File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
How do I clean shitty scans like this?
>> Anonymous
Re-scan it.
Really, this scan is so shitty it is totally worthless.

If you really want to try: Smooth it, shrink it by at least 87%, sharpen it, use RGB-levels to correct colors.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
There are ways. Depends how you want it to look in the end. Here's my clean.
>> Anonymous
>>403314
That's a really nic job man, how'd you do that?? I don't have a problem with scans but i'm just curious. Some blurring??
>> Anonymous
WTF are these the SC4 artbook works or something?!!? MOAR!!!
>> Anonymous
It's the artbook that came with the LE. Here are some scans, not the whole book because it doesn't include the comic.

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=M0WZV4AR
>> Anonymous
>>403314
What did you do to clean the picture so well?
>> Anonymous
>>403331
Thanks. I was looking for this.
>> Anonymous
>>403314
Great work. By any chance could you post a clean up of Ivy and Tira's pages as well?
Much thanks in advance!
>> Anonymous
got a netload / rapidshare version of this 2 download ?
pls
>> Anonymous
Nice scans, Sauce?
>> Anonymous
>>403570

see

>>403331

you missed the memo: rapidshare is fail now.
>> ~
     File :-(, x)
I'm not especially good at explaining. ...I can clean a couple of others though, if you're happy with this.
>> Anonymous
I'm interested in knowing how you cleaned that scan as well. Share your knowledge!
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
bump for knowledge
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
while waiting, what do you have in terms of SC and hr?
>> The Librarian
     File :-(, x)
This is an edit that attempts to keep as much high frequency detail as possible.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
This is interesting. I did not do any of the above edits, but am fairly familiar with this kind of cleanup work. I’ve uploaded a side by side comparison of all three edits plus the original. I’ve zoomed up close into one of the smaller sections so we can see the pixels and whatever noise or detail is present.
>> Anonymous
I’ve attempted to duplicate the effects of the first edit, and I believe it is a Gaussian blur filter with settings at 1.0 radius or less. Some selective sharpening may have been done after the blur filter. It’s a nice edit, possibly quick and relatively simple one. The downside to this is that it’s not very effective at removing chromatic noise. If you zoom into the areas of skin, you’d still notice tiny patches of color. Some people don’t notice it, some people do. One way to counteract this is to convert to LAB and do some (further) form of blurring in the chromatic channels only, leaving the Y (or L, lightness) channel untouched. I generally like the first edit more than the second, but that’s just my personal preference.
>> Anonymous
Second edit *most likely* makes use of some kind of noise filtering program that uses frequency analysis. There are a number of them out there available for a reasonable price. These kind of edits are sometimes preferred when very little detail is present, because they tend to smooth out a lot of noise or grain. However, the filter may be a little too heavily applied in this case, because we can see these diagonal lines that are usually a side effect. Too much filtering may also make something look ‘plastic’. This particular edit has reduced detail around the eyes, and rather obvious diagonal streaking. Maybe the streaking has been further accentuated with a little sharpening, I’m really not sure. I think the second edit was saved at a lower quality than the first one, so I won’t comment on the jpeg artifacting. But even then, the second one appears to have less ‘chromatic noise’ than the first. Notice her hair. There’s less ‘color noise’ on her hair compared to the first.
>> Anonymous
Third edit has obviously been tweaked. Levels, maybe curves, color balance and saturation? I like the adjustments made but these are often considered subjective. For example, some artwork may have been made deliberately faded, or the colors deliberately warmer or cooler. However, focusing on noise and detail here, I must say that’s a lot of preserved detail we’re looking at. It doesn’t look like the work of the kind of filter the second edit used. It has almost no color noise, which is remarkable because they usually become more apparent with lots of level and curve adjustments. Her facial details are considerably sharp. No halos from oversharpening, skin isn’t blotchy. Shadow detail is good. I suspect this edit involved more than just a few filters. I can’t replicate the work done here after repeated tries. Maybe someone else can enlighten us.
>> Anonymous
>>403904
You sound like the Pireze.org guy the way you're talking about it >.>
>> Anonymous
>>403904
Im going to have to agree. The amount of work done, or at least the quality of the work done seams very good. It would be interesting to know how it was done.
>> Anonymous
>>403904

but none of them bothered to clone out the dirt after all that!
lazy buggers!
>> Anonymous
Bumpity bump bump bump.
>> Anonymous
can comics possibly be scanned?
>> Anonymous
bumping for more SC4 scans!
also don't mind the cleanups!
>> Anonymous
bump for knowledge
>> Anonymous
If your problem is seeing the color dots from comic book pages (which always exist b/c of how it's printed), scan it impossibly large then scale it down to where you need it. i.e. scan it at >600dpi and then scale it down.

If your problem is noise (which is more prevalent when scanning photos or film) try a noise reducer like Noise Ninja or something of the sort.
>> Anonymous
Scanning it large and then scaling down is sometimes a solution. There are people who advocate scanning prints slanted at a certain angle to the dot configuration and then rotating the picture in between resizes. However, I suspect the OP meant to ask what to do with already scanned prints that are really noisy. The noise could be any combination of moiré, CCD noise, and possibly even jpeg artifacts if it wasn’t saved losslessly to begin with. Like the OP scan. What do you do with something like that if you no longer have access to the original print?

I’ve tried noise ninja and it’s pretty good, but I can’t seem to get it to look like this one here:>>403854

My results are grainier. If I use a stronger setting, it ends up looking more like the second edit. And no matter what I do, it ends up blurrier than the third edit. My conclusion is that the third edit isn’t done with Noise Ninja.
>> Anonymous
Neat Image.
>> Anonymous
GREYCstoration will work well.
>> Anonymous
>>405186

holy shit, that GREYCstoration thing looks impressive, especially the image inpainting feature.
>> Anonymous
>>405204
And will happily work as a plug-in for the GIMP