Claimed high scanned film "information" is mostly garbage
RichA
lot more information than a digital image. This is true, but the
information is useless junk. When colour film is scanned at 4800 dpi
and 48 bits, it generates huge files. But much of this is worthless
(even detrimental) as far as the actual image is concerned. What the
scan is recording is mostly information about the grain of the film
that does not contribute (except what we'd call noise) to the image.
A high resolution scan records every aspect of the grain and colour
clouds, even the info for the garbage. For proof of this from a
digital perspective, take two shots of a subject, one at 200 ISO and
one at 3200 ISO. Now, crop them down to equal sized areas from the
image and save them. Take a look at the file size. The grainy, high
ISO image can be as much as twice as large because there was more
information to save, but it certainly did nothing to contribute to the
image's quality, in fact, because the information represented mostly
noise, it hurt the image as high ISO does.
dan c.
Soooo, what's your point? Film is amazing, a scrap of clear plastic
with a tiny amount of light-sensitive emulsion spread upon it, in the
right hands, can make a huge Cibachrome print that knocks your socks
off and sells for thousands is pretty magical in my book. Don't get
me wrong, Digital is up and coming. However, the amount of technology
that lies between the lens and the print is astronomical in
comparison! Think of it, a lens focuses an image on a scrap of
plastic. That's it! The image is saved in Extra High Definition for
the cost of a penny! I love both digital and darkrooms, but after a
couple of decades of printing large Cibachromes from little scraps of
plastic.....what's your point? Some day digital will rule the fine
art world. But for now I'm still on my hands and knees to film for
the final, pristine, dazzling piece of art that hangs on a wall. Same
with black and white by the way, a well-done fiber-based print from
film is still king. Call me a jaded "pro" (I hate the term) but after
listening for hours of boring chit chat, it all comes down to one
thing. The Fine Print. BTW, what is a "filmist" I mean, I know what
it must be (or who) but is it derogatory in nature? Is there an on-
going debate about which is better, film or digital? And yes, I did
in fact just crawl out from under a rock. I also had the extreme
pleasure and luck to have been trained by an old man who looked like
Santa many years ago. You may have heard of him. dan (who is going
back under his rock)
Chris Malcolm
> On Mar 30, 4:04?pm, RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> We've often heard the claim from filmists that a film image contains a
>> information is useless junk. ?When colour film is scanned at 4800 dpi
>> and 48 bits, it generates huge files. ?But much of this is worthless
>> (even detrimental) as far as the actual image is concerned. ?What the
>> scan is recording is mostly information about the grain of the film
>> that does not contribute (except what we'd call noise) to the image.
>> A high resolution scan records every aspect of the grain and colour
>> digital perspective, take two shots of a subject, one at 200 ISO and
>> image and save them. ?Take a look at the file size. ?The grainy, high
>> ISO image can be as much as twice as large because there was more
>> information to save, but it certainly did nothing to contribute to the
>> image's quality, in fact, because the information represented mostly
>> noise, it hurt the image as high ISO does.
> Soooo, what's your point? Film is amazing, a scrap of clear plastic
> with a tiny amount of light-sensitive emulsion spread upon it, in the
> right hands, can make a huge Cibachrome print that knocks your socks
> off and sells for thousands is pretty magical in my book. Don't get
> me wrong, Digital is up and coming. However, the amount of technology
> that lies between the lens and the print is astronomical in
> comparison! Think of it, a lens focuses an image on a scrap of
> plastic. That's it!
My guess is that you think there's less technology intervening between
lens and print in a film camera because you know a bit more about
computers than you do about chemistry, and have forgotten to take into
account the important advantage of digital reproduction technologies.
--
Chris Malcolm
tmo...@wildblue.net
The technology behind film is immense too, the coating machines owned
by Kodak, Fuji and formerly AGFA are amazing they put down a uniform
thin film on rolls of plastic, to get the consistency that films have
is almost a magic trick. Same for paper again an amazing thing and
20th century industrial magic. The chemistry behind film and paper is
also a technological wonder. The thing about film is the technology is
hidden from you. Just apply some chemicals and the magic process of
film development happens. Then you pour the chemicals down the drain,
a questionable practice.
That said RichA is right about scanners they are all optimistically
rated, about 1/2 the rated ppi is about right with lower priced
models, maybe less on flatbeds. You also get what you pay for, the
more expensive generally are better. Though there is a discussion
about Nikon film scanner vs Imacon scanners.
Tom
David J. Littleboy
<tmo...@wildblue.net> wrote:
The technology behind film is immense too, the coating machines owned
by Kodak, Fuji and formerly AGFA are amazing they put down a uniform
thin film on rolls of plastic, to get the consistency that films have
is almost a magic trick. Same for paper again an amazing thing and
20th century industrial magic. The chemistry behind film and paper is
also a technological wonder.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Really. As someone who breezed through various Comp. Sci. programs but bit
the dust something fierce in Materials Science grad school, I'd say the tech
behind film is orders of magnitude more complex than that behind digital
imaging. (Of course, there's a lot of Mat. Sci. in making a dSLR sensor<g>.)
>>>>>>>>>>
That said RichA is right about scanners they are all optimistically
rated, about 1/2 the rated ppi is about right with lower priced
models, maybe less on flatbeds. You also get what you pay for, the
more expensive generally are better. Though there is a discussion
about Nikon film scanner vs Imacon scanners.
<<<<<<<<<<<<
Here's a collection of sample scans. None of them are anywhere close to the
pixel level quality that comes of dSLRs.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/
Of course, 6x7 still edges out the FF dSLRs. But not by enough to make it
worth the effort.
--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Nobody
Deep Reset
"RichA" <rande...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:92fc2190-1a9a-4990...@l22g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
> We've often heard the claim from filmists that a film image contains a
> lot more information than a digital image. This is true, but the
> information is useless junk.
Charles
"Nobody" <nob...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:gqtcfu$e9p$1...@nntp.motzarella.org...
> http://www.theonion.com/content/video/sony_releases_new_stupid_piece_of
Wait. It's going on sale next month!
Kennedy McEwen
<92fc2190-1a9a-4990...@l22g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
RichA <rande...@gmail.com> writes
There is just as much crap in that assessment as there is in the very
claims that you dispute in your first sentence.
Firstly, if you save both images uncompressed then the 200ISO and the
3200ISO files will be exactly the same size. Ie. it is the compression
that is generating the size difference.
Secondly, what you are demonstrating in the digital domain has no
relevance to the film domain. Its a bit like saying adding gasoline to
my soup makes it taste horrid, so it can't be any good adding it to the
fuel tank in my car.
Thirdly, I don't know of any "filmist" that makes your original claims,
except in error. Generally what is claimed is that film has more
intrinsic resolution than digital, which is just one aspect of
information.
The problem with this type of idiotic comparison is that film has a
signal to noise ratio which degrades gradually with increasing
resolution. Film can resolve very fine high contrast detail without
corruption even at very low signal to noise ratios. By contrast,
digital sensors run up against their limits at resolutions where their
SNR is still very high. A small SNR certainly means that most of the
"information" present in the medium is just noise, but that doesn't mean
that there is no useful information. If the resolution at a useful SNR
exceeds the Nyquist limit of a digital sensor then film certainly has
the higher resolution, irrespective of its SNR. That has been the case
almost universally until recently.
Fourthly, "information" is more than just SNR and resolution, there is
also dynamic range and the ability to handle highlights acceptably.
It is horses for courses. Some images, and applications, benefit more
from fine detail than signal to noise, other images and application
benefit more from the SNR and don't require the finest detail.
Having said all of that, the resolution of digital sensors continues to
improve. However in the highest resolution applications, including the
manufacture of the digital sensors themselves, it is still a film
emulsion technology that is used.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
dan c.
> In article
> <92fc2190-1a9a-4990-99a5-b7333aa16...@l22g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
> RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> writes
>
> - Show quoted text -
Those guys making their own glass plate negatives high in the Sierra
made some pretty impressive prints later on in the darkroom. Kinda
blows the idea right out of the water that putting emulsion on plastic
is anywhere near the tech that exists in a digital camera! I think
their technology was a paintbrush of some sort. I once made light
sensitive emulsion, spread it on a ROCK, and made a decent image on it
in the darkroom. I know, not the same thing. dan
George Kerby
On 4/1/09 12:15 PM, in article
220584bc-4298-4563...@d38g2000prn.googlegroups.com, "dan c."
<danc...@charter.net> wrote:
> I once made light
> sensitive emulsion, spread it on a ROCK, and made a decent image on it
> in the darkroom. I know, not the same thing. dan
Pretty 'grainy', I would imagine. The rock, that is...
John McWilliams
> On Apr 1, 8:28 am, Kennedy McEwen <r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Firstly, if you save both images uncompressed then the 200 ISO and the
>> 3200 ISO files will be exactly the same size. Ie. it is the compression
>> that is generating the size difference.
This part is incorrect. Higher ISOs will have more noise, other things
being equal.
--
John McWilliams
Alan Browne
> There is just as much crap in that assessment as there is in the very
> claims that you dispute in your first sentence.
Part of what Rich says is true although nothing to do with his (as
usual) idiotic presentation.
Film has so much dynamic range and no more. But high end scanners scan
beyond that and store beyond that. The part that is noise or simply out
of dynamic range is just filler bits in the resulting uncompressed file.
Many scanners are 16 bit/colour yet there is arguably no more than 13 -
14 bits of dynamic range in the film. So 2 - 3 (up to 18%) bits of the
scan data is indeed garbage/filler. Because of bit, byte, word ordering
and the setting of those garbage bits by the scan s/w they might not be
compressed out if they are not constant.
Where the film itself does not resolve to the ability of the scanner is
further waste as well. Where a 4000 - 6000 dpi scan of high res film
does yield mainly useful information, that is not so of most ISO 100 and
higher films.
Rich, as usual, has baited people with a dumb posting. Just state the
facts and move on.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
Rich
news:VICdnUHXYMUErU_U...@giganews.com:
At 2700 dpi (10 year old scanners), your already getting to the grain
level of film so it's no surprise higher resolution models don't add
much.
Rich
news:Ffqdnd9QNq6jGk_U...@bt.com:
Hey, I wanted to believe, why not? But the evidence is just too clear, even
the best films don't come close to the average modern digital camera plus
you're stuck at 50-100 ISO with higher resolution film.
David J Taylor
How will having more noise affect the size on an uncompressed image?
Agreed that, when compressed, a noisier image may have a larger file size.
David
Floyd L. Davidson
His specific statement, that it is the compression which
causes the different size, is correct. However, McEwan
entirely misses the very *valid* point made by the OP.
Compressing an image will make a smaller sized image if
there is less detail. The point was that typically an
image at 200 ISO (which almost without a doubt will be
visually a *better* picture) will actually have less
"detail" in it than one taken at ISO 3200. The images
compared visually favor the one that can be demonstrated
to have *less* information.
(I do agree that the OP generated a great Straw Man to
beat up on though. Some of his arguments are correct,
even if they are wasted in battle with a Straw Man.)
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@apaflo.com
Floyd L. Davidson
>Part of what Rich says is true although nothing to do with his (as
>usual) idiotic presentation.
>
>Film has so much dynamic range and no more. But high end scanners scan
>beyond that and store beyond that. The part that is noise or simply out
>of dynamic range is just filler bits in the resulting uncompressed file.
>
>Many scanners are 16 bit/colour yet there is arguably no more than 13 -
>14 bits of dynamic range in the film. So 2 - 3 (up to 18%) bits of the
>scan data is indeed garbage/filler. Because of bit, byte, word ordering
>and the setting of those garbage bits by the scan s/w they might not be
>compressed out if they are not constant.
>
>Where the film itself does not resolve to the ability of the scanner is
>further waste as well. Where a 4000 - 6000 dpi scan of high res film
>does yield mainly useful information, that is not so of most ISO 100 and
>higher films.
>
>Rich, as usual, has baited people with a dumb posting. Just state the
>facts and move on.
My goodness! A *precisely* accurate post!
lone
wrote:
>http://www.theonion.com/content/video/sony_releases_new_stupid_piece_of
>
>
>
>
test 2
user identity
user identity
wrote:
>http://www.theonion.com/content/video/sony_releases_new_stupid_piece_of
>
>
>
>
test 3
John McWilliams
> On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 11:22:35 -0400
>>
>>
Please use a test group.
John McWilliams
My RAW files, as they come from the camera, are of different sizes, not
by much, but a few percentage points up or down. Are you saying camera
compression of the RAW data causes this?
--
John McWilliams
Bob Larter
Yes. RAW files are losslessly compressed, & the file size will increase
with increases in detail or noise.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
David J Taylor
[]
> My RAW files, as they come from the camera, are of different sizes,
> not by much, but a few percentage points up or down. Are you saying
> camera compression of the RAW data causes this?
I was actually thinking of JPEG files but, yes, some cameras use
compression on RAW data as well. Just like the compression in Zip files,
compression /can/ be lossless.
David
nospam
<bobby...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes. RAW files are losslessly compressed,
usually, but not always.
Bob Larter
The formats I've seen are, but it's entirely possible there are ones
that are uncompressed.
nospam
<bobby...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Yes. RAW files are losslessly compressed,
> >
> > usually, but not always.
>
> The formats I've seen are, but it's entirely possible there are ones
> that are uncompressed.
i was referring to lossy compressed but there's uncompressed too. nikon
offers all three variants on some cameras.
Martin Brown
Very likely. If it was truly pure uncompressed raw then it would be some
random header length + sensor sites*measured_bits_per_pixel/8 long every
time. Traditional raw files in the early days were one byte per sensor
pixel + header. These days some are 12bits per pixel and then losslessly
compressed because CPUs are a lot faster now.
It is possible to use lossless data compression on images (or even on
executables). You get back the identical binary image.
At the simplest level the previous line of the image is quite a good
predictor of the next one. PNG and some other formats exploit this
adjacent pixel image data redundancy and then do lossless compression
LZH or similar on the residuals.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Kennedy McEwen
<jp...@comcast.net> writes
Kennedy McEwen
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> writes
>Kennedy McEwen wrote:
>
>> There is just as much crap in that assessment as there is in the very
>>claims that you dispute in your first sentence.
>
>Part of what Rich says is true although nothing to do with his (as
>usual) idiotic presentation.
>
>Film has so much dynamic range and no more. But high end scanners scan
>beyond that and store beyond that. The part that is noise or simply
>out of dynamic range is just filler bits in the resulting uncompressed
>file.
>
>Many scanners are 16 bit/colour yet there is arguably no more than 13 -
>14 bits of dynamic range in the film. So 2 - 3 (up to 18%) bits of the
>scan data is indeed garbage/filler. Because of bit, byte, word
>ordering and the setting of those garbage bits by the scan s/w they
>might not be compressed out if they are not constant.
>
film, not of the resulting image. Some film, eg. Kodachrome, has a
dynamic range which can easily exceed 16 linear bits. The emulsion
itself does not have that dynamic range in sensitivity, but the
resulting image has. On the other hand, some film has the 12-13
equivalent bits of sensitivity compressed into a dynamic range of only
around 8-bits (eg. most C-41 negatives).
>Where the film itself does not resolve to the ability of the scanner is
>further waste as well. Where a 4000 - 6000 dpi scan of high res film
>does yield mainly useful information, that is not so of most ISO 100
>and higher films.
>
However, films like Provia can and do exceed the resolution of 4000ppi
scanners, especially with high contrast images.
Kennedy McEwen
<jp...@comcast.net> writes
one of them is ONLY noise. What I said is CORRECT. It is the
compression that generates the file size difference
Alan Browne
> In article <Oc2dneCgCbd4RU7U...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
> <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> writes
>> Kennedy McEwen wrote:
>>
>>> There is just as much crap in that assessment as there is in the very
>>> claims that you dispute in your first sentence.
>>
>> Part of what Rich says is true although nothing to do with his (as
>> usual) idiotic presentation.
>>
>> Film has so much dynamic range and no more. But high end scanners
>> scan beyond that and store beyond that. The part that is noise or
>> simply out of dynamic range is just filler bits in the resulting
>> uncompressed file.
>>
>> Many scanners are 16 bit/colour yet there is arguably no more than 13
>> - 14 bits of dynamic range in the film. So 2 - 3 (up to 18%) bits of
>> the scan data is indeed garbage/filler. Because of bit, byte, word
>> ordering and the setting of those garbage bits by the scan s/w they
>> might not be compressed out if they are not constant.
>>
> The mistake here is that you are talking about dynamic range of the
> film, not of the resulting image. Some film, eg. Kodachrome, has a
> dynamic range which can easily exceed 16 linear bits. The emulsion
I don't buy that.
> itself does not have that dynamic range in sensitivity, but the
> resulting image has.
At scan time there are 13, maybe 14 bits of scan info. The scan s/w
might curve the data but that does nothing to areas which are near black
(0 valued). Examination of .tif images from 16 bit Minolta and Nikon
scanners shows no detail in the darkest areas. It's dead black.
> On the other hand, some film has the 12-13
> equivalent bits of sensitivity compressed into a dynamic range of only
> around 8-bits (eg. most C-41 negatives).
>
>> Where the film itself does not resolve to the ability of the scanner
>> is further waste as well. Where a 4000 - 6000 dpi scan of high res
>> film does yield mainly useful information, that is not so of most ISO
>> 100 and higher films.
>>
> However, films like Provia can and do exceed the resolution of 4000ppi
> scanners, especially with high contrast images.
I said "most" not "all".
Scott W
> John McWilliams wrote:
> > David J Taylor wrote:
> >> John McWilliams wrote:
> >>> dan c. wrote:
> >>>> On Apr 1, 8:28 am, Kennedy McEwen <r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>>>> Firstly, if you save both images uncompressed then the 200 ISO and
> >>>>> the 3200 ISO files will be exactly the same size. Ie. it is the
> >>>>> compression that is generating the size difference.
>
> >>> This part is incorrect. Higher ISOs will have more noise, other things
> >>> being equal.
>
> >> How will having more noise affect the size on an uncompressed image?
>
> >> Agreed that, when compressed, a noisier image may have a larger file
> >> size.
>
> > My RAW files, as they come from the camera, are of different sizes, not
> > by much, but a few percentage points up or down. Are you saying camera
> > compression of the RAW data causes this?
>
> Yes. RAW files are losslessly compressed, & the file size will increase
> with increases in detail or noise.
>
And on at least some cameras the camera takes this into account when
estimating how many more shots can fit on a memory card, go from iso
100 to 1600 and the number of shot left will show less. A quick
test on my 350D shows 407 left at iso 100 but only 352 left at iso
1600.
Scott W
wrote:
> At scan time there are 13, maybe 14 bits of scan info. The scan s/w
> might curve the data but that does nothing to areas which are near black
> (0 valued). Examination of .tif images from 16 bit Minolta and Nikon
> scanners shows no detail in the darkest areas. It's dead black.
If you are scanning a negative then the dead black areas is where the
scanner over exposed the negative, once it is clips to the max value
there is no more shadow detail posible.
I use a Minolta, which has pretty brain dead software to it tends to
over expose negatives all the time. I had to scan as a positive and
then invert the image and play with the curves and color to get it to
look right. VueScan is a bit better but even there it is not prefect.
Scott W
> We've often heard the claim from filmists that a film image contains a
> lot more information than a digital image. This is true, but the
> and 48 bits, it generates huge files. But much of this is worthless
> (even detrimental) as far as the actual image is concerned. What the
> scan is recording is mostly information about the grain of the film
> that does not contribute (except what we'd call noise) to the image.
> A high resolution scan records every aspect of the grain and colour
> clouds, even the info for the garbage. For proof of this from a
> digital perspective, take two shots of a subject, one at 200 ISO and
> one at 3200 ISO. Now, crop them down to equal sized areas from the
> image and save them. Take a look at the file size. The grainy, high
> ISO image can be as much as twice as large because there was more
> information to save, but it certainly did nothing to contribute to the
> image's quality, in fact, because the information represented mostly
> noise, it hurt the image as high ISO does.
I don't know why this matters so much to you, but for what it is worth
I think you are correct.
It was a shock when I started scanning film that I could not compress
the images nearly as small as I could from my digital. With too much
compressing the noise in the sky went from annoying random noise to
disastrous jpeg artifacts. This was at a time when hard disk space
was not cheap and so it did matter, now who cares how large a scanned
image file is.
David J. Littleboy
"Alan Browne" <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
> Kennedy McEwen wrote:
>>
>>> Where the film itself does not resolve to the ability of the scanner is
>>> further waste as well. Where a 4000 - 6000 dpi scan of high res film
>>> does yield mainly useful information, that is not so of most ISO 100 and
>>> higher films.
>>>
>> However, films like Provia can and do exceed the resolution of 4000ppi
>> scanners, especially with high contrast images.
>
> I said "most" not "all".
Here, Provia 100F very much is "most films". It's available, processing is
available, it scans well, and it isn't going away. A lot of the film nuts
base their arguments on discontinued films, discontinued film scanners, and
"drum scans" that cost $40 per frame if you can find a scanning servive, and
will be messed up by the operator more often than not. But using Provia 100F
as the basis for a film argument is completely valid.
Every time I try another film I wish I had used Provia. In 6x7, it's
amazingly wonderful; near LF quality 12x16s and gorgeous 16x20s are like
falling off a log. Velvia 50 is grainier, Velvia 100F is so high contrast as
to be unusable (it's nice when it flies, though), and getting decent color
pop from C41 is rare.
But Provia 100F with real world images rarely, if ever, shows detail
significantly* beyond what a Nikon 9000 will get. This "desktop scanners
don't get everything from film" mantra is almost always film types trying to
insist, for example, that 35mm is better than 12MP FF digital, when it's not
even close.
*: Whatever you do, the Nikon 9000 will produce much nicer images from 39x52
mm of film (645 cropped to 2:3) than any technology will get from 24x36mm of
the same film.
--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Kennedy McEwen
<e064e179-139c-41f2...@j18g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
Scott W <bip...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>And on at least some cameras the camera takes this into account when
>estimating how many more shots can fit on a memory card, go from iso
>100 to 1600 and the number of shot left will show less. A quick
>test on my 350D shows 407 left at iso 100 but only 352 left at iso
>1600.
>
My point is that this is not an intrinsic consequence of the
higher/lower ISO, but of the "compressability" of noise.
Kennedy McEwen
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> writes
>
>At scan time there are 13, maybe 14 bits of scan info. The scan s/w
>might curve the data but that does nothing to areas which are near
>black (0 valued). Examination of .tif images from 16 bit Minolta and
>Nikon scanners shows no detail in the darkest areas. It's dead black.
>
range. It is "dead black" with the much older 10-bit LS-20 scanner. By
your "analysis" this shows that there is no more than 10-bits of dynamic
range at scan time.
You are misinterpreting (at best) or misrepresenting (at worst) the
evidence!
Kennedy McEwen
<200c14e3-8d79-489f...@v23g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
Scott W <bip...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>It was a shock when I started scanning film that I could not compress
>the images nearly as small as I could from my digital. With too much
>compressing the noise in the sky went from annoying random noise to
>disastrous jpeg artifacts. This was at a time when hard disk space
>was not cheap and so it did matter, now who cares how large a scanned
>image file is.
I think if you had assessed the effect of noise on compression and had
used something like Noise Ninja, even at its lowest levels, this would
never have been a problem for you.
All that RichA is stating is that conventional compression algorithms do
not compress noise. That is totally unrelated to his claim that digital
has more information content than film (though nobody argues on total
information, just resolution).
Kennedy McEwen
Littleboy <dav...@gol.com> writes
>
>"Alan Browne" <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>> Kennedy McEwen wrote:
>>>
>>>> Where the film itself does not resolve to the ability of the scanner is
>>>> further waste as well. Where a 4000 - 6000 dpi scan of high res film
>>>> does yield mainly useful information, that is not so of most ISO 100 and
>>>> higher films.
>>>>
>>> However, films like Provia can and do exceed the resolution of 4000ppi
>>> scanners, especially with high contrast images.
>>
>> I said "most" not "all".
>
>significantly* beyond what a Nikon 9000 will get. This "desktop scanners
>don't get everything from film" mantra is almost always film types trying to
>insist, for example, that 35mm is better than 12MP FF digital, when it's not
>even close.
>
dependent on the scene contrast at that limiting resolution. Digital
runs out of resolution at the Nyquist limit, where the MTF is typically
65%. Its horses for courses - there are requirements where resolution
is king and the scene contrast can be bumped up as high as you like (a
good example is the photo-lithography used for semiconductors, including
digital sensors themselves), in other applications scene contrast
seriously limits the achievable resolution (and the higher MTF of
digital at its limiting resolution wins).
I don't have any problem accepting that in most examples my EOS 5D
outperforms many of my Provia shots. But I do have Provia examples
which have much finer detail that could ever be achieved by the 5D.
Indeed, I have a link somewhere to one of your own images which
demonstrate the resolution limits of the 5D, with aliasing all over the
place. I bet you could get way beyond that limitation on Provia film!
This is basically the third point on my original response to RichA's
deliberately provocative post. I don't know anyone that claims film has
more information than digital, but plenty claim more resolution (while
the recent crop of digital cameras from Canon, Nikon and Sony challenge
even that, it wouldn't surprise me if film still shows an edge in some
sheer resolution tests).
John McWilliams
> In article <gr0k9k$5gv$1...@reader.motzarella.org>, John McWilliams
> <jp...@comcast.net> writes
>> This part is incorrect. Higher ISOs will have more noise, other things
>> being equal.
>>
> If the files are uncompressed then they will be the same size - even if
> one of them is ONLY noise. What I said is CORRECT. It is the
> compression that generates the file size difference.
You are correct, Sir; I erred.
--
john mcwilliams
"My wife said, 'It's either me or the ham radio. There's not enough room
for both of us.' Over."
Alan Browne
> In article <K76dnWC9F9lCpEjU...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
> <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> writes
>>
>> At scan time there are 13, maybe 14 bits of scan info. The scan s/w
>> might curve the data but that does nothing to areas which are near
>> black (0 valued). Examination of .tif images from 16 bit Minolta and
>> Nikon scanners shows no detail in the darkest areas. It's dead black.
>>
> If its "dead black" then it certainly exceeds the scanner's dynamic
> range. It is "dead black" with the much older 10-bit LS-20 scanner. By
> your "analysis" this shows that there is no more than 10-bits of dynamic
> range at scan time.
>
> You are misinterpreting (at best) or misrepresenting (at worst) the
> evidence!
after 5000+ scans of slide film at 16 b/channel, I doubt it.
Alan Browne
> "Alan Browne" <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>> Kennedy McEwen wrote:
>>>> Where the film itself does not resolve to the ability of the scanner is
>>>> further waste as well. Where a 4000 - 6000 dpi scan of high res film
>>>> does yield mainly useful information, that is not so of most ISO 100 and
>>>> higher films.
>>>>
>>> However, films like Provia can and do exceed the resolution of 4000ppi
>>> scanners, especially with high contrast images.
>> I said "most" not "all".
>
> Here, Provia 100F very much is "most films". It's available, processing is
> available, it scans well, and it isn't going away. A lot of the film nuts
> base their arguments on discontinued films, discontinued film scanners, and
> "drum scans" that cost $40 per frame if you can find a scanning servive, and
> will be messed up by the operator more often than not. But using Provia 100F
> as the basis for a film argument is completely valid.
Well, except that I hardly use it - been over 5 years at least. I lean
more to Velvia (50, 100, 100F) and a variety of Kodak E100's. Haven't
shot EliteChrome or Sensia/Astia in a while (lower contrast IAC).
>
> Every time I try another film I wish I had used Provia. In 6x7, it's
> amazingly wonderful; near LF quality 12x16s and gorgeous 16x20s are like
> falling off a log. Velvia 50 is grainier, Velvia 100F is so high contrast as
> to be unusable (it's nice when it flies, though), and getting decent color
> pop from C41 is rare.
>
> But Provia 100F with real world images rarely, if ever, shows detail
> significantly* beyond what a Nikon 9000 will get. This "desktop scanners
> don't get everything from film" mantra is almost always film types trying to
> insist, for example, that 35mm is better than 12MP FF digital, when it's not
> even close.
>
> *: Whatever you do, the Nikon 9000 will produce much nicer images from 39x52
> mm of film (645 cropped to 2:3) than any technology will get from 24x36mm of
> the same film.
Well I've had my 9000 for a few years though not scanned nearly as much
film as I did with the Minolta 5400. I like the results of the Nikon (a
lot), but the results of my Sony a900 are better in many other ways,
esp. grain but also fine detail.
David J. Littleboy
>>>> scanners, especially with high contrast images.
>>>
>>> I said "most" not "all".
>>
>>But Provia 100F with real world images rarely, if ever, shows detail
>>significantly* beyond what a Nikon 9000 will get. This "desktop scanners
>>don't get everything from film" mantra is almost always film types trying
>>to
>>insist, for example, that 35mm is better than 12MP FF digital, when it's
>>not
>>even close.
>>
> That is the issue David. Film runs out of performance at an MTF dependent
> on the scene contrast at that limiting resolution.
Actually, it doesn't. Film's failure to render textures correctly at
enlargements much over 4x or 5x means that all that gorgeous test chart
resolution is completely meaningless for pictorial photography. Hit film
with enough noise reduction to lose the grain, and you lose the detail too.
> Digital runs out of resolution at the Nyquist limit, where the MTF is
> typically 65%.
Huh? Most Bayer cameras are doing OK at 70% or so of Nyquist, but the MTF is
way too low to be rescued even by heavy sharpening at 80% and above. This is
born out time and again in the Dpreview test charts. (If the AA filter is so
weak that there's a strong response at Nyquist, then patterns between 2/3 of
Nyquist and Nyquist are such horrible masses of Moire that claiming that the
cameras "resolve" in that range is seriously ridiculous.)
> Its horses for courses -
Not really. If one is making 12x18" prints (which one does a lot if all one
has is a super A3 printer<g>), the 5D looks way better than 35mm. All the
time every time, no matter how you get the 35mm onto paper.
All the squawking about resolution and information and K25 and 8000 ppi drum
scans is completely irrelevant to real life: when you enlarge any current
practical film the 13x required to get you to 12x18, it looks like cr@p. But
the 5D hangs in there just fine.
> there are requirements where resolution is king and the scene contrast can
> be bumped up as high as you like (a good example is the photo-lithography
> used for semiconductors, including digital sensors themselves),
This is a discussion of pictorial photography. That's just as irrellevant as
K25.
> I don't have any problem accepting that in most examples my EOS 5D
> outperforms many of my Provia shots. But I do have Provia examples which
> have much finer detail that could ever be achieved by the 5D. Indeed, I
> have a link somewhere to one of your own images which demonstrate the
> resolution limits of the 5D, with aliasing all over the place. I bet you
> could get way beyond that limitation on Provia film!
Presumably, you are thinking of this image:
http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/102380922/original
That's friggin 6x7 that's womping all over the 5D; 35mm wouldn't be close at
that size (the 5D image is upsized by some enormous factor there to match
the size of the 8800 x 11,000 pixel (95MP) 6x7 scan.
And the 5DII closes the gap quite a bit: here's the 5DII vs. 6x7. (The 5DII
may have a stronger (relative to Nyquist) AA filter than the 5D; at least I
haven't seen any Moire yet.)
http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/108672738/original
> This is basically the third point on my original response to RichA's
> deliberately provocative post. I don't know anyone that claims film has
> more information than digital, but plenty claim more resolution (while the
> recent crop of digital cameras from Canon, Nikon and Sony challenge even
> that, it wouldn't surprise me if film still shows an edge in some sheer
> resolution tests).
Maybe. But if the object of the game is to make 12x18" prints, 35mm is a
really really bad choice of tool. Even 645 is pushing it. And I've got a
12x12 print here taken on 6x6 Reala in a Rollei TLR that looks like
god-awful crap (thanks to the grain). In real life, film is ugly stuff
unless one works really hard and is really careful not to exceed the very
real limits of the technology*. Of course when you do the work, it produces
prints of astounding beauty. But then so does digital.
*: One of my favorite comments recently was (ScottW, I think) saying
something to the effect that "People complain that digital looks plastic,
but I'd much prefer that the plastic I take photographs of looks like
plastic than that it look like film grain."
Kennedy McEwen
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> writes
>Kennedy McEwen wrote:
>> If its "dead black" then it certainly exceeds the scanner's dynamic
>>range. It is "dead black" with the much older 10-bit LS-20 scanner.
>>By your "analysis" this shows that there is no more than 10-bits of
>>dynamic range at scan time.
>> You are misinterpreting (at best) or misrepresenting (at worst) the
>>evidence!
>
>after 5000+ scans of slide film at 16 b/channel, I doubt it.
>
you had with the first one. If the scanner can't differentiate black on
the film from true black without saturating the whites then the film
density exceeds the dynamic range of the scanner.
Kennedy McEwen
>
>"Kennedy McEwen" <r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> David J. Littleboy <dav...@gol.com> writes
>>>>>>
>>>>> However, films like Provia can and do exceed the resolution of 4000ppi
>>>>> scanners, especially with high contrast images.
>>>>
>>>> I said "most" not "all".
>>>
>>>But Provia 100F with real world images rarely, if ever, shows detail
>>>significantly* beyond what a Nikon 9000 will get. This "desktop scanners
>>>don't get everything from film" mantra is almost always film types trying
>>>to
>>>insist, for example, that 35mm is better than 12MP FF digital, when it's
>>>not
>>>even close.
>>>
>> That is the issue David. Film runs out of performance at an MTF dependent
>> on the scene contrast at that limiting resolution.
>
>Actually, it doesn't. Film's failure to render textures correctly at
>enlargements much over 4x or 5x means that all that gorgeous test chart
>resolution is completely meaningless for pictorial photography.
There you go again, illustrating my point whilst attempting to dispute
it - the texture you are rendering is low contrast while the test chart
is high contrast.
> Hit film
>with enough noise reduction to lose the grain, and you lose the detail too.
>
>> Digital runs out of resolution at the Nyquist limit, where the MTF is
>> typically 65%.
>
>Huh? Most Bayer cameras are doing OK at 70% or so of Nyquist
You are clearly talking about the luminance Nyquist, not the Nyquist of
the Bayer filter array!
>
>All the squawking about resolution and information and K25 and 8000 ppi drum
>scans is completely irrelevant to real life: when you enlarge any current
>practical film the 13x required to get you to 12x18, it looks like cr@p. But
>the 5D hangs in there just fine.
>
Utter bollocks. I have a stack of 12x18" prints hanging on my walls,
some made with film (Provia and Velvia) and some made with the 5D. You
would be hard pressed to tell the difference. None of them are from K25
originals, but I don't expect that would be any worse, given the
performance of the emulsion.
>>Indeed, I
>> have a link somewhere to one of your own images which demonstrate the
>> resolution limits of the 5D, with aliasing all over the place. I bet you
>> could get way beyond that limitation on Provia film!
>
>Presumably, you are thinking of this image:
>
>http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/102380922/original
>
No - I'll post the link when I find it. I was sure it was yours.
bowzer
"user identity" <no email> wrote in message
news:cmm9t4l0rsrmqtdtn...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 11:22:35 -0400, "Nobody" <nob...@spamcop.net>
> wrote:
>
>>http://www.theonion.com/content/video/sony_releases_new_stupid_piece_of
>>
>>
>>
>>
> test 3
I can't see your posts. Best to keep trying.
Alan Browne
> In article <tYGdnURsR7v_7UjU...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
> <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> writes
>> Kennedy McEwen wrote:
>>> If its "dead black" then it certainly exceeds the scanner's dynamic
>>> range. It is "dead black" with the much older 10-bit LS-20 scanner.
>>> By your "analysis" this shows that there is no more than 10-bits of
>>> dynamic range at scan time.
>>> You are misinterpreting (at best) or misrepresenting (at worst) the
>>> evidence!
>>
>> after 5000+ scans of slide film at 16 b/channel, I doubt it.
>>
> You can scan a million images and still have the same misconception that
> you had with the first one. If the scanner can't differentiate black on
> the film from true black without saturating the whites then the film
> density exceeds the dynamic range of the scanner.
Yes. That's effectively what I said: there is less than 16 bits of
dynamic range in film - about 13-14 at best (as I said). Therefore the
file contains 'filler' (as I said).
Glad you agree and please have a pleasant weekend.
Cheers,
Alan.
Scott W
wrote:
> Kennedy McEwen wrote:
> > In article <tYGdnURsR7v_7UjUnZ2dnUVZ_jALA...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
> > <alan.bro...@Freelunchvideotron.ca> writes
> >> Kennedy McEwen wrote:
> >>> If its "dead black" then it certainly exceeds the scanner's dynamic
> >>> range. It is "dead black" with the much older 10-bit LS-20 scanner.
> >>> By your "analysis" this shows that there is no more than 10-bits of
> >>> dynamic range at scan time.
> >>> You are misinterpreting (at best) or misrepresenting (at worst) the
> >>> evidence!
>
> >> after 5000+ scans of slide film at 16 b/channel, I doubt it.
>
> > You can scan a million images and still have the same misconception that
> > you had with the first one. If the scanner can't differentiate black on
> > the film from true black without saturating the whites then the film
> > density exceeds the dynamic range of the scanner.
>
> Yes. That's effectively what I said: there is less than 16 bits of
> dynamic range in film - about 13-14 at best (as I said). Therefore the
> file contains 'filler' (as I said).
>
> Glad you agree and please have a pleasant weekend.
>
indicate that you are not getting all the info off the film. Are you
scanning slides or negatives when you see these full black pixels?
Kennedy McEwen
>Kennedy McEwen wrote:
>>If the scanner can't differentiate black on the film from true black
>>without saturating the whites then the film density exceeds the
>>dynamic range of the scanner.
>
>Yes. That's effectively what I said: there is less than 16 bits of
>dynamic range in film - about 13-14 at best (as I said). Therefore the
>file contains 'filler' (as I said).
>
object. Under the conditions you describe, the film exceeds the
capability of the scanner, you are claiming the opposite.
Alan Browne
> In article <af2dnWvKcNIO_0vU...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
> <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> writes
>> Kennedy McEwen wrote:
>>> If the scanner can't differentiate black on the film from true black
>>> without saturating the whites then the film density exceeds the
>>> dynamic range of the scanner.
>>
>> Yes. That's effectively what I said: there is less than 16 bits of
>> dynamic range in film - about 13-14 at best (as I said). Therefore
>> the file contains 'filler' (as I said).
>>
> Were you asleep when they taught the difference between subject and
> object. Under the conditions you describe, the film exceeds the
> capability of the scanner, you are claiming the opposite.
No. I said the film had a dynamic range of about 13-14 bits. The
scanners I have are 16 bits making 2 or more bits/chan in the file
'filler'.
Were you asleep when you read what I wrote?
Kennedy McEwen
>Kennedy McEwen wrote:
>> In article <af2dnWvKcNIO_0vU...@giganews.com>, Alan
>>Browne <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> writes
>>> Kennedy McEwen wrote:
>>>> If the scanner can't differentiate black on the film from true
>>>>black without saturating the whites then the film density exceeds
>>>>the dynamic range of the scanner.
>>>
>>> Yes. That's effectively what I said: there is less than 16 bits of
>>>dynamic range in film - about 13-14 at best (as I said). Therefore
>>>the file contains 'filler' (as I said).
>>>
>> Were you asleep when they taught the difference between subject and
>>object. Under the conditions you describe, the film exceeds the
>>capability of the scanner, you are claiming the opposite.
>
>No. I said the film had a dynamic range of about 13-14 bits. The
>scanners I have are 16 bits making 2 or more bits/chan in the file
>'filler'.
>
the film black and true black, without having to saturate the whites.
Your own evidence is that this is not the case, the film black scans as
"dead black" in your own words!
Alan Browne
> In article <PuqdnexDe_Xx7krU...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
> <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> writes
>> Kennedy McEwen wrote:
>>> In article <af2dnWvKcNIO_0vU...@giganews.com>, Alan
>>> Browne <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> writes
>>>> Kennedy McEwen wrote:
>>>>> If the scanner can't differentiate black on the film from true
>>>>> black without saturating the whites then the film density exceeds
>>>>> the dynamic range of the scanner.
>>>>
>>>> Yes. That's effectively what I said: there is less than 16 bits of
>>>> dynamic range in film - about 13-14 at best (as I said). Therefore
>>>> the file contains 'filler' (as I said).
>>>>
>>> Were you asleep when they taught the difference between subject and
>>> object. Under the conditions you describe, the film exceeds the
>>> capability of the scanner, you are claiming the opposite.
>>
>> No. I said the film had a dynamic range of about 13-14 bits. The
>> scanners I have are 16 bits making 2 or more bits/chan in the file
>> 'filler'.
>>
> If it was "filler" then you would be able to see the "filler" between
> the film black and true black, without having to saturate the whites.
> Your own evidence is that this is not the case, the film black scans as
> "dead black" in your own words!
Right - which means between the point where some light gets through to
the sensor and the least it can sense, there are 2-3 bits of dead,
useless data. But those bits are stuffed into the file simply wasting
storage space.
Scott W
wrote:
> Kennedy McEwen wrote:
> > In article <PuqdnexDe_Xx7krUnZ2dnUVZ_v-dn...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
> > <alan.bro...@Freelunchvideotron.ca> writes
> >> Kennedy McEwen wrote:
> >>> In article <af2dnWvKcNIO_0vUnZ2dnUVZ_qrin...@giganews.com>, Alan
> >>> Browne <alan.bro...@Freelunchvideotron.ca> writes
> >>>> Kennedy McEwen wrote:
> >>>>> If the scanner can't differentiate black on the film from true
> >>>>> black without saturating the whites then the film density exceeds
> >>>>> the dynamic range of the scanner.
>
> >>>> Yes. That's effectively what I said: there is less than 16 bits of
> >>>> dynamic range in film - about 13-14 at best (as I said). Therefore
> >>>> the file contains 'filler' (as I said).
>
> >>> Were you asleep when they taught the difference between subject and
> >>> object. Under the conditions you describe, the film exceeds the
> >>> capability of the scanner, you are claiming the opposite.
>
> >> No. I said the film had a dynamic range of about 13-14 bits. The
> >> scanners I have are 16 bits making 2 or more bits/chan in the file
> >> 'filler'.
>
> > If it was "filler" then you would be able to see the "filler" between
> > the film black and true black, without having to saturate the whites.
> > Your own evidence is that this is not the case, the film black scans as
> > "dead black" in your own words!
>
> Right - which means between the point where some light gets through to
> the sensor and the least it can sense, there are 2-3 bits of dead,
> useless data. But those bits are stuffed into the file simply wasting
> storage space.
>
Kennedy McEwen
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> writes
>
>Right - which means between the point where some light gets through to
>the sensor and the least it can sense, there are 2-3 bits of dead,
>useless data. But those bits are stuffed into the file simply wasting
>storage space.
>
"2-3 bits of dead useless data". Hoisted by your own petard!
David J. Littleboy
"Kennedy McEwen" <r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <is2dndocWcQ34kjU...@giganews.com>, David J.
> Littleboy <dav...@gol.com> writes
>>
>>> typically 65%.
>>
>>Huh? Most Bayer cameras are doing OK at 70% or so of Nyquist
>
> You are clearly talking about the luminance Nyquist, not the Nyquist of
> the Bayer filter array!
No, I'm talking about the response of real Bayer sensors in real cameras:
it's close to zero at the Nyquist frequency, and quite uselessly low in the
range just below Nyquist. So digital runs out of photographically meaningful
resolution way below Nyquist. Or at least that's what all the test charts on
Dpreview show. (My rule of thumb is that if you can put a 50% MTF image on
your sensor at 75% of Nyquist, you'll have a nice sharp image. For example,
I really can't see any diffraction induced softening at f/16 in the 5D or
f/11 in the 5DII.)
>>All the squawking about resolution and information and K25 and 8000 ppi
>>drum
>>scans is completely irrelevant to real life: when you enlarge any current
>>practical film the 13x required to get you to 12x18, it looks like cr@p.
>>But
>>the 5D hangs in there just fine.
>>
> Utter bollocks. I have a stack of 12x18" prints hanging on my walls, some
> made with film (Provia and Velvia) and some made with the 5D. You would
> be hard pressed to tell the difference.
Really? I've scoured the net looking at every 4000 ppi scan I could find:
drum, Imacon, Nikon.
They all look the same: way to soft (and/or grainy) to print at 300 ppi and
look anywhere near as good as the 5D does at 240 ppi. And, 300 ppi is what
you have to print 4000 ppi scans at to get 12x18 from 35mm. It's not even
close (assuming one is coming from an MF/LF landscape print quality
standpoint).
And every larger 35mm print I've seen in galleries is the same story: grainy
and/or mush.
So the idea that one would be "hard pressed to tell the difference"
indicates that you must not look very closely. Or have different standards.
Or something.
> None of them are from K25 originals, but I don't expect that would be any
> worse, given the performance of the emulsion.
The reason I bring up K25, is that most people who claim 35mm is just as
good (or better) than the 5D put up micrographs of high contrast targets
taken on K25 to "prove" it.
>>>Indeed, I
>>> have a link somewhere to one of your own images which demonstrate the
>>> resolution limits of the 5D, with aliasing all over the place. I bet
>>> you
>>> could get way beyond that limitation on Provia film!
>>
>>Presumably, you are thinking of this image:
>>
>>http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/102380922/original
>>
> No - I'll post the link when I find it. I was sure it was yours.
The 5D does occasionally produce Moiré, but except for the images in my test
gallery, all my "originals" are downsampled, so what Moiré you'll find is
mostly due to the downsampling.
But the idea that 24x36mm of Provia could come close to the 5D at 12x18 is
not believable.
Alan Browne
> In article <1fmdnTnSYYvJL0rU...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
> <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> writes
>>
>> Right - which means between the point where some light gets through to
>> the sensor and the least it can sense, there are 2-3 bits of dead,
>> useless data. But those bits are stuffed into the file simply wasting
>> storage space.
>>
> But you yourself have said that the film is "dead black" so there is no
> "2-3 bits of dead useless data". Hoisted by your own petard!
The low order bits are useless info. When some light does get through,
they suddenly fill and there is no variance until b2 or b3. b2 and
lower is just filler &| noise.
frank
> "Kennedy McEwen" <r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > Littleboy <davi...@gol.com> writes
Looking at anything through your monitor is a waste of time. Go for
original film look at that against digital output.
Anyway, you don't understand either the math or the optics behind what
you're talking about.
We spent $20 mil on a digital system and went BACK to film as it
didn't have resolution or contrast of film.
There is a big difference between digital data and film. You don't
understand that.
Scott W
$20,000,000 on a digital system", just what was you bought for
$20,000,000?
There is no inherent contrast to digital, you can make it what ever
you want.
Chris Malcolm
> Anyway, you don't understand either the math or the optics behind what
> you're talking about.
> We spent $20 mil on a digital system and went BACK to film as it
> didn't have resolution or contrast of film.
You spent $20M on a digital system and *then* discovered that film had
so much better resolution and contrast for your purposes that you went
back to film?
Sounds like there must have been a very serious disconnection between
the technical experts and the folk in charge of the money! Or possibly
even an absence of technical experts. They're well known to be
expensive and to have a nasty habit of raising annoying objections to
the plans of management to give lucrative contracts to their good
friends.
Was this a government project?
--
Chris Malcolm
nospam
<c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > We spent $20 mil on a digital system and went BACK to film as it
> > didn't have resolution or contrast of film.
>
> You spent $20M on a digital system and *then* discovered that film had
> so much better resolution and contrast for your purposes that you went
> back to film?
>
> Sounds like there must have been a very serious disconnection between
> the technical experts and the folk in charge of the money! Or possibly
> even an absence of technical experts. They're well known to be
> expensive and to have a nasty habit of raising annoying objections to
> the plans of management to give lucrative contracts to their good
> friends.
or it's a troll.