ðòïåëôù 


  áòèé÷ 


Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

  óôáôøé 


  ðåòóïîáìøîïå 


  ðòïçòáííù 



ðéûéôå
ðéóøíá












     áòèé÷ :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Was New Nikon performance, now dust



Rafe wrote:
>Fuji Reala is beautiful.  Kodak Royal Gold 100 isn't 
>bad, either.  But Supra (100) is my current favorite.

I was under the impression that there was little if any
difference between the current generation Superia 100
and Reala.  When Fuji announced the extra colour layer,
it seemed to point to the same technology.  Can anyone
confirm this?

I haven't attempted resolution tests with Supra 100 to
have some sort of meaningful comparison, but to my eye
there was little difference in grain between Superia
100 and Supra 100 which made it hard to justify a
premium price for the Kodak film.

Rob


Rob Geraghty harper@wordweb.com
http://wordweb.com






 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.