[Coco] Vol. IX No. 1 Scanned

[Michael Wayne Harwood]

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.

Regards,
Michael Harwood

-----Original Message-----
From: coco-bounces at maltedmedia.com [mailto:coco-bounces at maltedmedia.com] On
Behalf Of Roger Taylor
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 11:12 AM
To: CoCoList for Color Computer Enthusiasts
Subject: RE: [Coco] Vol. IX No. 1 Scanned


>
>Michael,
>
>Here is a cover of Family Computing (an 80's magazine that featured 
>CoCo programs in BASIC) that I scanned and ran through both MGI Photo 
>Suite's oil paint filter, then loaded into LVIEW and dithered down to 
>128 colors.  You can see how the tarnished image improves with little 
>effort.  I haven't tried it on higher detailed pages yet.
>