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]

RE: filmscanners: Neg film for scanning



From: "Laurie Solomon" <laurie@advancenet.net>
>Never a problem with me - especially if the information is informative or
>interesting.
>I hate to sound stupid; but I want to check and see if you mean what I think
>you mean when you speak of CN in relation to film.  Are you speaking about a
>chromogenic negative? All the movie films that I know of are tungston films
>which always left me wondering why places like Seattle Filmworks and others
>who sold the respooled tails of those films never made a point of saying
>that they needed to be shot under tungsten lighting.

Type of processing, like c-41 is a type of processing (chemistry). I 
may have to go back and check the letters (CN) but I think this is 
it. There may also be another letter after the N, such as K, like CNK 
-4. I can look it up - have the book.

You don't have to compensate for tungsten balance, but its better 
that you do. Dale for years asked you to identify the light source 
(for 5247) and filter when you sent the film in for processing. Like, 
"daylight", "flash", "halogen lights", and compensating filter. And, 
they processed the film accordingly, compensating for the color 
temperature of the exposure. But, most people never checked those 
boxes, and the slides/prints came out fine. Go figure.

>If the negatives produced off these films tend to be thicker than normal as
>you said or implied, at least as I understood your to be saying or
>impliying, would this not make it harder to scan and make scanning the
>slides easier if not better?  Since you have already said that you have not
>actually scanned the stuff, I am asking this sort of in terms of rhetorical
>question or in search of a logical speculation rather than an empirical
>answer.

The thicker negative is not harder to scan. Actually holds in the 
negative holder better than thinner film. And yes, I scan a lot of 
it. Also stuffs far more easily into archive pages than store bought 
film strips. Because of the added rigidity.




 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.