Re: Re[3]: filmscanners: Film Scanners and what they see.

[Tony Sleep]

>  Byron am I right in
> understanding that you're saying aliasing does *not* cause scanner image
> softness.  On the other hand you *aren't* saying that the enhancing of
> apparent grain caused by the interference between scanner resolution and
> film grain (dye cloud patterns) - is something other than aliasing?

No, he's setting hares running in all directions for the sake of an argument:) Image 
frequency filtering is an intrinsic property of the CCD, aliasing its intrinsic 
manifestation in the resulting image. The whole of the argument seems to devolve from 
my answering a question 'what causes softness in scans?' with the word 'aliasing'.

Byron, Austin etc see this as Sophistry, since one can conceptually separate the 
filtering (mechanism) from the aliasing (result). Plainly, they argue, aliasing - 
being 
a result - cannot be a cause. Pedantically they are correct, but the rest of the world 
has been referring to this species of image artifact as aliasing for as long as I can 
remember. Aliased scans are soft scans, and we can't escape them in CCD scanners 
without anti-aliasing jiggery-pokery (interpolation techniques). 

Please make your own mind up whether you think it was a reasonable use of the 'a-' 
word. :-)

Regards 

Tony Sleep
http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & 
comparisons