Neat Video & Neat Image community

Thank you for the explanation and the time to test it. I performed several tests on different films scanned with the Coolscan 9000 and it seems like version 6.1 preserves more detail while reducing noise similarly. This could be just for the Coolscan since it captures more detail than flatbed; where...

Now if I generate the profile with version 6.1 and load it with 7.0, then 7.0 works correctly. It is just the profile generation that was affected.

Thank you for responding Vlad. I tried setting the same sample manually but the algorithm to generate the profile seems to have changed. You can try running it on the full scan (posted above).

Here is the full scan for those interested to test it:

http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/Photogr ... cGpJF-O-LB

This is an example of Kodak Portra 400 processed with both versions of Neatimage.

http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/Photogr ... nMwwx-O-LB

I hope this problem in the algorithm to generate the profile gets fixed soon.

I have performed several test on scanned film (Coolscan 9000) and the new version 7.0 produces materially inferior results than version 6.1. This is most noticeably on people faces or fine textures in clothing where version 6.1 does an excellent job retaining detail but version 7.0 produces a smeare...