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: Digi, film and scanning in movies



> -----Original Message-----
> From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
> [mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk] On Behalf Of
> George Harrison
> Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 11:43 AM
> To: frankparis@comcast.net
> Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Digi, film and scanning in movies
>
>
>
> >I took the G3 out on a hike with my Nikon F100 loaded with
> Kodak Portra
> >UC, which although touted as fine-grain for a 400 ASA film, is still
> >fairly grainy.
>
> Why do you refer to "grain" when there is NO grain at all in
> a processed colour negative?
>
> It's not only wrong it is misleading.

Wow, then what are they talking about when they refer to grain size in
film? I must not have been following a thousand different conversations
I've read on this list and in photography magazines. No grain at all? I
can see it in the scans and in the prints. Your explanation, which I
feel is forthcoming, I'm sure is going to revolutionize my
understanding.

Frank Paris
frankparis@comcast.net

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