultation!
I succeeded in making DDP ( is 2.00 OK? not 2.10?) from BUILD/FORMAT
DDP 2.0 should work, but the replicator can tell you what they want
and burning it in DVD data in Toast.
It cannot be seen in MAC DVD player, can it?
It will not play in the DVD Player, but you will see the files in Finder if you browse to the DVD-R
I burned it on normal DVD-R disc; I believe it was OK..?
Should be okay, though always a bit more risk with DVD-R when compared to DLT. (Not quite as stable, can be scratched, etc.) But if Toast verified it correctly the data should be written properly.
Trai has a good article about verification, DVD-R and some of the pitfalls in replication here
Bottom line if you are going DVD-R route, make sure they are running proper tests on it at the plant and also make sure you get to see checks disc before pressing.
I wonder why my book on DVD tells nothing about DDP... Is it something rarely done...?
Many ??? in my head..
It is done fairly often, not sure which book you have, but in the Apple PDFs do a quick search for DDP
Are we crossing terms here? Do you mean duplication and not replication?
I meant replication with glassmaster, yes.
Good, just wanted to make sure
Now let' see what the replicator studio say to me. The studio uses DVD SPRO for
their clients' authoring, so they cannot be wrong about the necessary files... the
thing is, the person I talk to is not an authoring specialist, but merely an office guy.
Very well could be the case. Sometimes it is difficult to get proper information. Many plants in the U.S. often act like the Wizard of Oz and to get someone on the phone who knows what goes on can be a pain. When you get someone who knows what is going on (at least for me) my conversation is 30 seconds to get thing staright, otherwise it can be hours of round and round.
Yes! When you come to Piedmont where the wine is the excellent quality,
you should let me know! But if you drink too much, you won't be able to help me with DVD problems!
LOL, just means we have to troubleshoot quickly so it does not interfere with the wine drinking
CIAO e GRAZIE!
minobu
Ciao e siete benvenuti, been a long time and I think I got that part right did a quick alta vista check

Is there a way that i can downgrade my iOS 7.1 on my iPhone 4 to iOS 6xx? battery life not good, and performance isn't better than iOS 6.. Please apple i am really disappointed with iOS 7 on my iPhone 4

Is there a way that i can downgrade my iOS 7.1 on my iPhone 4 to iOS 6xx? battery life not good, and performance isn't better than iOS 6.. Please apple i am really disappointed with iOS 7 on my iPhone 4, it can runs great on iPhone above 4 such as 5/5s/etc.. iPhone 4 just good with iOS 6...

No.

Why does a DVI or VGA look better than HDMI for 2nd Monitor

Why does a DVI or VGA connection for a program monitor look better than HDMI. I've tested this on several systems with CS5x and CS6. The full screen output from premiere definitely looks worse with HDMI.
I can often see visual differences with the Windows GUI as well, over sharpening of text and lines, harsh rendering of gradients. It looks like a VGA signal displayed on a television.
I've looked at the NVidia stetting and it appears to be set to 1920x1080 at 60hz either way, DVI or HDMI. On one Acer 20 inch monitor the was VGA, HDMI, Composite, Component, and Digital Tuner, but no DVI. The program monitor has always looked blah from the HDMI. So I recently switched the connection to a DVI to VGA adaptor, and now the video looks so much better.
Any thoughts or explanations?

Just because the monitors accept a 1080P signal doesn't mean their native resolution is 1920x1080. At 20 inch they very likely can scale that signal down to the native resolution of the panel which may be 1600 x 900 or another resolution that is 16 x 9 resolution. That scaling can be done by the GPU or firmware on the Monitor depending on the video driver options and the firmware options. That scaling is also the most common cause to text and icon blurriness you are talking about. As an example there are Pro monitors that accept a 4K signal but scale it down to 2.5K or 2K on the actual panel. You might try going into your video card settings such as Nvidia control panel and look for the scaling options. Select GPU scaling and see if the preview is better. If that doesn't work select no scaling and see if it's better if the monitor firmware handles the scaling.
Eric
ADK

Open DNS better than Comcast xfinity DNS?

Is OpenDNS better than using Comcast/xfinity's DNS? If yes, how do I switch over?
I go to into Airport Utility and enter in the 2 openDNS numbers, something like 222 and 220, but at the bottom of the page right now (because I am using Comcast's DNS) there's a web address something.comcast.net Do I need to change that info too? If so, what do I put in that field?
Thanks!

How did you add them?
If you are using a single computer: Open System Preferences/Network. Double click on your connection type, or select it in the drop-down menu, and in the box marked 'DNS Servers' add the following two numbers:
208.67.222.222
208.67.220.220
(You can also enter them if you click on Advanced and then DNS)
Sometimes reversing the order of the DNS numbers can be beneficial in cases where there is a long delay before web pages start to load, and then suddenly load at normal speed:
http://support.apple.com/kb/TS2296
If your computer is part of a network: please refer to this page: http://www.opendns.com/start/bestpractices/#yournetwork and follow the advice given.
(An explanation of why using Open DNS is both safe and a good idea can be read here: http://www.labnol.org/internet/tools/opendsn-what-is-opendns-why-required-2/2587 /
Open DNS also provides an anti-phishing feature: http://www.opendns.com/solutions/homenetwork/anti-phishing/ )
Wikipedia also has an interesting article about Open DNS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDNS

How can we say if Join better than using Sub Queries ??

Hi all,
I am trying to understand the rationale behind "Is _Inner Join_ better than using _Sub Query_ ?" for this scenario ...
I have these tables --
Table1 { *t1_Col_1* (PrimaryKey), t1_Col_2, t1_Col_3, t1_Col_4 }
-- Number of rows = ~4Million , t1_Col_3 has say 60% entries non-zero -----> (Condition 4)
Table2 { *t2_Col_1* (PK), t2_Col_2, t2_Col_3 }
-- Number of rows = ~150Million, t2_Col_2 maps to t1_Col_1 -----> (Condition 1). This means for every distinct value of t1_Col_1 (its PK) we'll have multiple rows in Table2.
Table3 { *t3_Col_1* (PK), t3_Col_2, t3_Col_3 }
-- Number of rows = ~50K, t3_Col_1 maps to t1_Col_2 -----> (Condition 2)
Table4 { *t4_Col_1* (PK), t4_Col_2, t4_Col_3 }
-- Number of rows = ~1K, t4_Col_2 maps to t3_Col_2 -----> (Condition 3)
Now here are the 2 queries: -
Query using direct join --
SELECT t1_Col_1, t2_Col_1, t3_Col_1, t4_Col_2
FROM Table1, Table2, Table3, Table4
WHERE t1_Col_1=t2_Col_2 -- Condition 1
AND t1_Col_2=t3_Col_1 -- Condition 2
AND t3_Col_2=t4_Col_1 -- Condition 3
AND t1_Col_3 != 0
Query using SubQuery --
SELECT t1_Col_1, t2_Col_1, t3_Col_1, t4_Col_2
FROM Table2,
(SELECT t1_Col_1, t3_Col_1, t4_Col_2
FROM Table1,Table3, Table4
WHERE
AND t1_Col_2=t3_Col_1 -- Condition 2
AND t3_Col_2=t4_Col_1 -- Condition 3
AND t1_Col_3!= 0
WHERE t1_Col_1=t2_Col_2 -- Condition 1
Now the golden question is - How can I document with evidence that Type-1 is better than Type-2 or the other way ? I think the 3 things in comparison are: -
- Number of rows accessed (Type-1 better ?)
- Memory/Bytes used (Again Type-1 better ?)
- Cost ( ?? )
(PS - testing on both MySQL, Oracle10g)
Thanks,
A

So, is it right to conclude that Optimizer uses the optimal path and then processes the query resulting in nearly the same query execution time ?If the optimizer transforms two queries so that they end up the same, then they will run in the same time. Of course, sometimes it cannot do so because of the the way the data is defined (nulls are often a factor; constraints can help it) or the way the query is written, and sometimes it misses a possible optimization due to inaccurate statistics or other information not available to it, or limitations of the optimizer itself.
Is this the right place to ask for MySQL optimization ?Probably not.

Are the screens on white iMac 20" better than those on new 24"?

I have read so much about the troubles with the 20" and 24" Aluminum iMac screens that I'm afraid to buy one now, and was thinking of buying a refurb'd white (plastic) iMac from Apple. Is the screen tech in the white version better than that in the 24" Alum? I have an old 2.0 white iMac and have never had any trouble with the screen at all.

Pier Rodelon wrote:
Thanks for these pix. I have two more questions,
1) Previous poster suggests that specs for the white iMac screens were lower
than specs for ALU iMac screens--is this true and in what particulars?
Other than viewing angle and brightness, Apple doesn't publish any meaningful
screen specs.
The ALU screens are a little brighter -- entirely too bright -- and they don't have
sufficient adjustment range to reduce the brightness for comfortable viewing with
normal home lighting levels.
The 20" ALU viewing angle specs are much poorer than the white 20" or any of
the 24" models. In practice, the difference is easily noticable even to the most
casual observer.
2) Does the 24" white iMac have the same screen that the 20" white iMac has?
All 24" iMacs have expensive S-IPS LCD panels. That's the same basic technology
and from the same manufacturer as the Apple Cinema Displays. (As discussed
previously, some (many?) 24" ALUs have/had problems with uneven backlighting.)
Some white 20" units use exactly the same S-IPS panel as 20" Cinema Displays;
some others came with an excellent-quality S-PVA display. I believe all 20" iMacs,
at least as far back as the G5 PPC, used similarly high-quality (gorgeous!) panels.
The 20" ALU iMacs all have much lower-quality TN panels (from various sources).
The 17" white Intel iMacs also use the lower-quality TN panels.
To see what display you currently have, cut-n-paste the following command line
into Terminal.app -- then look it up in the panel database at tftcentral.co.uk:
ioreg -lw0 | grep IODisplayEDID | sed "/\[^<\]*</s///" | xxd -p -r | strings -6
I don't know if the 24" white iMac refurb would be a better choice than the 20"
white (or the 20/24" ALU).
IMO, there's no contest in 20" size -- the white iMac displays are vastly superior.
If you're lucky enough to get a good display, the ALU 24" is very attractive; OTOH,
I have no performance complaints with my white 2.16 GHz Core 2 Duo -- and it
was $600 less than my 24" ALU reject.
Looby

ATI Radeon HD 4870 not better than the Nvidea Geforce 120?

I bought av new ATI Radeon HD 4870 card to my MacPro. But are wery disappointed. My old NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 performes almost better than ATI. I ran Cinebench test and this is the results:
*NVIDIA GeForce*
Rendering (Single CPU): 3225 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 18880 CB-CPU
Multiprocessor Speedup: 5.85
Shading (OpenGL Standard): 6107 CB-GFX
*ATI Radeon HD 4870*
Rendering (Single CPU): 3218 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 18852 CB-CPU
Multiprocessor Speedup: 5.86
Shading (OpenGL Standard): 5846 CB-GFX
I also ran the Photoshop Actiontest from www.retouchartists.com on a large .tiff file, and my ATI Radeon used 1,10,2 and NVidea used 1,09,4. That is almost 1 second better for the old card.
Apple says that the ATI 4870 card performs 2x better than the Nvidea 120. That is not my experience!

Hello,
I currently have a 2008 3.0Ghz Harpertown mac pro and I am trying to figure out what to do here. I just purchased the 24 inch cinema display, but yet I have a nice 1GB 4870 ati radeon I got off ebay. Its more powerful than the Apple version, but lacks the mini-display port.
Currently, I have the ATI RADEON 2600 XT connected, though inactive, while my 4870 is active.
So, should I just get the Nvidia GT 120 and keep my 1GB 4870, or should I get rid of the 4870 I have and just buy Apple's? Either way, the GT 120 works in a 2008 mac pro despite what Apple says on their site that it only works in 2009 mac pros.

When transferring volumes to a new drive, is a cloning app better than the finder?

When transferring volumes to a new drive, is a cloning app better than the finder?
I’m adding a new (bigger) external hard drive. I have created five partions on it as the old drive has. Is it, better, faster, more accurate, etc. to use an app, or just drag and drop the folders on to the new partitions. The sofware I have are; TechTool6, Drive Genius3 & SuperDuper. Two of the partitons have a Mac OS on them. The others just have files.
Thanks,
Larry

If the drive is to be functional as a boot drive then cloning is the better approach as it will grab all hidden configuration files and preserve the file access permissions properly; however, if you are setting up a data drive then the Finder's copy options should be adequate. To ensure file permissions are properly attributed to the copied files, select them and press Command-C to copy, followed by Shift-Option-Command-V to paste the items in the new location and preserve their file attributes (you may need to authenticate when copying them in this manner). If you do not need to preserve permissions then a basic drag-and-drop copy should suffice.

IMovie capture quality better than anything FCP can offer for consumer DV?

As a newbie to FCP, I have not found Capture, sequence, and export settings that is equal to or better than what iMovie 08 can create. Prior to this, I've been using iMovie 08 which is extremely user friendly. Just plug in the fire wire connections and it auto detects only one setting for DV. I am not sure what format it captures in but it does a good job. When I export out of iMovie 08 I use "using Quicktime" and choose the Uncompressed 8-bit NTSC method. The result is a decent, non-interlaced looking .mov file.
The first time I tried to capture with FCP I chose the easy setup, where I would capture in the NTSC DV, sequence would be NTSC DV and export using the current settings in quicktime. The result was an interlaced and lowered quality vid.
I have also tried the following combinations with no success with quality comparisons w/ iMovie 08:
capt: NTSC dv, seq: NTSC DV, progressive exp: Uncompressed 8-bit
capt: Uncompressed 8-bit, seq: Uncompressed 8-Bit exp: Uncompressed 8-bit
This last one came close, but still iMovie 08 was better.
My assumption is that FCP would contain the settings to duplicate or even out perform iMovie's export quality for consumer video dv. I viewed iMovie as little brother and FCP as big brother. Shouldn't FCP produce equal to or better quality than iMovie 08? And what are the settings for this?
Thanks

Thank you for clearing up my confusion. How is my export from iMovie 08, using "Uncompressed 8-bit" coming out progressive (I see no interlaced, odd/even scan lines)? Is this export dropping lines/information? If so, uncompressed is not an appropriate name for the export.
I understand what you are saying about "getting quality back" on export. My initial question was comparing the quality of an iMovie 08 export vs. FCP export and having the problem of a lowered output from the FCP export.
If anyone has the time, would they try a short experiment:
1. From your DV source, camera or deck connect to your computer
Capture a short clip via iMovie 08 a short clip in standard 4:3.
Export using Quicktime, Uncompressed 8-bit setting
2. From your DV source, camera or deck, connect to your computer.
Capture the same short clip to FCP using Easy set up for NTSC DV. Export with current settings.
3. Compare the two.

TS1398 problem in wifi range i use my phone my rume but i think china mobile is working better than iphone ......

problem in wifi range i use my phone my rume but i think china mobile is working better than iphone ......

I don't understand what you are asking here. Can you try and ask again?

Better than dust n scratches

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for