Reply to: Re: Scanning with USM or not?
Reply to: Re: Scanning with USM or not?
- Subject: Reply to: Re: Scanning with USM or not?
- From: Phil Cruse <email@hidden>
- Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 19:41:26 +0100
on 02/06/2001 03:08, email@hidden at
email@hidden wrote:
>
Reply to: Re: Scanning with USM or not?
An interesting subject! Right up Don's street! Don , I know you make many
valid points for non-USM scanning. One interesting one which you pointed out
to me is that Color Management editing software may "Auto-range" on the USM
white/black fringes.
My feeling is that if you want the ULTIMATE quality and "re-purposeability"
you should not apply it on the scanner, especially if the image is likely to
be resized. However, in reality it is often easier to apply on high-end
scanners, with good operators, to whom it is second nature. There is a
danger, which I have seen on several occasions, that PhotoShop operators or
other "retouchers" will forget to apply USM. Try it both ways.
An elegant solution is found in Fuji's ColourKit Editor software (which is
being used to drive all of their latest flatbeds, and functions as a
"scanner-type" color management image editing software) applies USM in an
almost identical mannner to the Fuji Celsis and Lanovia scanners. The USM
data (along with any color edits) is saved with the original "raw" RGB file,
but is not applied into the image. USM processing takes place on the final
output image (typically CMYK). This potentially makes re-purposing (from the
raw RGB image) very safe.
Pete Merck is right with regard to RGB conversions on scanners, but not
completely with regard to USM
>
USM on drum scanners starts with the physical hardware apetures and is only
finesed by the scanner software. >
However I would like to point out that Crosfield scanners haven't had a USM
aperture for about 20 years (and I suspect some other makes also?) USM being
processed digitally in hardware initially, and later in the Mac by software.
>
Phil Cruse
Graphic Quality Consultancy
Berkhamsted, Herts., U.K.