[Coco] Vol. IX No. 1 Scanned
Michael Wayne Harwood
michael at musicheadproductions.org
Wed Jun 15 14:57:37 EDT 2005
For reference here is my version of the cleaned cover:
Here's the links you originally provided for cross reference:
From: coco-bounces at maltedmedia.com [mailto:coco-bounces at maltedmedia.com] On
Behalf Of Michael Wayne Harwood
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 12:15 PM
To: 'CoCoList for Color Computer Enthusiasts'
Subject: RE: [Coco] Vol. IX No. 1 Scanned
The processed image is definitely better looking that the original.
I personally use the Gimp and it's my opinion that we could get away with
several people doing things in different graphics suites, but it might be
best to stick with one product if only for the reason of being able to have
reproducible results. When running oldimage.jpg through the Oilify filter
at the lowest possible setting you get a VERY different result.
I cleaned up the original image using the "color Selector" tool and came up
with an image that was passable. The best results I have seen so far may
annoy most people. I have found that by scanning an image twice (once in
300ppi B&W and once in 300ppi24bit) I can use the B&W image as a mask for
the color image and achieve very impressive results with very little direct
image manipulation. The beauty of this is that I can script it in Gimp and
once the workflow is established very little post processing cleanup will be
necessary....at least that's what I am shooting for. The issue of doing
this is the problem of having to scan the images twice. The B&W images are
small in size, so that's not a huge deal.
I would like to stick with as many free (as in beer) tools as possible,
though I am not sure we will be able to achieve this 100%. I have been
using Ghostscript for PDF generation rather than the Acrobat suite and had
decent results. PDF bookmarks may prove to be a challenge though.
More information about the Coco