Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[filmscanners] RE: Filmscanners - is this about as good as itgets?
- To: lexa@lexa.ru
- Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Filmscanners - is this about as good as itgets?
- From: "Nagaraj, Ramesh" <Ramesh.Nagaraj@ca.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 01:18:38 -0500
- Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
- Thread-index: AcLGN1Bni4qpdaMUTlqo3VEIMnKwBAAXEQzA
- Thread-topic: [filmscanners] RE: Filmscanners - is this about as good as itgets?
- Unsubscribe: mailto:listserver@halftone.co.uk
-----Original Message-----
From: Sam A. McCandless [mailto:samcc@vom.com]
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 1:31 PM
To: Nagaraj, Ramesh
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Filmscanners - is this about as good as
itgets?
>I was surprised, Ramesh, to see in a recent issue of "Popular
>Photography", in an editor's response to a letter to the editor:
>"... However, many digital cameras now offer color accuracy that is
>better than any film we've tested. ..."
I think it should "scanner output" instead of "film".
This makes me think about %18Gray.
"...camera assumes that object is %18 gray.." theory applicable to camera
metering
system. Does media need to be film for this theory to be true?
Does this theory change in DSLR?
Thanks
Ramesh
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
|
