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



>Even if the neg film was designed for tungsten lighting, and not shot
>under those conditions, it could be corrected in both the prints and
>slides which were made through filtration.  Probably easier for them to
>correct it at their lab than expect people who bought this stuff to even
>know what "tungsten" was... (Seattle Filmworks wasn't exactly the place
>professionals flocked to).

Good points, which others have also noted.  The only reason I can think of
for not thinking of it myself before I made my posts has to be that I was
having a "senior moment" or was there a full moon. :-)



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
[mailto:owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 3:18 AM
To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Neg film for scanning




Laurie Solomon wrote:

>> Sorry, drifting off topic.
>
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>

Even if the neg film was designed for tungsten lighting, and not shot
under those conditions, it could be corrected in both the prints and
slides which were made through filtration.  Probably easier for them to
correct it at their lab than expect people who bought this stuff to even
know what "tungsten" was... (Seattle Filmworks wasn't exactly the place
professionals flocked to).

The 'slide' film that was used was actually a non-masked negative film
also c-41 processed, and they used contact printers to make them, so
filtration could be easily accomplished ay that stage.
Art




 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.