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: film and scanning vs digital photography



On 11/06/2007 Berry Ives wrote:
> When you say "the image itself has far lower spatial frequencies...",
> I
> guess you mean the image arriving at the film post optics?

Yes.

> As Oly says, it's not all about pixels.

I totally agree.

> When I went to the
> Steves-digicam
> site, I compared the E-1 5mp image of the hotel to the E-500 8mp
> image,
> comparing the hotel/marina caf images on a 23" Apple Cinema display
> with
> both images sized identically.  Yes, I know the better comparison is
> to
> print them at say 12x16, since the print is the real test.  I just
> didn't
> want to use the ink and paper to do that.
>
> It is hard to say whether the 8mp is better than the other.

Yes, that's why I think printing the images is worthwhile - it provides a
clearer comparison, as you can evaluate the print against what you know a
decent print can look like. It's much harder on screen to achieve a
holistic judgement.

--
Regards

Tony Sleep
http://tonysleep.co.uk

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