Hi David,

You're right that the nikon file would end up being something like a 17Mb
psd file whilst you can make a 140Mb file of a 35 trannie.  you could also
make 500Mb files from both of the previous files ... so don't think that a
big file corresponds with better quality - it may, it may not.

There are reasons why a scan-made-file (SMF) will not be as detailed as a
digitally-shot-file (DSF), all other things being equal.  And this leads to
my belief that a d1x file has similar limitations to a file that was
originated by scanning a 35mm tranny.

Those reasons:
To start with the SMF has effectively been captured twice (1st the film
emulsion and 2nd the scan head).  This is a bit like taping a CD.

Secondly, and probably more importantly, is the mismatch between the scan
resolution and the film's chemistry.  To help you think of this, imagine the
scanner head being a rubic's cube and imagine it trying to scan a pencil
laid over the top.

If the pencil goes from top corner to top corner, you'd get 3 squares, lying
next to each other - all good and nice.  Make the pencil go between
diagonally opposite squares and you'll get the 3 squares again, but this
time like a staircase ... and don't forget that the pencil brushes some
other squares - draw it out and you can see that it's easier to say the
number of squares the pencil is not touching, rather than the number it is
(circa 80%).

This is the same for film and digital, though the important bit is that the
images projected onto the arrays, are VERY different. One is dotty with
colours represented by the ratios of RGB dots; the other is continuos and a
reflection of reality and, infact, looks just like the pencil, no matter how
big or small it is.

This difference is what underlies the reason why a digital file, when
compared to a scanned file, may be preferable even though it is much
smaller.

With film, you've got to worry about the grain size / scan resolution: if
the grain is larger, you are going from one (lets say black) grain that has
sharp edges to lots of black pixels surrounded by grey pixels.  If it is the
other way round, your tiny grain sits in the middle of one of the squares
and doesn't register anything - you've gone from one grain to nothing!  This
does not apply for the DSF as the image lying on the array is not made of
dots / grain.

But if you do want to shoot some dots ... say you're going to shoot a small
dot from scratch - first on film then scan; secondly on dig:

With the film, the round dot is transformed into an irregular grain, perhaps
bigger, perhaps smaller.  That grain then goes in the scanner: a big grain
will probably result in a larger clump of pixels (as its shape is not likely
to mirror those of the pixels and will mismatch the array) and a smaller one
might get missed altogether.  So depending on your grain, and where it is,
and how it lies on the array, your dot has been transformed into either
nothing or something it wasn't.

With the digital your dot will sometimes be enlarged and sometimes it will
be missed altogether, as per film, BUT IMPORTANTLY, it will be like the
original more often than the film produced file, because what lies on the
array is much much closer to the 'original' reality; and because it's
continuos it doesn't have registration problems.

Then do this all over an image (whether it's of a dot or a face), and all
those 'more oftens' turn into an image whose details are, more often, closer
to reality, and hence the image is closer to reality.

This happens to such an extent that a 17mb DSF from a D1x will be similar in
potential use, to anything that you can get from a 35mm tranny, regardless
of whether it's been scanned at 500mb or 50mb.

Cheers,
slater


> From: David Townend
> Hi Slater,
>>> The Nikon file will be similar to what you can achieve from scanned 35mm
>>> film.  If 35mm would suit your purposes then, by and large, so too will the
>>> Nikon file.
> Not too sure if I follow this. If I shot on say 35mm film I could scan it at
> 6,300ppi (using a Flextight P3 on max optical res, for example) and I would
> get a file approx. 140MB 8 Bit / 8263 x 5859 pixels

===============================================================
GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE

Reply via email to