«

>On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 02:47:42 GMT, Ken Weitzel <> wrote:
>
>>Not sure what that weird effect is beside the sign... it's not
>>possible that you did have unsharp mask on? Or is it possible
>>that the effect came about from radical downsizing?
>I don't think so. The fringing is visible without zooming in on it. It is not
>on the original slide, it did not show on the screen when I projected it, and
>of course, it was not there in the camera shot of the projected image. It
>started to appear when I started using the scanner.
>>
>>It would be nice if you'd scan that tiny portion at 2400 or better,
>>and put it on your site without downsizing.
>I will try that later, but I don't see (yet) how that would be any different
>from cutting out part of the initial scanned jpeg? Which was done at 4800 dpi.

OK, I guess my original upload was less than 4800. Here is one at 4800.

http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/bob-m1...e2.jpg&.src=ph

FYI, if you "save" the picture shown on the Yahoo site, you get a lower
resolution than the one I uploaded. If you click "Download", you get the full
file at the original resolution.

I have tracked down the source of the fringing. If I de-select ICE, it goes
away. But all the lint and fuzz comes back. I guess I will be using ICE for
all except those slides with overexposed sections.

>-----------
>notbob-
>Remove "not" for return address.

-----------
notbob-
Remove "not" for return address.

Bob M wrote:
>> On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 02:47:42 GMT, Ken Weitzel <> wrote:
>>
>>> Not sure what that weird effect is beside the sign... it's not
>>> possible that you did have unsharp mask on? Or is it possible
>>> that the effect came about from radical downsizing?
>> I don't think so. The fringing is visible without zooming in on it. It is not
>> on the original slide, it did not show on the screen when I projected it, and
>> of course, it was not there in the camera shot of the projected image. It
>> started to appear when I started using the scanner.
>>> It would be nice if you'd scan that tiny portion at 2400 or better,
>>> and put it on your site without downsizing.
>> I will try that later, but I don't see (yet) how that would be any different
>>from cutting out part of the initial scanned jpeg? Which was done at 4800 dpi.
>
> OK, I guess my original upload was less than 4800. Here is one at 4800.
>
> http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/bob-m1...e2.jpg&.src=ph
>
> FYI, if you "save" the picture shown on the Yahoo site, you get a lower
> resolution than the one I uploaded. If you click "Download", you get the full
> file at the original resolution.
>
> I have tracked down the source of the fringing. If I de-select ICE, it goes
> away. But all the lint and fuzz comes back. I guess I will be using ICE for
> all except those slides with overexposed sections.


Hi...

My 3200 doesn't have ICE, so I've found a next best solution
that you may wish to try out for those that you can't use
ICE on... (freeware)

http://www.polaroid.com/service/soft...r/poladsr.html

A heads-up that may save you a little time... in my opinion
the defaults are much much much too agressive, so I think you'll
want to pull them way down.

Take care.

Ken