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]

[filmscanners] Re: Scanning negs vs. slides



Austin writes:

> Are you trying to claim that the number
> of tones that paper is capable of is
> LESS than your eyes are capable of?

Paper isn't capable of anything.  Only paper combined with a printing method
is capable of something.  And current printing methods cannot duplicate the
gamut of human vision.

> BTW, what do you believe makes paper a
> "very poor display medium"?

Limited dynamic range, and the limitations of the inks and dyes used to
print upon it.

> And compared to WHAT?

CRT displays, direct projection of transparencies, and the like.  In
general, technologies that filter or produce light have larger gamuts than
those that merely reflect light.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body



 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.