Filmscanners mailing list archive (email@example.com)
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
OOOOOH! Art and I agree on something! ;-)
I really believe scanning/screen viewing is the best, and most objective,
method for "technical" film evaluation. Certainly for other less technical
merits, viewing an entire image on paper or screen is far better.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich
> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 6:08 AM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
> It is probably the weak point in the process, but it was a matter of
> I did try to minimize the "damage" by using a Navitar Gold lens, which
> is one of the best there are for projection. Still, I would agree it
> degraded the images. Trying to see a full image with a loupe,
> especially when there were about nearly 150 frames, is asking a lot of
> anybody, even photographers, so we decided to make it a more enjoyable
> evening by projecting the images. At least each slide was probably
> equally prejudiced against. I did a loupe example prior to putting the
> trays together, and I was unable to see a real difference in sharpness.
> Austin Franklin wrote:
> > > As I think I've posted before, I did a double blind shoot out
> with Leica
> > > and Nikon lenses (a 28mm 2.8 wide angle, a 135mm 2.8 tele and the 50mm
> > > 1.4 normal). Each image was shot with one of these three lenses with
> > > both the Leica and the Nikon, on Kodachrome 25.
> > >
> > > After the images were marked, they were placed in slide trays
> in random
> > > sequence, but next to one another, and projected with Navitar Gold
> > > projector lenses.
> > >
> > > A group of 4 experienced photographers were asked to evaluate
> each pair
> > > of images and choose the one they preferred. Consideration
> as given to
> > > sharpness, color "accuracy", overall contrast and exposure
> evenness, and
> > > the like.
> > Is doing this type of testing with projected slides really a
> "good" test?