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: What causes this ... projection



>I said this in the original reply "I hadn't considered this and nor did I
>fetch my screen when I tried the
>slides tonight. But I can see that how this would work."

>I didn't try the screen test as I would probably of woken my son extracting
>it from his bedroom.

I understand and that is ok.  Yes, I do no know that you said this and was
willing to let it go at that.

>I felt that the test onto the paper would also show
>more clearly what the scanner sees.

I am afraid that I do not see the logic of this.  I do not see how the
projection of a slide onto smooth paper would simulate a scan; I can see the
point of comparing the projection onto smooth paper versus the projection
onto a projection screen.  I think you may be making a number of unwarranted
assumptions.

>But my feeling is: a textured surface helps mask the grain as the minor
dark
>spots will have lighter spots reflected from the pits to mask the effect.
>The grain being darker will reflect less so the converse effect will be
less
>pronounced. This will lead to a reduction in randomly distributed darker
>spots.

I think your reasoning on this is logical and acceptable.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
[mailto:owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Steve Greenbank
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 6:50 PM
To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
Subject: Re: filmscanners: What causes this ... projection


Hi Laurie

Part 2 here - part 3 may take some time as I'm quite busy and it's also the
area where we have the least common ground.

> >I thought I had covered this with some sort of statement like "even when
> >viewed quite close-up", but I must have rephrased this and removed it
> before
> >I posted the message.
>
> You did in your original message; but everything is relative.  Some films
> and scenes display the grain more prominently than others as you have
noted
> and are obvious even at further distances; while others display grain less
> prominently even at quite close distances.  However, the grain is none the
> less still there in all cases.  You recent test seems to bear not only
this
> point out; but the tests from what I can tell given the comparative
> information you provided  are inconclusive on my point that the screen
> texture masks the grain structure more so than a smooth surface under the
> same conditions would for the same original.
>
I said this in the original reply "I hadn't considered this and nor did I
fetch my screen when I tried the
slides tonight. But I can see that how this would work."

I didn't try the screen test as I would probably of woken my son extracting
it from his bedroom. I felt that the test onto the paper would also show
more clearly what the scanner sees.

Once I had seen the grain on the Velvia slide (I had seen it on the
Fujichrome 400 years ago) I didn't see a lot of point in trying with the
screen.

But my feeling is: a textured surface helps mask the grain as the minor dark
spots will have lighter spots reflected from the pits to mask the effect.
The grain being darker will reflect less so the converse effect will be less
pronounced. This will lead to a reduction in randomly distributed darker
spots.

Could be complete bullsh*t, but it seems fairly logical to me and until I
get the screen out and find out otherwise I am pretty confident that you are
right about the screen.

Steve





 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.