RE: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!

["Austin Franklin" <darkroom@ix.netcom.com>]

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: owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> [mailto:owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich
> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 6:08 AM
> To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> Subject: Re: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
>
>
> It is probably the weak point in the process, but it was a matter of
> pragmatics.
>
> 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.
>
> Art
>
> 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?
>
>