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: a bit OT, but still important...



filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk <> wrote:
> on 12/9/2002 4:00 PM, filmscanners_Digest_owner@halftone.co.uk at
> filmscanners_Digest_owner@halftone.co.uk wrote:
>
>> Of course, you do realize that your contention is as subjective as
>> those made by those who may disagree with you.  The out which you
>> have left yourself is equally subjective - namely, "There is a
>> difference, and, to the discerning eye, it is obvious."  Who is the
>> arbiter of who has a discerning enough eye and who does not should
>> an argument ensue about if there is a difference or not?  You are
>> entitled to your opinion and evaluation as well as to your
>> preferences; but as with all of us, there are personal preferences.
>> The most that can be said about them is that they are yours - not
>> that they are better than any other preferences.
>
> Since I've been using my ls-8000 and shooting 6x9 I have become a
> little dissatisfied with my 35 images.  And I'm talking about
> printing smaller than 8x10 on an epson printer.  The difference in
> detail is very obvious and does not need a discerning eye to see.
>
> I will still shoot 35mm, but not for the same kind of images that
> I'll use the 6x9 camera for. I'm just blown away by the difference
> between 35mm scanned at 4000dpi and 6x9 even in small prints.
>

Yes, I understand how you can be impressed with the bigger format as
compared to the 35mm; but I still stand by my comments regarding the
obviousness of the differences and to whom.

I shoot 35mm, 645, 6x7, and 4x5; each has its advantages and its
limitations; and often these are contingent on the use to which the image is
going to be put. A 35mm needs to be enlarged to print a 4x5 size print but a
4x5 sheet of film does not.  That means that in enlarging the smaller film
format you are lowering the effective resolution unless you resample, which
is not necessarily the case to the same extent with the larger formats as
they increase in size.  This will be reflected in the display of that file
or in the print of that file no matter what the size of the print.

Nevertheless, the difference that may exist are often exaggerated or negated
depending on the limitations of type of print process one uses to reproduce
the images as a print, by limitations of the type of printer that one
employes to print the file (brand and model of inkjet, laser, or dye-sub),
by the limitations of the type of inkset and paper one uses, and by the
capabilities of the technician doing the press work, the inkjet printing, or
the printing via Lightjet or Chromira.

You say, "Since I've been using my ls-8000 and shooting 6x9 I have become a
little dissatisfied with my 35 images;" but it is unclear if this
dissatisfaction stems from the particular scanner you are using for the 6x9
versus the scanner you used to scan the 35mm or is contingent on the size of
the film format or on the outcome of the printing process itself.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.427 / Virus Database: 240 - Release Date: 12/6/02

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.