Hi Bruce, I do agree that if Wolverine did not have artifacts it would be a quite nice and affordable scanner. The issue is that there is absolutely no way of fixing that. Possibly smaller screen and some post reduces the effects so that may be good enough for many but not for me. Even on my 17" laptop.
Looking at the 2 pics that you posted I do not see much color difference. Maybe it is my old eyes. The wolverine image looks sharper than the UX178 (that is the camera used here with Hawkeye).
But if I put that frame under the microscope I see about the same fuzziness as the UX178.
The Wolverine image is bad in my opinion. Look at the reflection from the horses. It does not look natural.
Now if I crank up microscope sharpness to 50 this is what I get.
The images are very similar in artifacts.
As far as the exposure goes Wolverine has a big problem with the auto exposure hunting. I get it at least once per clip. Here is an example.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/mL8th6yCnMWqyBYp9
Additionally, the exposure is not consistent as I mentioned before. Here are examples.
The hills and the sky are overexposed here.
Here, my cousin's face is under exposed (too dark).
But the hills behind are visible and barely visible on the Hawkeye shot.
Not saying that Hawkeye is much better but it does have an HDR option and I still maintain that the exposure with Hawkeye is more consistent and stable. I actually made the exposure a bit on the dark side by setting the reference to around 50. It is a compromise.
Shifted the Wolverine colors away from yellow.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-AF...ew?usp=sharing
Here is the Video Fred change:
#COLOR AND LEVELS PARAMATERS
#----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
saturation=1.2 #for all outputs
gamma= 1.2 # for all outputs
blue= 10 red= -5 #manual color adjustment, when returning result3 or result4. Values can be positive or negative
Looking at the 2 pics that you posted I do not see much color difference. Maybe it is my old eyes. The wolverine image looks sharper than the UX178 (that is the camera used here with Hawkeye).
But if I put that frame under the microscope I see about the same fuzziness as the UX178.
The Wolverine image is bad in my opinion. Look at the reflection from the horses. It does not look natural.
Now if I crank up microscope sharpness to 50 this is what I get.
The images are very similar in artifacts.
As far as the exposure goes Wolverine has a big problem with the auto exposure hunting. I get it at least once per clip. Here is an example.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/mL8th6yCnMWqyBYp9
Additionally, the exposure is not consistent as I mentioned before. Here are examples.
The hills and the sky are overexposed here.
Here, my cousin's face is under exposed (too dark).
But the hills behind are visible and barely visible on the Hawkeye shot.
Not saying that Hawkeye is much better but it does have an HDR option and I still maintain that the exposure with Hawkeye is more consistent and stable. I actually made the exposure a bit on the dark side by setting the reference to around 50. It is a compromise.
Shifted the Wolverine colors away from yellow.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-AF...ew?usp=sharing
Here is the Video Fred change:
#COLOR AND LEVELS PARAMATERS
#----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
saturation=1.2 #for all outputs
gamma= 1.2 # for all outputs
blue= 10 red= -5 #manual color adjustment, when returning result3 or result4. Values can be positive or negative
Comment