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: Filmscanning vs. Flatbedding



Looks to me like it can't handle continuous-tone any better than a "toy"
camera you'd get with Cracker-Jacks! With "stellar" decisions like this, I'm
going to hold on to all my Kodak stuff--looks like they'll be *rarities* in
a few years, given this apparent death-wish from Rochester.

--LRA


------Original Message------
From: Johnny Deadman <john@pinkheadedbug.com>
To: Filmscanners <Filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Sent: May 19, 2001 3:42:17 PM GMT
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Filmscanning vs. Flatbedding


on 5/19/01 8:30 AM, Steve Greenbank at steve@gccl.fsbusiness.co.uk wrote:

> See this :
>
> http://www.robgalbraith.com/diginews/2001-05/2001_05_17_dcs_760.html
>
> and in particular this :   (be warned it's 1.4M)
>
> http://www.robgalbraith.com/public_files/dcs760_bw_portrait.jpg

well, it's very very sharp and grain free.

but the tonality is HIDEOUS. It looks like a grab from a video picture. Look
at the highlights on the hair. Agh. Is this progress?

run! very fast! in the opposite direction!

I could do substantially better with my super speed graphic, a 50 year old
lens, some APX 100 and a jug of Xtol.

tone! tone! tone!

obviously that camera can do a bazillion wunnerful things but film has a few
tricks up its sleeve yet methinks.
--
John Brownlow

http://www.pinkheadedbug.com


-----------------------------------------------
FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com
Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com





 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.