I saw this advertised as the one-step photo restoration scanner, so I went to their website and they're calling it that there, as well. All I can see is a flatbed with Digital ICE included.

http://www.microtekusa.com/sm6800.html

The "sample scans" link just takes you to the ASF site.

Gimmick? Or genuinely valuable?

Doug, I like the idea that some scanners can have an IR channel and produce a raw RGBI scan. Surface defects are picked up with the IR light while with luck ignoring the surface. The fourth IR channel is used by software to filter away the damage (a bit like dust n scratches or PolarDSR etc).

http://andreas.rick.free.fr/sane/dustremove.html

The next step from ASF is this technology for repairing reflective originals which could be more damaged than just the regular smaller dust/scratch issues with film scans. Perhaps similar to Adobe Healing, AlienSkin ImageDoctor and other 'filling in the blanks' algorithms.

http://www.sciencenews.org/20020511/bob10.asp

So unlike a lot of 'automated' options - I am less skeptical of this claim today than I would have been say three to five years ago.

Stephen Marsh.

Interesting,.... but beware the "Swiss Army Knife..One Size Fits All...Most amazing product since the formation of the solar system and the invention of Tile and Grout Cleaner"....products.
Perhaps I have simply had bad experiences but the "Auto Correction" routines I have encountered are not very useful in most cases, make a bad photo worse in some and , to be fair, actually do some good in perhaps 1% of instances.
I still prefer importing the raw scan with as little " Auto" help as possible and going from there....it is amazing how much just a scan from a good quality scanner can improve an image..even without any filtering....just my thoughts

The flatbed version of ICE does not use the IR channel. Rather, they have twin tubes and compare data from both. Differences are judged as 3D (ie: damage) and "removed". How they are removed is not explained.

Doug, if the "data" from a scratch is recognized as different, then I wonder if the "bumps" (i.e., silk finish) from those awful 70's prints would also be recognized as "damage" and repaired? If so, that would be worth the price of the scanner right there!!

Does anybody know how the scanner handles those?

Jeanie

We need to get ahold of the guy from the other thread (the one that bought one) and get him to post some samples :)