Re: Colour recovery [Was: Regex and more! [Was: Crossword puzzle]]
Phred
In article <4afa711a$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Bob Larter
<bobby...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Phred wrote:
>> In article
> <1a96ebe5-6464-4842...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> "ne...@rtrussell.co.uk" <ne...@rtrussell.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On Nov 2, 10:43=A0am, ppnerkDELETET...@yahoo.com (Phred) wrote:
>>>> So now I'm even more curious -- what do you mean by that "Full
>>>> gamut colour recovery"?
>>> http://colourrecovery.wikispaces.com/
>>
>> Thanks for that info Richard. I must admit I was mainly interested
>> because I have some old colour pics and slides that have seriously
>> degraded (especially 30-year-old Ectachrome slides taken when I was
>> foolish and ignorant enough to use it instead of Kodachrome).
>>
>> From what I gather, your technique depends on "clues" in the recorded
>> image(s), so wouldn't be of much use to me? :-(
>>
>> [But I admit I haven't yet followed *all* the links on that site.]
>
>The process relies on residual chroma information retained on
>cine-recorded colour TV programs, so it's of no use for film.
>
>Personally, I recover faded photos by scanning them (with as many bits
>per colour channel as possible), then re-levelling R,G & B in Photoshop
>(16 bit mode). It gives you a pretty good result, & with some tweaking,
>an excellent result - even on badly faded colour prints dating back to
>the 70's.
Thanks for that advice Bob. Have you tried that approach with slides?
I guess it should work the same, but a problem could be scanning
slides with sufficient resolution without going to an expensive
dedicated slide scanner. (Do those still exist? I haven't seen
mention of them for a few years now, not even ads. Perhaps like so
much else, they have succumbed to the mediocrity of the masses?)
Cheers, Phred.
--
ppnerk...@THISyahoo.com.INVALID
Bob Larter
My pleasure.
> Have you tried that approach with slides?
No, I haven't. I've never shot slides on a regular basis.
> I guess it should work the same, but a problem could be scanning
> slides with sufficient resolution without going to an expensive
> dedicated slide scanner. (Do those still exist?
They sure do. Now would be a good time to pick up a used one cheap,
while all the pro's are converting to DSLRs.
I haven't shot slide film much myself, but I'm told that Nikon make a
good slide scanner. I'm sure that other people in the group will be able
to make good suggestions as to what's available now.
[rec.photo.digital added]
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Larter is Lionel Lauer - Look it up.
wrote:
Bob Larter's legal name: Lionel Lauer
Home news-group, an actual group in the "troll-tracker" hierarchy:
alt.kook.lionel-lauer (established on, or before, 2004)
Registered Description: "the 'owner of several troll domains' needs a group where he'll stay on topic."
<http://groups.google.com/groups/search?hl=en&num=10&as_ugroup=alt.kook.lionel-lauer>
"Results 1 - 10 of about 2,170 for group:alt.kook.lionel-lauer."
Bob Larter
Don't mind the troll, Phred, he always follows up my posts with this
rubbish. ;^)
Bob Larter is Lionel Lauer - Look it up.
wrote:
It would only be rubbish if it weren't true.
Bob Larter
*belch*
Warren
> [CLBM dropped from followups; aus.computers added]
>
> In article <4afa711a$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Bob Larter
> <bobby...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Phred wrote:
..
>>The process relies on residual chroma information retained on
>>cine-recorded colour TV programs, so it's of no use for film.
..
> Thanks for that advice Bob. Have you tried that approach with slides?
> I guess it should work the same, but a problem could be scanning
> slides with sufficient resolution without going to an expensive
> dedicated slide scanner. ...
>
> Cheers, Phred.
My wife and I just bought a small unit for $80 Cdn at Costco.
You can use it via USB, or just in your lap in front of the TV,
scanning into a memory stick. 5.x MP full colour scanned images.
Scan is more of a 0.5 second "picture take", since there is no
moving parts. You just advance the tray manually for the next
slide (or negative). It's quick compared to a scanner. You
spend all your time loading/unloading the slide tray.
Warren