If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Friendly New Films, With Planarized Color Elements Like CCD rray
On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 03:27:19 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
wrote: I'm just irritated at seeing grain noise in my scans from films people loudly proclaim to be "extremely fine grain". And I've never seen a high-res scan from any film that was as clean as ISO 100 dSLR images. That depends on the film format, doesn't it? Or are you implying 35 mm in that statement? Reala 645, scanned and printed at A4, is nearly grainless. Any low-ISO 4x5, scanned and printed at A4 will be quite grainless. Can you make out any grain in the "perfect" scan below? http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/perfect2.jpg rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Friendly New Films, With Planarized Color Elements Like CCD rray
"Raphael Bustin" wrote: "David J. Littleboy" wrote: I'm just irritated at seeing grain noise in my scans from films people loudly proclaim to be "extremely fine grain". And I've never seen a high-res scan from any film that was as clean as ISO 100 dSLR images. That depends on the film format, doesn't it? Or are you implying 35 mm in that statement? Unless specified otherwise, I pretty much am always talking about looking at pixels at 100% on the screen. Reala 645, scanned and printed at A4, is nearly grainless. Uh, try completely grainless: that's under a 6x enlargement. Reala scans also clean up quite nicely with a touch of NeatImage. 35mm is a 9x enlargement at A4, and, IMHO, 9x is about the limit for most films. A4 is a difficult size, because people tend to grain sniff them if you hand them a stack of prints to look at. I just don't see people looking that closely at A3 and larger prints. Although I'm not selling prints, so your experience may varyg. Can you make out any grain in the "perfect" scan below? http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/perfect2.jpg Of course not. I'm in full agreement with your point that all pixels are not made equalg. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Friendly New Films, With Planarized Color Elements Like CCD rray
Recently, David J. Littleboy posted:
"Neil Gould" wrote: Recently, David J. Littleboy posted: It sounds like you guys haven't seen any inkjet prints in the last 5 years. Au Contraire, David. I've not only seen them, I've spent thousands of dollars on Epson inkjet printers over the last 5 years, and regularly buy large format output for tradeshow displays and the like, which are also high-end inkjet prints. They're great for vector art and such, but no match for a good optical photo print of photographic subjects. Interesting. The fine art photographers say exactly the opposite: that in blind tests, people prefer inkjet prints the vast majority of the time. I'm sure that's true, given the "fine art" ink jet prints that I see at the dozen or so art shows that my wife drags me to. However, at those same shows, there are some optical/chemical prints that blow the ink jet prints out of the water. Whatever. My original point was that by the time you get to A4, inkjets have plenty of resolution. Ink jet resolution doesn't change with image size. You have exactly the same resolution at A4 as you will at 'A' or 2"x3". My experience is that it takes 645 to reliably provide more detail than inkjets can render at A4. My experience is that my Leica produces far more detail than any inkjet (and many photo papers) can render. But, then, I have the distinct impression that we look at very different aspects of photographic images, given your comments about the "lack of noise" in digital imaging. To me, a lot of those images look like a form of posterization, where image details that *should* have texture just don't. I'm just irritated at seeing grain noise in my scans from films people loudly proclaim to be "extremely fine grain". And I've never seen a high-res scan from any film that was as clean as ISO 100 dSLR images. And, I'm irritated by the harsh flattening of textures, lack of subtle gradations, and narrower exposure lattitude that characterize many digital images. So, we're irritated by different things, it seems! ;-) Neil |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Friendly New Films, With Planarized Color Elements Like CCD rray
In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Einton Newstein wrote:
Why a Canon DSLR of only 3k x 2k @ 32-bit RGB out performs a film scanned to the same resolution and same color depth? The grain factor? The tradistional film has the layered color sensor, unlike the digital camera that has planarized color array. Intuitively the digital camera should be inferior, quite opposite to the current observation. There are arbuments pointed to the grain noise factor in the film. If so, let's imitate what the digital camera does. If a film is made like a chemical color sensors, would it make it more digital friendly? and perhapes claim back the ground? You mean no layers? Just a pattern of green blue and red dots? Hey, they abandonned this kind of film in the 1930s. Agfa sold what you describe here as "Agfacolor" till 1936 when Agfacolor New was introduced (about the same time Kodachrome was). The new and astonishing of these films were the layers. Oh, one kind of this film was sold till 1.5 years ago: Polaroid 35mm instand-slide film (the type you needed those "Autoprocessor" box to develop the film at home. Chris |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Friendly New Films, With Planarized Color Elements Like CCD rray
In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Stacey wrote:
Gary Beasley wrote: On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 10:45:37 -0500, Paul Schmidt The orange layer is actually a color correction layer to compensate for the inaccuracies and crossover characteristics of the color dye layers. It has nothing to do with the yellow filter between the blue recording layer and the other two layers. That gets bleached out during processing. At some point I would think they could develop a negative film that didn't need this mask i.e. optimized for scanning? Do you know you are talking about Agfacolor CN 17 (discontinued in the early 1970s)? It had no orange layer. Nobody thought about scanning in those days the reason was rather simply: without the orange mask it was possible to do b/w-prints of the (color)negative which was much ceaper. Only the best picture was printet in color. Chris |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Friendly New Films, With Planarized Color Elements Like CCD rray
Christian Kolinski wrote:
In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Stacey wrote: Gary Beasley wrote: On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 10:45:37 -0500, Paul Schmidt The orange layer is actually a color correction layer to compensate for the inaccuracies and crossover characteristics of the color dye layers. It has nothing to do with the yellow filter between the blue recording layer and the other two layers. That gets bleached out during processing. At some point I would think they could develop a negative film that didn't need this mask i.e. optimized for scanning? Do you know you are talking about Agfacolor CN 17 (discontinued in the early 1970s)? It had no orange layer. Didn't know about that one. Nobody thought about scanning in those days the reason was rather simply: without the orange mask it was possible to do b/w-prints of the (color)negative which was much ceaper. So it is posible and with todays fine grain films this should make digitizing negative film much easier. -- Stacey |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Will digital photography ever stabilize? | Alfred Molon | Digital Photography | 37 | June 30th 04 08:11 PM |
New Leica digital back info.... | Barney | 35mm Photo Equipment | 19 | June 30th 04 12:45 AM |
What was wrong with film? | George | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 192 | March 4th 04 03:44 PM |
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? | Michael Weinstein, M.D. | In The Darkroom | 13 | January 24th 04 10:51 PM |