Mike, you do talk rubbish at times. :-) The grain is NOT the photograph,
in any practical sense. If it were, why would film manufacturers seek to
reduce grain?
John
On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 22:44:19 +0100, mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Sep 25, 2005, at 9:14 AM, mike wilson wrote:
There comes a point in resolution when scanning film that all
you're doing is resolving more emulsion defects too. At 2820ppi, I
can see the grain clearly in ASA 100 film. Most of the benefit from
3000 ppi upwards is in grain imaging, rather than actual picture
quality.
There's a contradiction in that last sentence.
How so? Please explain.
I'm interested in seeing the photograph, not the grain.
Godfrey
The grain is the photograph. Therefore, anything that improves the
grain image improves the picture quality.
Hair splitting, I know, but I freely admit to being a pedant
extraordinaire.
mike
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.6/111 - Release Date: 23/09/2005
