At 2:59 PM +1000 10/15/00, Rob Geraghty wrote:
>Anyway, the actual *scan* resolutions are the same, and the differences in
>apparent grain between Konica 100VX, Fuji Superia 100 and Fuji Provia 100F
>are pretty obvious. Interestingly, the "grain" in 100F is visible, but it's
>so much less obtrusive - and in spite of the differences in positioning of
>the camera, the increase in apparent resolution is huge over the print
>films.
Hi Rob,
I had another look at some films grain under the 400x
microscope. This time I was able to compare Fuji Super G 100 (I don't
know how that relates to Superia 100) with our old friends Kodak
Elite Chrome 100 and Fuji Provia 100F.
You remember last time I compared the two chromes with Kodak
Gold 100 and sent you the photomicrographs. They showed how the Gold
100 "grain" (I mean "dye clouds") looked like discrete coloured
spots, while the grain of the Provia was what I described as an
"amorphous smear" (you called it "defocused") and the Elite was
somewhere in between. You pointed out quite rightly that Kodak Gold
100 was not noted for its fine grain.
The new observations show exactly the same thing. The Superia
grain is very similar to the Gold 100, and the Provia grain is once
again an elusive target almost impossible to focus on.
So it does appear that it may be the crisp dye clouds of
negative film that cause scanners to show more "grain aliasing" with
negative film than they do with the more amorphous dye clouds of
slide film.
Regards,
Roger Smith
====================================================================
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.
