RE: filmscanners: Review of the Nikon CoolScan 4000

[TonySleep@halftone.co.uk (Tony Sleep)]

On Mon, 9 Apr 2001 20:12:54 -0400  Dave Buyens (davepe@tampabay.rr.com) 
wrote:

> > His investigations resulted in the feature at
> > http://www.photoscientia.co.uk/Grain.htm which
> > remains the most thorough attempt at an explanation  - you
> > still won't find it in any text books AFAIK.
> 
> I have no doubt that what you say may be true.  However, one thought 
> that
> occurred to me when comparing a scanned print with a scanned negative is
> that the print has a lower tonal range

Just to be clear, the feature on grain aliasing is all John's work, 
nothing to do with me except I read it before he published it and couldn't 
find anything to argue with, though I don't remember if I completely agree 
with everything he said ;)

But I was talking about grain size seen in a print, vs grain size seen in 
a scan of the same bit of film. Even allowing for the vagaries of either 
process, if a scan has substantially coarser grain, something odd is going 
on.

Regards 

Tony Sleep
http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner 
info & comparisons