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: Pixels and Prints




<derek_c@cix.co.uk> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Of course each pixel of a scanned film has all three colours faithfully
reproduced.

The interesting question though is what that pixels's actual colour was?

Unlike a camera, a film scan records something that has already been
sampled into RGB, that's what film does!

Yes the film grain is much smaller, and randomly scattered to boot.

Sample aliasing means that each scanned pixel overlaps a number of film
grain dye images, each an individual R G or B. So the pixel itself is
effectively just an average like a Bayer filter pixel quad is an average.

So it seems to me that there is no real moral high ground there, film
scanning is just as much an averaging process as a Bayer camera.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Then there's the reality check of actually looking at film scans and
actually looking at some digital camera images and seeing how they compare.

If one actually did that, one would see that, on a pixel-for-pixel basis
(that is, comparing the same number of pixels), film scans are incredibly
poor, being soft and noisy. As I mentioned before, downsampling 4000 dpi
scans of Fuji "100F" slides to 60% results in images that are beginning to
be similar quality to digital camera originals.

David J. Littleboy
davidjl@gol.com
Tokyo, Japan

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