Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

   


   


   















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

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

[filmscanners] RE: 3 year wait





> And that is simply the following:
> - 4096 x 2731 good scan from Ektachrome output back to film at 4K rez

Actually, that's what I'm having a "problem" with...calling that 4k rez...
(which is what the gist of my involvement in this discussion was about,
trying to understand what it meant, and why on earth anyone would call it
that ;-).  I know what you mean by it, that the long side of the 35mm frame
is 4k...but that isn't the "language" that scanners (printers etc.) are
spoken about in, but it appears that film recorders have their own
definition of what "4k" means.

> is
> indistinguishable from the original, projected side by side at
> approx 6 feet wide.

Understood, and I'd say you're probably %100 right, but that's projection,
which really doesn't allow for the most critical viewing.  Now, not that
that doesn't work perfectly for some applications, that's not in question.

> - same scanned from Tmax 100, and both orig neg and film recorder
> output neg printed
> photographically to 10 x 6.6 inches are indistinguishable.

I don't doubt that either, but make an 11x14 of it...

> Which tells me that for the majority of usage, ~12 MP, assuming
> those pixels are "up
> to snuff", is the *practical" equivalent of 35mm film.

Oh, I have no doubt about that either, for *practical* use...since practical
use, to me, means happy snaps at 4x6 ;-)

> I'm sure there are many scientific applications that benefit from
> using film;

And professional, and artistic...

Since I'm a B&W person (in a photographic sense at least), I will be using
film for a while.  I have found, through personal experimentation, that
scanning B&W film using a single ND filter is far far better than scanning
B&W in RGB (which is what every scanner I know does, except one) and
converting.  Same is true with B&W images from CCD cameras.  When I use a
scanning back, and a ND filter, it gives me amazing B&W images, and not as
good with I shoot using RGB and convert (sharpness etc. aside).

Regards,

Austin

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body



 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.