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]

[filmscanners] Re: 3 year wait

> > And that is simply the following:
> > - 4096 x 2731 good scan from Ektachrome output back to film at 4K rez
> Actually, that's what I'm having a "problem" with...calling that 4k rez...
> (which is what the gist of my involvement in this discussion was about,
> trying to understand what it meant, and why on earth anyone would call it
> that ;-).  I know what you mean by it, that the long side of the 35mm frame
> is 4k...but that isn't the "language" that scanners (printers etc.) are
> spoken about in, but it appears that film recorders have their own
> definition of what "4k" means.

Yes. I'm less than pleased with it myself, but somehow this "spec" got 
formulated long
ago, and hence film recorders are 2/4/8/16 K
It's certainly not *my* definition :-)

> > is
> > indistinguishable from the original, projected side by side at
> > approx 6 feet wide.
> Understood, and I'd say you're probably %100 right, but that's projection,
> which really doesn't allow for the most critical viewing.  Now, not that
> that doesn't work perfectly for some applications, that's not in question.

Agreed, but I should add that I can see no real diff, rez-wise, with loupe 
There is always a *slight* diff, contrast/color balance etc, because there are 
so many
variables in the scan itself and tweaking in image editor. Much like even a 
slide dupe.

> > - same scanned from Tmax 100, and both orig neg and film recorder
> > output neg printed
> > photographically to 10 x 6.6 inches are indistinguishable.
> I don't doubt that either, but make an 11x14 of it...

Yeah, didn't push the envelope, so couldn't say. Might not have been 
discernable diffs
even then.  Could have gone 20" too. 'Course, many photogs, myself included, 
say that 35mm is not suitable for 16x20" period.

Once I upgrade to scanner that *can* do the "4K" rez, I'll run all my tests 
again, for
me, and keep the results.

> > Which tells me that for the majority of usage, ~12 MP, assuming
> > those pixels are "up
> > to snuff", is the *practical" equivalent of 35mm film.
> Oh, I have no doubt about that either, for *practical* use...since practical
> use, to me, means happy snaps at 4x6 ;-)

Oh, I'd think at least 8x10. Again, assuming we can have digicams with at least 
true a pixel quality as some current film scanners.

> > I'm sure there are many scientific applications that benefit from
> > using film;

> And professional, and artistic...

> Since I'm a B&W person (in a photographic sense at least), I will be using
> film for a while.

Oh, for majority of my digital output, I shoot 90% film, whether location or 
and scan. I'll use my 3MP Kodak 4800 for visiting Mom this weekend, eBay 
some website usage, etc. And really, if this camera were capable of capturing 
11 to
12MP, but only with same individual pixel level quality as now, I don't think 
practice would change much.


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


Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.