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]

aliasing was Re: filmscanners: Review of the Nikon CoolScan 4000



Dave wrote:
>It seems to me from eyeball guessing that my LS-30 is resolving grain
>in 100 ISO films at roughly 40-80% distortion, which looks pretty bad
>on the monitor at 100% view.  800 speed color neg film does much
>better at what I would guess to be roughly 25% distortion.

I presume you're comparing 100ASA print film with 800ASA print film?
(as opposed to 100ASA slide film)
Out of interest, exactly which brand/types of film are you using?
How did you judge the distortion?  Compared to what?

>The silver lining to this cloud is aliasing distortion (with the
>LS-30) looks worse on screen than print, IMO.

I'd agree with this, although in some cases the amount of distortion
(aliasing, grain, whatever you want to call it) is ugly at much lower
print sizes.  I have a panoramic print on my wall at work on Epson
Panoramic Photo Paper - the ocean and beach looks fine, but the sky
has an ugly brown discolouration caused by grain aliasing.  The film
was either Fuji Superia 100 or Reala.

Generally however, the printer does tend to be more fogiving than the
monitor - the "grain" usually ends up less intense in a print.

Rob


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






 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.