Tony Sleep <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[lots of stuff snipped]
> 5yrs later I'm still ignorant, but at least I know I am ignorant. Did
> anyone even look at these samples or wonder why the hell they were so
> different when the protocol said they should be the same? Did anyone
> play around with them and try and improve them to see what the potential
> was actually there? It appears not.
OK, Tony. Rather than let this whole exercise dissolve into a flame war
about methods, intentions, and so on, do you (and Ian Lyons, who also
has strong opinions on this subject) have practical suggestions for how
the data should be presented and viewed? I'd like to think that it's
possible to get some useful information from the group scanning effort,
and I *don't* think it's productive to simply throw our hands in the air
and say it's all too hard. Otherwise, we're just throwing opinions
around with no focussed approach to resolving issues.
I'm actually kind of glad this discussion is happening, since I've started
looking at the film "grain" issue, and this helps in how the results of my
investigations are presented. At the moment, choosing films that scan
well, and finding methods of processing those scans to get the best result
is my main concern with film scanning. I'm not going to be changing
film scanners any time soon, so debates about which scanner is better
than the other are not important to me.
Rob
====================================================================
The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
