On 25 Sep 2005 at 21:05, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > This is beyond my understanding. > The purpose of scanning is to create > a digital representation that > ACCURATELY shows exactly whats > on the negative and if grain > is there then it not only should > resolve the grain, it should resolve > well beyond the grain to be sure. > Of course file size and costs > and other issues affect real > world decisions but how can > anyone argue that a scan shouldn't > be able to resolve the grain if > the grain is visible on the neg? > Has the concept of high fidelity > been lost here?
I think your missing the point here. Harking back to audio comparisons you'll find that preserving fidelity is the aim of audio archivists too however they often employ extraordinary systems to reduce/eliminate the unwanted noise inherent in old recordings. IOW the pursuit of absolute fidelity in the instance of a film scan doesn't necessarily yield an optimal output. Especially if what you are after is the image that the film should have recorded not what it did due to it's physical limitations. This is my experience and belief and arguing against it won't change my mind particularly if you follow the purist line of discussion. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
