JCO writes- SEE MY COMMENTS AT BOTTOM THIS POST- I don't agree with either of your contentions. Please read further below
----Original Message----- From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2005 10:03 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: anybody still shoot film? On 25 Sep 2005 at 21:41, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > I respectfully disagree because a SCAN > is essentially the same a RAW file > out of a DSLR. You record the scan > for maximum fidelity to the neg and archive > the scans. If later you want to do some > post processing to somehow remove artifacts > (like grain for example) you can but you > wouldn't want a scan that did already did that because > its not an accurate representation of > the neg and any processing you do DURING > the scan that loses the grain resolution > is throwing away that image & grain detail forever > and will not be recoverable. Do you agree > this is a clear distinction and a valid > one? --- because I DO. Theoretically yes, practically no. Unless like others have said you can afford to buy a 12000 dpi drum scanner or alternately afford to pay ~US$50 per scan for the privilege. And then it wouldn't be usable unless all colour/level/gamma adjustment could be perfected at the point of capture. Back to the practicality of the issue: suppose some D3200 were shot at and processed to yield 1600ISO or higher then scanned at sufficient resolution to reveal individual grains (2000dpi+). The resultant image will look and behave like a lithograph. IOW no grey-scale adjustment/correction can be accomplished on such an image until the individually rendered grains are integrated to form an apparent grey-scale image. 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 Rob, ======================================================== FROM JCO- I don't want to sound argumentative but I now disagree with you on BOTH PARTS of your reply above. In the first part you state things like costs and privileges make that virtually impossible BUT I ALREADY stated that in the previous post: ======================================= JCO wrote before this new post of ROB's: This is beyond my understanding. The purpose of scanning is to create a digital representation that ACCURATELY shows exactly what's 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? =========================================== As you can see I already STATED EARLIER that costs and file sizes etc effect real world decisions so your argument saying its not practical isnt different than what I already said, in other words you DO agree with me, it looks like you werent but you actually are. Secondly those other factors like gamma, color level etc you mention are nothing more than tricks for scanners that really cant accurately capture the full range of the neg and selective capture what they can. That not necessary if one has a scan at the highest possibly fidelity to the neg. You got for the whole thingy. Second part is a special appication film- Although we never stated we werent talking about continous tone images which what 99.99+ photographic images are, it would have to be assumed by anyone logical if we were talking about VISIBLE grain no? If not, whatever, in that case maybe you wouldn't with a cheap scanner go for the "grain" but if you had a super scanner capable of both wide dymnamic range and fine granduations even then recording the grain would be better than not because that's the RAW-NEG. You Process later if you can capture all in the original which has been my contention all along.... JCO
